Lt Col E T Sandys 2nd Middlesex Regt

[Guest]

Thank you for that photograph Harry, for me, it helps to complete the picture of that tragic event. Will certainly try to find the spot from where you took that photograph next time I visit

John

[Beau Geste]

This is the higher land (the La Boiselle spur) around the village of La Boiselle where German machine gun and rifle fire were able to enfilade British troops advancing along Mash Valley. In 1916 there were no buildings on the Mash Valley side of the Albert - Bapaume Road and the distance between the British and German front line trenches in front of the village were so close they could hear each other talking.

Harry

PS Just this side of the houses of La Boiselle is the site of Y Sap mine that was detonated just before the 1st July attack.

[Beau Geste]

My friend took this photograph for me just to give some idea of how the Ovillers Spur on the other side of Mash Valley (opposite La Boiselle) dominated the low ground as well. Machine gun and rifle fire also enfiladed British troops advancing up Mash Valley. Americans would call it a "turkey shoot."

Ovillers Military Cemetery is visible in "the distance"

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Thank you for that photograph Harry, for me, it helps to complete the picture of that tragic event. Will certainly try to find the spot from where you took that photograph next time I visit

John

You are most welcome John.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

An article in the national press on Wednesday of this week has prompted me to resurrect this thread on Colonel Sandys of the Second Battalion the Middlesex Regiment. I did consider focusing on the article as a separate entity but I'm sure that those of you who remember the original postings will, I hope, understand why I've chosen this particular approach.

The article I refer to was by Benedict Brogan, the political Editor of "The Mail". It referred to a speech Sir Richard Dannatt The CIGS was due to deliver on the need for "his colleagues (in the Services) to refuse to obey orders from superiors who may not know, or may not wish to know, the implication of the orders they have given".

Obviously, Sir Richard's remarks have a wide political significance but it does throw up some interesting points of both a historical and a contemporary nature. Lets look at them in that order.

Please bear with me if the contents of the thread are familiar to you already. I’m aware that it’s been some time since it featured and attracted comments and therefore there will be some, I’m sure, who will appreciate a quick summary.

On the eve of one of the greatest battles in history, Colonel Sandys questioned the orders of his superiors. This in itself would have taken some courage. He had watched the preparations for the attack from an OP on Usna Hill and as the artillery bombardment progressed, day and night, he remained convinced that his superiors were wrong, that large sections of the wire remained intact and that many German soldiers had survived the onslaught in their deep dugouts.

He expressed these fears at both Brigade and Divisional level but he was overruled, overruled by (if I might be allowed to paraphrase the CIGS) ”superiors who might not have known or might not have wished to know the implications of orders they had given.”

The main objective of the 2nd Middlesex was the German front line trenche system in front of Ovillers. His battalion had the furthest to go, a distance of about 700 metres. But on that fateful morning those young men will have felt it was a lot further than that . Their advance was over the open ground of Mash Valley and they quickly became easy targets for the machine guns, artillery and rifle fire that smashed into them from three sides. it was a disaster. Sandy's worst fears had come to pass and the regiment lost 22 officers and 601 other ranks.

Sandys had lived with a premonition of this for days. He hadn't been able to sleep at night and as the last days of June 1916 passed, he had become more and more depressed and fearful. As Trenchtrotter in posting #6 pointed out one can only hazard a guess at the “torture Sandys suffered”.

Opinion on Sandys’ decision to kill himself is mixed. Some still see it as the act of a coward, as “the easy way out”. As Dave Benjamin (a Pal whose contributions I miss greatly) pointed out in #4, there are still those who hold firm to the “connotations that suicide still carries” - a belief I’ve never understood. Others, myself included, prefer to view it as an act of desperation.

As I have pointed out in an earlier posting, Sandys isn't the only documented example of an officer questioning the orders laid down by a higher formation. Capt Duncan Lennox Martin's attempt to persuade his superior's to "take out" the machine gun under The Shrine near Mansel Copse is another well documented example . His pleas were also ignored with tragic consequences. He died, exactly as he knew he would, alongside his men.

