Class Distinction in WW1

[PhilB]

There have been recent threads about batmen/servants which highlight the class distinction of WW1. I was musing, however, about my father who was a carpenter/joiner from the mid 1920s onwards. Because he was qualified by having served the requisite apprenticeship, he always wore a collar and tie under his overalls. As a qualified man, he expected, and always had, a personal labourer who was not allowed to wear a collar and tie because of his status. There were menial tasks which the qualified man would on no account do. If the labourer was not to hand, the task waited or another labourer was called in. Now transfer this attitude to the army of WW1. It must have been a minefield of class attitudes from top to bottom. Or is it possible that the men put aside these petty (by modern standards) attitudes for the duration and that only the commission/non-commission divide remained? Phil B

[Muerrisch]

I recommend John Baynes's 'Morale' as the most telling [and moving] account of the application of the class system in a fine battalion.

As for me, 'angels fear to tread!'

[John_Hartley]

Difficult to know for sure. Of course, I'm only talking of the UK here. But my perception would be that issues of class were deeply embedded into society and would not have been lightly put aside.

This would, perhaps, have been easier in the inital stages of the war, when men might pick and choose which unit to join. If I look at the men of Stockport's Territorials (6/Cheshire), I see men who worked locally in hatworks or cotton mills. But, if I find men who worked in banks, solicitors and insurance companies (often in Manchester), I find them amongst 6/Manchester (I also tend to find them dead at Gallipoli).

There are, without doubt, clear class distinctions here. And there was a further echo in this area with the formation of the Manchester "Pals" battalions. The original aim was to recruit the "clerks and warehousemen" of the City and these were, indeed, many of the initial batch.

The rigours of active service must have diminished these distinctions and, particularly, when recrutiment was widened from a fairly narrow geographical base. However, I still suspect men would have sought out friends amongst "their own sort" to a large extent. Nothing unusual or surprising in that.

The distinctions in the society of my town are the aspects of the war that increasingly fascinate me. One day, I will undertake some more rigourous study. The "collar and tie" is, I think, a great symbol of the time (and, from what you say, of much later). And the distinctions spread much wider than background, education and employment. There are also clear distinctions in recreation. The working class men of the 6th Cheshires played football in winter (and, seemingly, nothing in the summer). The middle class of the Manchesters were lacrosse players (and cricket in summer). Something that must have continued in society (like collar and tie) for a goodly while - my father continued to play competitive crcket and lacrosse well into his 40s.

Perhaps, we shouldnt also dismiss the issues of class in modern society. Think how quick some folk are to disparage today's white working class (or chavs, as they might call them). Not that I am wanting us to go off on that tangent too much.

John

[CSMMo]

And I would wonder how much conflict the forced mixing of all of these strata of society created. It is clear that class lines were clearly drawn, yet they were crossed repeatedly and more and more as the war dragged on and manpower pools were depleted.

Another class distinction that caused conflict in the beginning and seemed to diminish somewhat as the war wore on was that of the Regular vs. the Territorial vs. the New Army men. I just finished transcribing 29th Divisional Artillery War Diaries from 25 April to 31 May 1915. The inclusion of a partial Territorial Brigade into the Regular Army Artillery seemed to be difficult at first, but got easier as they "proved themselves" (i.e.; suffered casualties and losses and scored hits on targets). The disdain after the first week seems institutionalized as characterized by the diary writer, however it might more express the disdain the Regular Army Officer who was writing the diary felt for "amateur" soldiers rather than a universal feeling. I say that because when the handwriting changed, the attitudes expressed in the diary changed. I have access to several personal diaries and letters from men of that Territorial Brigade and the conflict is not mentioned.

I wonder if I might be seeing in this diary a small sample of what was felt throughout the Army at the beginning of the war but, if not diminished, at least covered up as the war dragged on. And, as the New Army showed up, the Territorials may have also felt a rung up on them as they were now the combat veterans.

Comments?

Mike Morrison

[Pete1052]

Mike,

My step-grandfather's battalion, 1/17th London, started out in 1915 as a middle class unit but after heavy losses was reconstituted with Cockney replacements from East Ham. A few of them were in the habit of shooting their officers in the back, which led grandpa to reject the idea of accepting a commission.

