Brigadier general Percy Crozier

[auchonvillerssomme]

Croziers early military life was formed by service in Africa. although he was originally turned down by the regular army in 1896,on the grounds that he was to short and to light. he took a commision in the 4th Middlesex Rifle Volunteer Corps. He then went to Africa and joined Thornycrofts mounted rifles as a trooper and was immediately promoted corporal. His recollections at that time do read as though he demonstrated an arrogance which continued through his life.

I will continue later...work calls.

Mick

[susanhemmings]

This is so interesting.

[Beau Geste]

There have been a lot of excellent points raised recently and I feel I should respond to some of them. First of all the photograph, posted by Mick, of the young Crozier. Perhaps I've had dealings with too many young and not so young officers that I don't read "the signs" like some of you. I remember once hearing a civilian lady who worked in the education centre in Tidworth where I was based for a while "complain" that all young officers look the same. Maybe that's got something to do with the officer recruiting process and the qualities the Army, in particular, is looking for. The words 'confidence' and yes, 'arrogance' do spring readily to mind.

Ian mentions the fact that, in his opinion, Crozier's bravery is not in doubt.....he probably did not feel fear at all". In the thread entitled Lt Col ET Sandys 2nd Middlesex, this point was discussed in some detail. I suggested that courage (or bravery) is one side of a coin that was common currency during the Great War. The flip side was / is 'fear'. In other words, one cannot be brave (display courage) unless one is frightened. In other words "courage" is the process by which one overcomes the debilitating effects of fear. I don't know if Crozier was afraid or not but if he wasn't, if he "did not feel fear at all" as Ian suggests then I don't think one can applaud his "personal bravery".

The reason I mention this is that an alternative view of Crozier is that he was some form of psychopath, a possibility that Ian has alluded to already. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines this as a "mentally deranged person" I'm no psychologist but I assume that there are "triggers" that can cause a person to act in an alien even psychopathic way (a form of atavism perhaps). The positions that Crozier was in before and during WW1 in particular must have put him under enormous pressure. Perhaps the actions that have been highlighted in this thread were his way of handling that pressure.

This suggestion might also help to explain the point that Jerry has made that when commanding the British Auxillery Forces in Ireland he "showed diapproval of the reprisals he was ordered to carry out." I don't know what pressures of command he was under during this period but I doubt that they were anything like those he experienced in, say, 1916.

Just a thought.

Harry

[auchonvillerssomme]

2 more pics.

Presentation of shamrock to the 9th Bn Royal irish Rifles by Mrs Couchman on St patricks day 1915. (Crozier stood next to brig-gen Crouchman)

Mick

Brigadier-General and Mrs Couchman with Crozier

[Beau Geste]

Great photos once again Mick. He was very small wasn't he? Could that too be a factor in his attitude and behaviour I wonder

Harry

[auchonvillerssomme]

I'm not sure it was entirely that. although born in India he was sent to Ireland for his education. he was in the care of his aunt, his uncle had been in 12th lancers, his grandfather had served in the 9th Foot in the crimea and was the resident Magistrate at Portumna in County Galway. because of the troubles his grandfather was under the constant protection of the RIC. His Great great Uncle, sam Hussey was a land agent and Crozier states, one of the most hated men in ireland, constantly being blown up or shot at.

So his young life was spent in the midst of men who possibly were arrogant, self believing, probably very opinionated and undoubtably incredibly brave.

Mick

[auchonvillerssomme]

HQ of 119th Infantry brigade after the armistice.

Mick

[susanhemmings]

More superb pictures. Just look at the way he is kissing Mrs Couchman's hand, almost as if time had stopped still (sounds as if I am expecting the photo to move. That's not what I meant. ) Just looks lingering - that's all . Or, is he just blowing his nose??? Brig-Gen has either taken off his hat to the proceedings, or his is wiping his brow....

And that look at the armistice - like a little boy showing off his new toy.

Sorry, I am rambling.

Great photos Mick.

Thank you

...........................................................

Show me the boy at 7 and I will show you the man...................

(not even sure who wrote this). I wonder how true that is?

Surrounded by all those people who were in positions of authority and had to fight whether in war or civilian life and with no mother, apparently around, to hone his feminine side, makes you wonder. All those adults who whilst "brave" would also have been extremely fearful for their lives, making them defensive and aggressive. It would be interesting to know what his relationship with his aunt was like.

