British Butchers and Bunglers of WWI

[Dikke Bertha]

I have seen many references on this forum to this book but I have searched and not found a dedicated posting.

Have people read this?

Although it seems to me to be one long rant I do find it interesting.

It does beg the question - if they were all wrong what was the right way to win the war?

[Willywombat]

if they were all wrong what was the right way to win the war?

Get into a time machine, whizz forward to the 21st Century, sit in an armchair and read Laffin's book, share the benefit of hindsight enjoyed by him and his ilk, pop back to the war, win it hands down and be home in time for tea and medals.

[AndyMacdonald]

Willywombat, I agree. Laffin's book is questionable on so many points, if not every thing between the covers. However, Laffin possesses a skill that most military historian don't. He can write, and he can write bloody well. That means his work will remain as 'pop' book for some time yet, and will continue to be taken up by many people with a passing interest in the war. In his case, it's more a case of how you tell the story ahead of what's actually in the story.

Andy M

[Jonathan Saunders]

I read it some time ago and cant remember too much of the content. There was some interesting quotes from Great War participants as an appendix as I recall - mainly or all, with something negative to say about higher command . Also it did raise some genuine concerns, for example Hunter-Bunter. Possibly it rants too much to be considered a balanced critique but I think it probably flags up some interesting observations of complacency, ineptitude and the power of the Old Boys network, but I would need to read it again to confirm this.

[stevem49]

Iv'e read and still have it. Written in 1988. He is an Aussie and his dad served in Gallipoli, so that explains the book ! I keep it to cheer me up as it is a good laugh.

You know the ones - Only the ANZACs fought there, not the British or french or anyone else.

Steve

[AndyMacdonald]

Iv'e read and still have it. Written in 1988. He is an Aussie and his dad served in Gallipoli, so that explains the book ! I keep it to cheer me up as it is a good laugh.

You know the ones - Only the ANZACs fought there, not the British or french or anyone else.

Steve

What's the issue with Anzacs? Personally, I've always known that many nations took part in the Dardanelles campaign. Even the NZ veterans I knew were aware of this. As NZers we're proud of what our soldiers achieved on teh battlefield, and the Aussies too. Granted, our boys had a hard struggle in front of them what with almost always being commanded by vain and incompetent British officers, usually at Corps and Army level. And, I think we all know, Anzacs were paid considerably more than their Brit or Empire colleagues because of their superior skill level and performance on the battlefield, often against overwhelming odds. What's wrong with NZ - and Australia for that matter - being proud of our forefathers.

AndyM

[Muerrisch]

What's the issue with Anzacs? Personally, I've always known that many nations took part in the Dardanelles campaign. Even the NZ veterans I knew were aware of this. As NZers we're proud of what our soldiers achieved on teh battlefield, and the Aussies too. Granted, our boys had a hard struggle in front of them what with almost always being commanded by vain and incompetent British officers, usually at Corps and Army level. And, I think we all know, Anzacs were paid considerably more than their Brit or Empire colleagues because of their superior skill level and performance on the battlefield, often against overwhelming odds. What's wrong with NZ - and Australia for that matter - being proud of our forefathers.

AndyM

No, it might be Friday afternoon, but I recognise a wind-up when I see one. Good try, good try.

[Halder]

I think what annoys me about the book is the title. British Bunglers etc.

I think British bungling needs to be set alongside French, Russian, German, Turkish and American bungling. Very few generals shone in the Great War (Most people can name a Patton, Monty or Eisenhower from WW2, for example, but few Brits will get beyond Haig for WW1).

If there is a bungler in the war, I'd probably lay that accusation at Ludendorff's feet. In March 1918 he had the chance to if not win the war outright, then at least win it on the Western Front... and he blew it.

[Jonathan Saunders]

If there is a bungler in the war, I'd probably lay that accusation at Ludendorff's feet. In March 1918 he had the chance to if not win the war outright, then at least win it on the Western Front... and he blew it.

I have to admit I have little knowledge of other Nation's forces and higher command. I would be interested why you say Luddendorf "blew it". My limited understanding for the petering out of the German offensives of 1918 is the often quoted swarms of under nourished German troops falling on Allied food dumps rather than pressing attacks, the relatively poor quality troops available to Luddendorf in 1918, growing socialism and anti-war sentiments taking root among the ranks and potential reinforcements, powerful Allied counter-attacks - not least the totally unexpected and rapid support from the French, the availability of far more American troops than had been estimated, together with 4 years of warfare and successful Allied blockade that had exhausted German natural resources and their ability to produce munitions in sufficient quantities etc.

Possibly Luddendorf should have staged his main attack at Ypres and concentrated on destorying the strongest defensive point first, or not involved the Germany army in the numeorus faints in the south, but I have always thought in the circumstances Germany did better than could have reasonably been expected in March/April 1918. I thought where the mistake was made was in the East, and the occupation of Poland and former Russian states from late 1917, that did not only demand a garrison of much needed German troops but also diverted much needed materials away from their final assualt for victory on the Western Front.

I take it from your avatar that you are much more informed on the German army so I would be generally interested why you think Luddendorf bungled 1918. Thanks in advance.

