Lectures on First World War

[baboon6]

Here is a transcript of a great lecture by Richard Holmes on the struggle historians have had against the "Lions led by Donkeys" stuff and other misconceptions (such as "All officers were public schoolboys" while the fact is the majority commissioned in the last two years of the war were ex-rankers), both by the "revisionist" historians and the media. He also talks about the four distinct components of the wartime British Army: the regulars, the Territorial Force, the "New Army" (Kitchener volunteers), and the conscripts.

 

http://www.calres.co.uk/downloads/prize03.pdf

 

And see here for a cracking Brian Bond lecture on British Interpretations of the First World War

 

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lhcma/info/lec97.htm

[vardulli]

Here is a transcript of a great lecture by Richard Holmes on the struggle historians have had against the "Lions led by Donkeys" stuff and other misconceptions (such as "All officers were public schoolboys" while the fact is the majority commissioned in the last two years of the war were ex-rankers), both by the "revisionist" historians and the media. He also talks about the four distinct components of the wartime British Army: the regulars, the Territorial Force, the "New Army" (Kitchener volunteers), and the conscripts.

 

http://www.calres.co.uk/downloads/prize03.pdf

 

And see here for a cracking Brian Bond lecture on British Interpretations of the First World War

 

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/lhcma/info/lec97.htm

 

 

cheers for that, I've always liked his work

[sunday]

Many thanks. Enlightening, interesting, and moving stuff.

[Yama]

Here is a transcript of a great lecture by Richard Holmes on the struggle historians have had against the "Lions led by Donkeys" stuff and other misconceptions (such as "All officers were public schoolboys" while the fact is the majority commissioned in the last two years of the war were ex-rankers), both by the "revisionist" historians and the media. He also talks about the four distinct components of the wartime British Army: the regulars, the Territorial Force, the "New Army" (Kitchener volunteers), and the conscripts.

 

Problem with revisionism is that for many even supposedly serious academics it becomes an end in itself, rather than a mean. So they see (real or perceived) mistreatment of Haig in popular histories and go for a quest to set things right, but in the process go to other extreme and now Haig becomes unmatched military genius incapable of error.

 

I'm sure we are only few years away from new, revolutionary biography about Stopford which proves that he was unfairly maligned and in reality, the greatest military genius Britain has ever produced, but he just kept having this awful bad luck...

Edited April 14, 2008 by Yama

[Guest aevans]

These lectures do indeed seem to race right past the rehabilitation of objectivity into sour grapes...

[Ariete!]

I'm releived by the last two posts. As a clearly non-expert(especailly by the standards of this forum) military history buff, I've always perceived that an even cursory understanding of miltiary technology and logistics means that you cannot see WW1 simply as idiot generals sending milliosn to be slaughtered pointlessly.

 

Then again., I think at least in retrospect there is a considerable volume of reasoned criticism. Some of the recent sutff on WW1 goes well beyond revisionism. I found "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Corrigan to be a relatively poor read and very, very biased toward the notion that ALL stereotypes of tropes about WW1 ware false and that the British Army, especially, was a locus of technical, tactical and strategic brilliance. Hmmm.

 

It would be nice to get something halfway from "Oh what a lovely war"/"Blackadder goes forth" and this stuff.

[Rich]

Problem with revisionism is that for many even supposedly serious academics it becomes an end in itself, rather than a mean.

 

Just so, but also from our perspective at this Grate Sight it seems that problem is also endemic in quite a number of internet discussion forum participants?

 

I think one of my all proffs said it best when talking about the "McClellan Rehabilitationism" that was in vogue in the mid-1970s, "study, document, and think FIRST, THEN revise your opinion"....

[Ken Estes]

Problem with revisionism is that for many even supposedly serious academics it becomes an end in itself, rather than a mean. So they see (real or perceived) mistreatment of Haig in popular histories and go for a quest to set things right, but in the process go to other extreme and now Haig becomes unmatched military genius incapable of error.

 

I'm sure we are only few years away from new, revolutionary biography about Stopford which proves that he was unfairly maligned and in reality, the greatest military genius Britain has ever produced, but he just kept having this awful bad luck...