Mind you at the time he was growing up women were little more than the "seen and not heard children" of our parents/grandparents generation. And, of course, he may have been in some sort of boarding school. Always expected to be the man, stiff upper lip and all that. Perhaps he was never allowed to be a child. Perhaps he has always had to fight for what he wanted or to be noticed. Perhaps he was over-indulged..... lots and lots of maybee's, ifs and buts......

mmmm interesting. Hopefully, someone will fill me in (in the nicest possible way) !

As you will now realise, I am always interested in what makes people tick....................

Whatever reasons are behind the man, he seems to have become a "nasty bit of stuff", albeit brave etc etc.

[ianw]

I must say that I have always found Crozier fascinating and it is interesting that many Pals feel the same. This thread will certainly cause me to revisit his writing as I am worried that I have been peddling a rather glib potted opinion of his psychology based on less than in-depth research! He deserves better - even if it turns out that he doesn't.

As always, human beings tend to become more complex as you dig a bit deeper.

Harry makes an interesting point about personal bravery in the Great War. Were they fundamentally more selfless then than we are now due to their greater sense of duty and lack of cynicism or are we viewing them through rose tinted spectacles. Is the "bravery" of men who know not fear, of an inferior kind? Is the concept that some men can tolerate terror and perhaps even thrive in it's presence far-fetched?

As a by the by, is Crozier's file at Kew and does it shed any light on him?

[susanhemmings]

Now that, Ian, would be fascinating.

Perhaps we ought to ask one of the fellow Pals that's off the the NA to find out.

May reveal much more....

[susanhemmings]

I wonder if this is Percy - 1901 census on Ancestry - Folkstone, Kent.......

has (??) him as an unmarried 20 year old 2nd Lieutenant of the 2nd South Staffordshire Regiment (born in Turkey) - British Subject

as a visitor of one (unmarried) Henry Hamilton (aged 42) a "Dramatic Author".......

Is this Percy in 1901

EDIT- probably not by re-reading the postings. Its probably too young for him anyway.

But visiting a Dramatic Author, for any length of time, would certainly have made him a "brilliant self publicist" (as Des says!! in post ~25)-

and according to the 1891 census in Paddington - the same 10 yar old Percy's(says here born in St John's Wood )... father (John) was a (looks like Reg...?? Regimental General Practitioner of Medicine (himself born in Canada ) So perhaps not........oopps just noticed also ... was he P. Crozier, or FP Crozier (the one above is PB Crozier)...... ugh

Fascinating all the same.

[Beau Geste]

On holiday, I was reading a novel (Churchill's Triumph) by Michael Dobbs which is based on the relationships that existed between the great man, Roosevelt and Stalin during the Yalta Conference of February 1945. At the beginning of Chapter Two, Dobbs describes Stalin's arrival at Yalta as something akin to "the coming of Autumn". It brought with it "anxiety which began to blow like freshly fallen leaves into every corner. Expressions froze, shoulders straightened, fingers hovered nervously around triggers. Stalin was coming, trying to take them by surprise." Dobbs goes on to say that Chuchill found that "there was something hollow in the man, a space where the spirit should have been"

When I read this I thought of Crozier and wondered whether he too was a little like that. I'm not of course suggesting that Percy was another Stalin but from everything I've read about him there seems to be clear signs that he too was "hollow" that he too seemed to lack "a space where the spirit should have been."

I wonder though if it was as simple as that.

I haven't read anything that suggests Crozier was a poor commander or that he was not respected by his superiors or even by those he commanded in the field. He was obviously well thought of and very effective. He had been a soldier a long time as Mick has pointed out and had served in a number of difficult and dangerous campaigns. Perhaps the learning curve he went through during these years convinced him that "fear" was the best if not the only way to command troops in situations similar to those.

There are a number of leadership styles available to a commander faced with enormous problems in the field. Perhaps Crozier consciously chose to adopt the one he did because he thought it had the best chance of success.

Cold hearted psycho or career officer who was determined to win at any cost ? I suppose it's a case of "take your pick".

Harry

[Bryn_Hammond]

Just 'bumping' this topic for two reasons. Firstly, I am surprised that no one seems to have mentioned his post-war commitment to pacifism. As I understand it, he grew to be revolted of war's brutality through his experiences of it.

Secondly, the two assertions that he had a drink problem and he was cashiered/forced to resign from the army in 1908 are often made but I wonder what the sources are? I think it is suggested here that Orr's book about 36th Div (which I do not possess) contains them - but it would be useful to know any contemporary source.