[Halder]

I wouldn't profess to being an expert, but I have studied the spring offensives in some detail. The impression I've always had is that Ludendorff was so wrapped up in the minutiae of the battle that he overlooked the big picture. I forget the quote, but Ludendorff dismissed the idea of "strategy" during the offensive (!) in favour of tactics. (There are plenty of critical comments from his subordinates to this effect too).

German occupational policy in the East after Brest-Litovsk demanded huge numbers of troops (it was a brutal hint of what was to come with the Nazis and also the harsh terms the Allies might have faced had they lost).

If there was a chance for a German decision in the West - and it remains a big 'if' - in March 1918 then it came with a single 'wedge-like' thrust, perhaps to the coast, to split the Allied armies... as the panzers did a generation later. Whether the ordinary landser was capable of that in 1918 without the aid of armour, who knows. Thankfully it's a scenario which never came to pass.

[PBI]

Read the Book which was a long rant against WW1 Generals,,and contained numerous errors,suspect Laffin may have been a secret Carpet Chewer.BBB is not not in my top ten of books on WW1

[ChrisC]

If you know nowt - as I did when I first read it, it's a stirring read. When you get to know a wee bit it's a laugh. I still dip in now and again for amusement. Mr L is a well balanced individual - a chip on each shoulder.

Chris C

[Take on me]

Butchers and Bunglers is probably one of, if not the worst book ever written upon the subject of the First World War. Indeed it may well be one of the worts history books ever written. Laffin's constant battering frequently displays contradiction, pre-judgement and often simple historical innacuracy. It is a polemic of the wrost kind in which the author will use anything as long as it is negative. There are a number of thiongs that I would happily say about this book, excpt for the fact that it is mostly here:

http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3_laffin_polemic.htm

The title tells us all we need to know.

Jon

[PBI]

Just had a quick "Butchers" at Laffins BBB this Morning,as i feared,its just one long Rant against all Generals and a good Dig at the Class System to boot.Also checked out His other Offering "On the Western Front",quiet a few Faux Pas in this little Gem as Well.to whit he lists Cpl.E.Dwyer V.C. as becoming an Officer,when in fact Dwyer never rose above Cpl and was KIA in 1916.Does any one proof read Laffins Stuff before it goes to print ?

[Alan Lines]

suspect Laffin may have been a secret Carpet Chewer.

What's the point in making such comments, what would it matter anyway?

[Alan Lines]

Didn't think it was a very good book, tries too hard to discredit the General Staff, not that it's a difficult thing to do. See Mud, Blood & Poppycock for an example of an author trying too hard to put over the other point of view. Both books loose credibility for it in my opinion.

[PBI]

[Jonathan Saunders]

I wouldn't profess to being an expert, but I have studied the spring offensives in some detail...

Thanks for your reply.

[Muerrisch]

When I weeded my collection, it went to Oxfam. I do not have a 'Laffin' section at all.

[Redradial]

I forget the quote, but Ludendorff dismissed the idea of "strategy" during the offensive (!) in favour of tactics.

Halder

“From experience of vain Allied attacks Ludendorff had drawn the deduction that “tactics had to be considered before purely strategical objectives which it was futile to pursue unless tactical success is possible.””

Liddell-Hart –The Break – 1918 (A History of The World War)

Red

[Guest noublions]

I think what annoys me about the book is the title. British Bunglers etc.

If there is a bungler in the war, I'd probably lay that accusation at Ludendorff's feet. In March 1918 he had the chance to if not win the war outright, then at least win it on the Western Front... and he blew it.

I agree entirely.

Ludensorf should had realised the AIF would have been brought him to stop him at Villers Brettoneux, maul him at Le Hamel and finish him completely during the 100 days.

If you have any doubts just visit Amiens, particularly the Cathederal, VB, Hamel and all along the Somme.

As for naming brilliant british bosses, Hunter-weston, Stopford, Gough, Haking, and Haig are all well remembered down here. Instead of ignorantly accusing anyone of being a carpet chewer, certain individuals should crawl back under one.

[timf311]

Let us stay polite or Kiwis and Aussies will be accused of having an axe to grind when we don't.

We do, however, go on a bit about Gallippoli when the greater contribution, by far, was under Monash on the Western front. Don't you agree? Cheers.

As for naming brilliant british bosses, Hunter-weston, Stopford, Gough, Haking, and Haig are all well remembered down here. Instead of ignorantly accusing anyone of being a carpet chewer, certain individuals should crawl back under one.

[Guest noublions]

Nope, Don't agree

Cheers

[Take on me]

We do, however, go on a bit about Gallippoli when the greater contribution, by far, was under Monash on the Western front. Don't you agree? Cheers.

Culturally Gallipoli was more important but in real military terms the 1918 Offensives probably saw the most important phase of the AIF's contribution to victory during the Great War. They were in thisperiod almost certainly the strongest fighting force on the Western Front. Although it would be wrong to see the 100 Days as a primarily Australian or Canadian Offensive.

Jon

[Dikke Bertha]

My thanks to all who replied.

It seems that I am not alone in my views on this book. I did read it cover to cover though but did find the rant a bit boring after a while. Indeed he overlaboured the points so much that his case lost its credibility.

Still it is better to have read it and formed an opinion.

Regards