Pete

former Redleg, enlisted and officer

[Chris_Baker]

A few of them were in the habit of shooting their officers in the back

Any evidence?

[John_Hartley]

A few of them were in the habit of shooting their officers in the back,

Is this documented anywhere? Or even hinted at in documentation (like letters) of the time?

John

[Pete1052]

Any evidence?

I heard the story verbally from my Grandmother about two decades ago but do not have any documentary evidence. Grandpa was a self-effacing Englishman, not prone to bragging or exaggerating his role in things. Grandma told me the story in a matter-of-fact way, without any drama. At the time of the Armistice Grandpa was one of the five members of the original 1915 battalion who were still assigned to the unit.

[Anthony Bagshaw]

Phil,

Good question.

I wonder what the high status in society Officers thought of men from the ranks who were to gain a Commision? I wonder if they were outed, so to speak?

[uncle bill]

Have you ever heard the sound archives concerning Tom Adlam VC ? It certainly isn't the upper crust accent you might imagine. He has a lovely Wiltshire accent. I believe he was commissioned from the outset so class couldn't have been a major issue. I suppose it would have depended on the regiment ? Anthony's question is an interesting one.

[uncle bill]

As for shooting officers in the back. It is a persistent myth over here in France and often crops up in films or works of fiction. The other is that of shooting or stringing up Gendarmes or of Gendarmes arbitrarily shooting stragglers or men unwilling to go over the bags. I've yet to see any concrete evidence.

[PhilB]

I think it unlikely that hard evidence will surface. Anybody involved in such a happening is not likely to advertise it and the upper echelons would also have good reason to keep it quiet. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We`re probably stuck with hearsay evidence. Make of it what you will! Phil B

[Tom A McCluskey]

Phil,

More to do with how class barriers were broken (if they existed in some battalions): I recently attended a decent lecture by Jon Cooksey on the 1/5th York & Lancs Regt (TF). Excellent lecture and you can tell that Jon has analysed in great detail the 200 or so photographs that he came across concerning this battalion. He makes an interesting and (evident in the photographs) valid point about how much 'workplace-like' interaction appeared to happen between the officers of this battalion and the other ranks, especially at the early stages of the war. They all appear to be on a level with one another, more so than the regular battalions.

Anyway, hope this helps

Aye

Tom McC

[John_Hartley]

He makes an interesting and (evident in the photographs) valid point about how much 'workplace-like' interaction appeared to happen between the officers of this battalion and the other ranks,

Tom

Could you expand on this, please?

I'm not sure that I follow what you mean ("workplace-like") and I think I'd like to.

John

[Tom A McCluskey]

John,

Yes, glad you asked. One example, from his chat, is a photo of all of the Company officers sitting, quite relaxed, and chatting with the men from their company. The demeanour of all in the photo is that they are all used to, and very comfortable in, one anothers company - as if they are friends/work colleagues. I do believe a lot of this battalion and the Hallamshires were work colleagues. If you get a glimpse at his book, you'll see this clearly in the photos. It is Jon Cooksey's book about the territorials in Flanders. It contains some excellent photos.

The photos I have seen of the regulars, nearly always seem to have the mutual, professional, distance. The exception to this in the latter stages of the war where I've seen a photo of a pile of exhausted men and an officer all huddled together asleep. I think it was a photo taken during Operation Michael in 1918.

Aye

Tom McC

[John_Hartley]

Thanks for the extra, Tom.

I think this is very much the same situation as I was referring to in my earlier post about the Cheshires & Mancs. Within their separate social spheres, I suspect men were very comfortable with each other. Certainly within the very significantly middle-class 6/Manc there would have been great consistency through the ranks. Less so with the Cheshires, but NCOs and men would have have had similar backgrounds - officers would have come from a different social class but would not have been "outsiders". ]

John

[Borys]

Ahoj!

I was musing, however, about my father who was a carpenter/joiner from the mid 1920s onwards. Because he was qualified by having served the requisite apprenticeship, he always wore a collar and tie under his overalls. As a qualified man, he expected, and always had, a personal labourer who was not allowed to wear a collar and tie because of his status. There were menial tasks which the qualified man would on no account do. If the labourer was not to hand, the task waited or another labourer was called in.

The bold is mine.