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

Bryn

PS By the by, I thought he was FRANK, rather than PERCY.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Hi Bryn. Frank or Percy, thats a good point....I wonder what he would think of us using his first names in any context? Frank is his first name but I have never heard anyone call him anything other than Percy.

Mick

[Bryn_Hammond]

Hi Bryn. Frank or Percy, thats a good point....I wonder what he would think of us using his first names in any context? Frank is his first name but I have never heard anyone call him anything other than Percy.

Mick

Mick

He uses 'Frank' himself in A Brass Hat in No Man's Land p172 when repeating what a close friend says to him.

No takers on the stuff about alcoholism and bouncing cheques? The former seems a possibility as he has the zeal about stopping others drinking that might suggest a former alcoholic, but I'd like something concrete about these 'facts'.

Bryn

[PBI]

I would Simply have to say that Crozier..Love or Loathe Him was a product of the System..A Hard Man in Hard Times.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Hi Bryn I have never seen reference to alcoholism or cashiering but have never read Philip Orr's comments.

My interest in him started when i was having a discussion about the lack of references by Cyril Falls. This immediately drew a response out of all proportion to the question (admittedly some drink had been consumed and the rest of the group had an intimate knowledge of the 36th Divison). I then had to buy Brass Hat, Men I killed and Impressions and Recollections just to get his side of the story.

Mick

[Greg]

Someone at King's College London is doing a thesis which looks at British heroes and extremism after 1918 and Crozier is one of the subjects. You can find more information on their website

Greg

[rob elliott]

Hello all,

My limited knowledge of F.B. is that he was an alcoholic [reformed] who had resigned twice from military service.

Once from the Manchester regiment in 1907 and from the Loyal North Lancs in 1909 for dishonouring cheques.

His service record [gives dates] and David Starret's memoirs confirm this. He also talks of the drink in Brass Hat.

Question, where did you hear that he was such a bad lad? Is it because of the title of his books? Perhaps when he wrote the 'Men i Killed' he was acknowledging his part in getting men killed. I think if you look at the dates the books were wrote you can relate them to his frame of mind.

Phillip Orr's book uses the recollections of one of his junior officers as the basis for him being a 'Martinet', as these are the words Moore uses.

David Starret, his batman thought otherwise as did one of his other officers, Malcolm McKee, who wrote a piece in 1966 saying how good Crozier was and how much rubbish had been written about the 1st July.

One of the things he was not liked for was he was an advocate of trench raiding and thought it was effective. This is one of the reasons Moore sites him for being bad.But what other sources are there saying he was not a good officer, well thought of.

He was undoubtably an arrogant man and his style of writing can be tiring, however he seemed to be an effective officer who was thought of well enough to be promoted Brigadier shortly after the Somme and then after the war was selected to be CO of the RIC Auxillary Division, from which he resigned because of un-authorised retaliations [and the re-instating of Cadets he had fired].And before the war had commanded the Belfast Special Service Section of the UVF.

I think people knew he would be steady under pressure. He did have compassion as there are instances where he could have taken action against junior officers but left it with a reprimand or even turned a blind eye [brass Hat] this however led to a serious problem in one instance,as follows-

The execution of Rifleman Crozier cannot be looked at on its own. IMO he had made his choice to be a soldier and must take the good with the bad.

Unfortunately for young Crozier the 107th Brigade to which the 9th RIR belonged to were suffering from very poor discipline [doesn't sound like what we've heard of Percy] even after temporarily attaching them them to the 4th Division, and it was decided by the 36th Divisional CO to set an example and come down hard as a last resort. There were in fact three executions, two from the 15th RIR [F.McCracken and J.Templeton] and Crozier [not all together]. Perhaps at another time he may have got a lesser punishment. But it appeared to have had the right effect.

However there is another side to this particular story. One of the junior officers[2ndLt A.J.Annadale] who Percy had let off previously did a runner during a mortar attack and was court martialled, however it appears he was sent home sick and thus missed the firing squad. As you would imagine this did not go down well with the men in view of the other executions [starret's memoirs].

One interesting post-script is that there is an official internal memo that states 'It was not realised that it was 'That' Crozier when he was commissioned in 1914'.

How things may have turned out if they had realised.