A number of questions spring to mind. Should Sandys have refused to obey his order to attack in an effort to save his men? In other words, should he as an intelligent, thinking human being have shown the level of what the present CIGS calls “moral courage” and refused to move his men until the artillery bombardment had achieved its objectives? There is no doubt that to embrace this course of action would have taken considerable courage but in leading his men into the cauldron of Mash Valley, he had shown enormous bravery. In other words, if f he (or Martin for that matter) had chosen that course of action, what, if anything, would have been the consequences not just for the battle of July 1st but the Great War as a whole?

Secondly, are there ‘types’ of courage in the same way that there are levels of courage. The CIGS’ comments in the opening paragraph were interesting for me in that he speaks about “moral courage” as being necessary to “refuse to obey the orders of a superior” Did Sandys possess “physical courage” in the sense that, despite everything, he could lead his men into oblivion and kill himself, but lacked the sort of ‘moral courage’ that Sir Richard refers to?

I realise, of course, that “things were different” during The Great War, that attitudes to authority for example were different, that people today are more inclined to question the views of others, but it could have happened and perhaps, by 1916, all it might have needed is one brave (or desperate) senior officer to question the carnage and show others “the way”.

From a contemporary viewpoint, I’d welcome the views of Pals on the likely effect of the speech on the modern army

[Waddell]

BeauGeste,

I thought about Lt Col Sandys on 1 July this year. I read Middlebrook's book early in the year and Sandys story is the one that really sticks in my mind in a book full of terrible stories.

I don't believe that Sandys suicide was the action of a coward. I believe that he was a brave and honourable man. I think that he was trapped in a difficult position, where his concerns were ultimately for the well-being of his men.

Had he refused orders what would have happened? we don't know. More than likely he would have been court-martialled for refusing an order. In all likelihood his men would have been led by another officer. I think it took more bottle to do what he did and go over the top with them.

Moral courage? He had enough to make objections to those senior to him. They chose to continue in view of Sandys views.

In the context of the modern military, I don't know. Ultimately if you run a disciplined army following chain of command, the opinions of those junior will at times be overruled by those senior. It has to work that way. I would hope that in these enlightened times of "team building" that the views and concerns of all would be considered a little more seriously during the planning stages of any great action.

Reading about men like Sandys is important. There are a lot of stereotypical views of British officers which are negative. In Sandys was a great example of what an officer should be.

Thats my view.

Scott.

[Chris_Baker]

View looking north across the Albert-Bapaume road (out of sight down in the valley) from the base of the 34th Divisional memorial on the high ground at La Boisselle to the high ground on the far side of Ovillers Military Cemetery. The advantage of the possession of these gentle ridges and spurs is quite obvious.

[PhilB]

Sandys may have been faced with an apparently insoluble dilemma, until he solved it to his own satisfaction. I`ve read that suicide may be a reasonable reaction to an unreasonable set of circumstances. Which is probably what he faced. Of course, we don`t know if he had other problems - financial, medical, matrimonial, social etc. He has my sympathy.

[Guest joshSandy]

HI Guys,

my name is Josh Sandys and I own a personal box of Lt Col Sandys and I'm trying to figure out who he is and if he is this Sandys you are talking about if you have any information or can help me please contact me on here or send a message and ill provide my email

[delta]

Welcome to the Forum Josh

Sadly you can't use the contact system on the site until you have added a number of posts.

 

If you can tell us a little more about the box and the contents, or what you know about  "your" Lt Col Sandys, we may be able to help

Edited 16 November , 2016 by delta

[sadbrewer]

Just to add a little to this thread...I came across this photo in the British Newspaper Archive...from the Leicester Daily Post, Sept 18th 1916.

[dah]

A wonderful thread, with much to ponder of a fundamental nature.

 

I always gaze in stunned silence at Mash Valley, aware of what those men had to endure. It truly beggars belief!

 

Credit to Lt Col Sandys's courage that he challenged what proved to be ridiculous orders. Credit to his humanity that he found his survival and sense of responsibility too much to bear.

 

He effectively died in Mash Valley and, if not actually buried in Ovillers Military Cemetery, deserves to be remembered along with all those who are.....and by all of us who visit.

 

David