For all the writing on the reasons for the decline of British economic power, one need look no further than this ....

Borys

[PhilB]

I think you`re possibly making a judgement, Borys, that I`d be reluctant to make. I can`t put myself into the mindset of a tradesman in the early 20th century, not long after the worst excesses of the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian Age. Phil B

[John_Hartley]

Phil

Surely it's hard to argue against Borys' analysis here. The issue of demarcation between skilled and unskilled workers was a major one in UK industry until comparitively recent times. There are those who would argue that this form of protectionism was significant in the decline of manufacturing output, etc. Whether or not there were good reasons for workers to adopt this view is irrelevent to the grand scheme of things

Equally, there are those who would argue that the unwillingness of company shareholders & directors to invest in modern equipment, etc was a similar (if not greater) disaster.

And, at the risk of crossing a politics line, there are those who would argue that UK government policy has been "anti manufacturing" for many years.

John

[Jarmstro]

Having been shot down in flames on these forums before by those who refuse to accept that the Batman/Ofiicer relationship in 1914 was not one based on anything other than class it is with some reluctance that I'm going to have another go.

I have found no evidence that in general officers regarded their Batmen as anything other than servants. Certainly not friends. Despite what has been written in these forums (except in a few cases) Batmen are rarely mentioned and if they are they are not named but refered to as servants or Batman.

Because most of the literature from WW1 was written by officers it is difficult to know how the men regarded their officers. They were seperate from them and perhaps it was not a matter that concerned them on the whole. Class divided all in those days.

But judging by what I have read I would say that generally the ordinary (Kitchener) soldier hated or had little respect for his officers but was obedient through fear of punishment. Most of the young public scool volunteer officers were in fact totaly incompetent.

The whole army (and Navy) system was based on class. Not merrit. Of course there are odd examples where this does not hold true but this was the reality. The fact that by 1918 the barriers had to some extent been broken was purely out of necessity because the supply of officers from the public schools was drying up.

We like to see the war through rose tinted spectacles and think of the army as one great mass of comrades in arms, all friends together fighting for the cause. It was not so.

The class system, to my mind, was the root cause of the slaughter of so many men. Lions lead by donkeys. It's a wonder to me that we still allow the class system to persist in Britain.

[PhilB]

I would agree with almost all you say, John. In a working life in which I visited a hundred or so workplaces, I`ve seen many examples of poor practice, sometimes to the point of being comic. I`ve seen factories run by management but only with the stacker truck drivers` approval, otherwise all production immediately stopped. I remember Red Robbo and the Dockers` gold plated car. But I`ve also read of the treatment of workers in Victorian times and I don`t how long that mindset lasted in the British working class. I really don`t know how I would have felt then, when, if I lost my job my family starved. Would I have had strong reason to support the status quo? I dunno. Phil B

[Borys]

Ahoj!

To add to the class issue - during the war the Germans and Austrians introduced special NCO ranks like:

Austria - Offizierstellvertreter and Stabsunteroffizier

Germany - Offizierstellvertreter and Feldwebelleutnant

who commanded platoons and companies, as not to increase the number of comissioned officers.

As to the tradesmen - something I remember from memoires of a Polish Navy officer, from 1940, pre Battle of France. His ship was in the south of England, for some refitting. He found the yard workers NOT working but having tea and playing cards. All day. He mentioned it to the British officer (or was it manager?) in charge - "Oh my goodness! But you didn't shout or anything at them? They'd refuse to work on your ship for a week!"

Not aware of British customs, he hadn't reacted. Finally the lazy gits did their task - which was an 8 hours job - after two days of "gathering strength" ...

Borys

[Matt Dixon]

The class issue still exists today. I know of a school who refused to include the name of a staff member on the Roll of Honour, because in their words "He was only the gardener....."

Thankfully this incredibly tactless attitude has been overcome and his name is now proudly displayed with the rest of the schools war dead.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

The class issue still exists today. I know of a school who refused to include the name of a staff member on the Roll of Honour, because in their words "He was only the gardener....."

Now tell me why did it make me think of Samwise Gamgee?

Borys

[Jim Clay]

Now tell me why did it make me think of Samwise Gamgee?

Borys

I haven't a clue! What - or who - is Samwise Gamgee?

Jim