Mick regarding Cyril Falls lack of mentioning F.P, do you mean in the History of the 36th Division. Not too surprising really. I don't think Falls even knew him,of him-possibly. If you look at who does get mentioned they are either friends of Falls or Inniskilling Officers, or both. Inside the front cover he names two.

Just look how many times the 9th,10th and 11th Inniskillings get mentioned as compared to the same Rifle Btn's.

While Percy was a Btn commander Falls was with the 9th Skins and then Falls moved onto staff later, first as intelligence officer, Crozier went on to move out of the Division, so there was not much chance of contact.

Nothing special was done by Crozier on the 1st July to warrent particular mention.

I do think F.P.Crozier was a man of his time, not as bad as he gets portrayed. More reading is suggested.

A lot of the above information is taken from Timothy Bowman's book 'Irish Regiments in the Great War'. A must for all Ulster Division experts.

Rob.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Rob, I agree and have brought up many of those points elsewhere. He was a man of his time and I find it difficult to accept intense criticism so far removed from time and place. The title of his book is unfortunate and leaves him open to negative interpretation, regardles of that it paints a picture of a complex man.

Because of the emotions surrounding Rfn Crozier it is difficult to indulge in any meaningful dialogue without incurring the wrath of the shot at dawn groups but it happened in a time and at a place we cannot imagine.

If anyone has copies or transcripts of his service record or the internal memo mentioned by Rob I would love to see it.

As regards Cyril Falls, although anectdotal, i was told he detested Crozier.....any proof of that?

Mick

[PDW]

Harry

I have Croziers book "The Men I Killed". He argues it is sometimes neccessary to shoot the first few who run when the whole unit looks like it is about to do the same. If I recall the book correctly he said that a very large proportion of the men he killed-or ordered to be killed- in the Great War were on his side in such circumstances as I have just described. My opinion is that Crozier appears to be a very odd fellow precisely because he is willing to talk about that which everyone else knows is best left unsaid or even denied.

Peter

[rob elliott]

Peter,

Can you tell me why things are best left unsaid.Crozier told things as they were. Not all this about 'he died shot through the heart with his face to the foe' that so many of the letters of condolance said. How many veterans have said that if the people at home had known what it was like then the war would have been stopped on the spot.

The reality of war is not everyone dies heroic deaths and this should be raised. I think he was making an anti-war point.

He does talk of glorious deeds in an exagerated way but again i think he points out that if you go to war its unpleasant and he was probably countering the sanatised versions of events being published at the time.

I again highlight the situation of Rfn Crozier. No good saying i want to be classed as a man [enlisting] and when the time comes to be jugded as one cry i'm only a boy.

I'm just researching another youth of the Ulster Division, Thomas Diver. A lewis gunner. 16 when he joined up. 20 when killed.

Went through all the battles of the 36th Division and by all accounts must have killed 2-300 Germans on his own.

Right or wrong plenty went under age and stuck it.

Percy Crozier was not at fault with Rfn Crozier.

In the 30's when the pacifist movement was gaining strength more spoke out about the realities of it.

Regarding shooting his own men. How many did he kill-none. On the 1st of July one of his junior officers fired into a crowd of retiring men who would not listen to his order to stand. I'm not sure wether this happened or if it was said for effect to show it would be done. I'm sure it was standard instruction to all officers that if required if may be done.

However the reason i query it is because what a veteran said to me about this sort of thing. It was said if an officer did something like that he would meet with an accident in the heat of battle. It would be very easy to shoot from behind him towards the enemy and get him.

Mick, i don't know of any animosity towards Crozier from Falls and could only imagine it to be because of his writing.

With Falls the Ulster Division was never at fault even when they performed poorly and certainly no individuals were criticised.

Not the done thing i suppose. Where-as Crozier had a go at quite a few. Falls would probably think this was putting the army over in a bad light and may have taken offence.

In 1930 Falls wrote a book called 'War Books-an annotated bibliography of books about the Great War'. This was updated by a Lt Col R.J.Wyatt in 1989. Crozier's books are not listed. His books are classics love him or loathe him and to not be included says more about the authors than Crozier, because he obviously rubbed 'the establishment' up the wrong way.

Mmm, another Irish Soldier did a similar thing recently, Tim Collins, and look what they tried to do there.

In the original is a front piece by Falls including, 'the picture now [1930] so often painted, representing the war as a single scene in a torture chamber, whence men emerged physical or mental wrecks, may be good anti-militarist propaganda, but is false, because incomplete.From those experiences many men have emerged happy and strong'.