 

You read that? Actually, there is little surprising about WWI in the West. The armies collided, the firepower could not be overcome, they dug in. In order to wicker them out, no new tools became available very soon to augment the traditional artillery and infantry, backed by cavalry [in the event of a breakthrough]. But firepower favored the defensive and the amount of artillery required to make a dent in defenses literally churned the battlefield into a morass; end of maneuver options, and enemy counterattacks crossed a much shorter distance then did friendly replacements, supply and reinforcements.

 

All very well, but how does one end the war with the Germans holding Northern France? Something had to be done and the so-called donkeys did all that was possible. Some were better than others, and it took quite a while for a mass army to unveil talent in its leadership, or to provide requisite training. The Germans seem to have had the same problems as the donkeys. When new weapons became available, men such as Haig were not averse to trying, and skepticism was justified in almost all new weapons except perhaps the airplane.

 

There are waves of history, often a decade or more apart, but I'd wager it will be compressed in the aftermath of current wars. First come the 'war as I knew it' stuff, followed a decade or so later by the first official histories. Then come the apologists and advocates, and in yet another decade the first good biographies. After about 50 years, one can begin reassessment, or revision, of earlier interpretations and new insights will emerge, yet the work of research remains far from complete, the mountains [now the gigabytes, tetrabytes] of material remain insufficiently mined. Knowledge is neither instant nor permanent, and requires constant reenvigorment in all fields.

[Guest aevans]

All very nice sounding, but the tendency, as the linked lectures demonstrate, is for the pendulum to swing totally the other way. It may take centuries for opinion to stop more or less on a relatively objective center.

[Colin Williams]

All very nice sounding, but the tendency, as the linked lectures demonstrate, is for the pendulum to swing totally the other way. It may take centuries for opinion to stop more or less on a relatively objective center.

 

 

I believe the debate about WW1 is moving towards the same range of debate we see regarding other major wars, such as the Civil War and WW2. Of course this doesn't mean that the "objective center" is a narrow band of differing opinions over minutiae but a framework which establishes some of the basic parameters for debate. IMHO the most extreme of the "Lions led by Donkeys" and the "Haig, Ludendorf, Schlieffen, Conrad, (your favorite general here for a small fee), etc. was a genius" schools are pretty much discredited.

[philgollin]

I believe the debate about WW1 is moving towards the same range of debate we see regarding other major wars, such as the Civil War and WW2. Of course this doesn't mean that the "objective center" is a narrow band of differing opinions over minutiae but a framework which establishes some of the basic parameters for debate. IMHO the most extreme of the "Lions led by Donkeys" and the "Haig, Ludendorf, Schlieffen, Conrad, (your favorite general here for a small fee), etc. was a genius" schools are pretty much discredited.

 

Not that the subject is that new, but "historigraphy" is itself a well established academic discipline.

 

This is partly because (simplistically) the 60s/70s revisionism has been examined in detail, but also because the continuing (and indeed increasing) need to create new courses and publish papers means a continuing widening of academic studies.

 

The revisionists did a lot of good work in ferreting-out new information and (with provisos) finding out possible different motives for actions, tactics and strategies. But they are not the only problem. Different countries have their own "natural" interpretations or self-delusions, and a particulary difficult problem is that the general "tone" of documents, despatches, etc.... never meant for propaganda purposes could be very different. The obvious comparison is between the US and UK. The presentation of documents was very different due to national characteristics - the British ones could appear rather neutral, whereas the UK sometimes found the US ones too effusive. (Having been through the "Bailey Committee" papers at the PRO this is rather obvious, and there are many other examples). This was "obvious" to historians in the 50s and 60s, but nowadays it is often not appreciated.

 

Unfortunately many of them got carried away by their own belief. (It is often forgotten that Irwin was a good scholar [he knew the German Nazi-era Archives better than possibly any previous english-speaking historian]before he allowed his right-wing lunacy to lead him into selective writings and hate). As far as naval history goes my own bete noir is Correlli Bennett. He did some good work, but it is politically naive and extremely anti-establishment. The problem is that his books sits there as something to be quoted as if there were the be-all and end-all of academia.

 

What does one say when someone quotes one of those "revisionists" who allowed their own feelings to get in the way of a balanced history ? To merely wave them away as "revisionist" is just as bad as their own faults - but every time they are quoted it merely means more effort is required merely to get a more truthful interpretation presented.

 

.

[baboon6]

Not that the subject is that new, but "historigraphy" is itself a well established academic discipline.