Now thats what i would call odd. How many men thought they were happier and stronger. True they met good friends with whom they shared an unbreakable bond, but if they had a choice would they rather have not gone, with hindsight.

To the best of my knowledge Falls never went into action, so how can he talk with experience. Crozier did and perhaps because of that he wrote some of his books.It must have been very frustrating reading some of the rubbish that was put out from more official sources.

People also forget that in the 1930's Crozier was in demand and wrote a lot of newspaper and magazine articles about the realities of war in direct opposition to Falls thinking.

Falls became military corrospondant for the Times in 1939.

I think the article to read to get the most balanced picture of Croziers personna would be his batman's memoirs.

My opinion of the man,proffesionally liked him with the UVF, good with the 9th Rifles, no-good for the Auxillaries.

Rob

[Desmond7]

Rob - I have to say that my (admittedly 'book biased') view of Percy C has little to do with his attutude towards the unfortunate Crozier. In fact I would agree with your assessment on that front (without getting into SAD).

My view of Percy is jaundiced more by his style of writing which I found waspish and unpleasant. He rarely seems to have had anything positive to say about his contemporaries and seems to 'home in' on their human frailties at every opportunity.

Would you possibly agree that, given Percy's character, he was quite capable of writing 'anti-war' when it was fashionable to do so? I must admit I get that impression.

I think he gloried in his 'hard man' reputation .. hence the famous quotes about the Shankill women shouting about 'the wee man will tear the breeks off you etc' and his 'sleeping with a loaded revolver' story.

I dare say he had little or no time for what he viewed as amateurs which was an unfortunate mindset given that most of the people he was dealing with at that stage were not exactly of top military calibre!

I agree with your view on his role with the Special Service Brigade pre war .. he obviously was not given that task cos he was a fool. And on 1st July I do not think his actions can be seriously faulted.

Thus, in summation, a capable soldier .. but from his writing, I can only say he rankles with me!!

[PDW]

Peter,

Can you tell me why things are best left unsaid.

Rob

I am sure I have been misunderstood by you and that will be because I had a half bottle of Jim Beam under my belt at the time and was not paying enough attention to clarity when I wrote. I would prefer a world where the things Crozier said were clearly stated but that is not the one we live in. In this world a lot of rubbish is written about war while very little fact appears. I admire Crozier for writing about war as I have always suspected it actually is.

Peter

[rob elliott]

Des,

Yes i do agree with you about his style of writing and he certainly doesn't have a lot of good things to say about many people, but i do think you can see a bit of the softer side to him when he talks of Col Bernard and Major Gaffikin, both killed on the 1st July.

The books do 'bull' his part in things up a bit.

But it wouldn't surprise me him having a revolver to hand while staying in West Belfast. The boys running around now are the grandsons of those men.

How many other Officers of the old UVF would be suitable to control those guys, not many.

Reading about the discipline record of the 9th Rifles, perhaps even Percy struggled.

Another thing though is Crozier says in his books what General Nugent put in his private papers and letters to his wife. Nugent continually slates the UVF structure, the politics of things and the need to get rid of certain officers [some of which he did].

He had a go at Crozier at the state of the 9th Rifles when they were in France, which Crozier does acknowledge happened, so i think perhaps his books need to be read again as we get to know more about what was happening and maybe we will see better where he was coming from.

After the situation with the Auxillary Division it could look like he had an axe to grind with the Government, but with whats been going on lately with our current lot i wonder if there was a bit of a thing about to bad mouth him to which he reacted, a bit like a whistle-blower but in his books.

I'm getting a bit of a thing with Falls history of the 36th Division at the moment, it is a great book as a base history, it was the first i ever got when starting my interest in the 1st war. But knowing what i do now i don't even use it as a reference book. I think its poorly written, even for its time.

The 1st July was a major event in the formation of Northern Ireland and its only 10 pages, not all accurate.

I have the history of the 10th Battalion York and Lancs written only a few years later and that book tells it like it was. When things went wrong they said it, some of the things the men did to the Officers and apparently got away with are amazing. There are a lot of books from the 20's and 30's that just don't do the men justice and haven't stood the test of time, 'Brass Hat', i believe, has.

I seem to be defending him now, which is not the case as i'm sure if i'd met him he'd be over-bearing.

Sorry Peter if i mis-understood your meaning.

Old Perc certainly makes for a good debate.

Rob