 

This is partly because (simplistically) the 60s/70s revisionism has been examined in detail, but also because the continuing (and indeed increasing) need to create new courses and publish papers means a continuing widening of academic studies.

 

The revisionists did a lot of good work in ferreting-out new information and (with provisos) finding out possible different motives for actions, tactics and strategies. But they are not the only problem. Different countries have their own "natural" interpretations or self-delusions, and a particulary difficult problem is that the general "tone" of documents, despatches, etc.... never meant for propaganda purposes could be very different. The obvious comparison is between the US and UK. The presentation of documents was very different due to national characteristics - the British ones could appear rather neutral, whereas the UK sometimes found the US ones too effusive. (Having been through the "Bailey Committee" papers at the PRO this is rather obvious, and there are many other examples). This was "obvious" to historians in the 50s and 60s, but nowadays it is often not appreciated.

 

Unfortunately many of them got carried away by their own belief. (It is often forgotten that Irwin was a good scholar [he knew the German Nazi-era Archives better than possibly any previous english-speaking historian]before he allowed his right-wing lunacy to lead him into selective writings and hate). As far as naval history goes my own bete noir is Correlli Bennett. He did some good work, but it is politically naive and extremely anti-establishment. The problem is that his books sits there as something to be quoted as if there were the be-all and end-all of academia.

 

What does one say when someone quotes one of those "revisionists" who allowed their own feelings to get in the way of a balanced history ? To merely wave them away as "revisionist" is just as bad as their own faults - but every time they are quoted it merely means more effort is required merely to get a more truthful interpretation presented.

 

.

 

You mean David Irving? As for Barnett, I thought The Desert Generals while well-intentioned in its attempt to resurrect the reputations of Auchinleck and Dorman-Smith who were indeed unfairly treated went too far and simply became an anti-Montgomery tome. It also contains some inaccuracies that would have been easy to correct.

Edited April 15, 2008 by baboon6

[Ken Estes]

You mean David Irving? As for Barnett, I thought The Desert Generals while well-intentioned in its attempt to resurrect the reputations of Auchinleck and Dorman-Smith who were indeed unfairly treated went too far and simply became an anti-Montgomery tome. It also contains some inaccuracies that would have been easy to correct.

Yes, I think he crossed the names and is referring to the naval historian Bennett, not Corelli Barnett, but the full name of Bennett escapes me at the moment. Was it Geoffrey he is objecting to?

[BillB]

All very nice sounding, but the tendency, as the linked lectures demonstrate, is for the pendulum to swing totally the other way. It may take centuries for opinion to stop more or less on a relatively objective center.

I disagree. Those linked essays actually show the pendulum comiing to rest at a relatively objective centrish position, altho in this case pendulum is not a very good analogy. The British perception of WW1 was deliberately skewed 40-50 years after the event by revisionists driven not by sound, objective academic research and scholarship, but by an adherence to the then-current zeitgeist and the concommitant shift toward individualism and anti-Establishmentism in British society in the early 1960s. In short it was merely a British manifestation of the "no more war" crowd that was prevalent in the US around that time, and was concocted by a motley crew of left-wing fellow travellers, pacifists and others for their own disparate agendas. In the US they demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, in the UK they railed against WW1.

 

If you look hard there isn't really much substance to the 1960s revisionist side. Oh What a Lovely War was a pacifict play that played as fast and loose with the facts as you'd expect from a propaganda piece, Clark's The Donkeys is more a one sided contrarian polemic than anything else (and with a title that IIRC the author later admitted was made up), and the same goes for more recent adherents like Laffin with his Butchers and Bunglers of World War One. All this, incidedentally, flies in the face of the evidence from participants, where the alleged views of a very small handful of poets is given more mileage than a plethora of evidence from memoirs, personal diaries and popular literature, and the same is the case with almost 40 years worth of academic research from the likes of Tim Travers, John Terraine, Brian Bond, Richard Holmes, Trevor Wilson, Peter Liddle, Hew Strachan, Gary Sheffield etc etc etc. Credit where it's due, the 1960s revisionists actually did a pretty good job with their agitprop, given that their almost totally unsupported version of events as a pointless and unmitigated waste remains the popular view. They even use Blackadder Goes Forth to teach WW1 in schools...

 

BillB

[Yama]

I disagree. Those linked essays actually show the pendulum comiing to rest at a relatively objective centrish position, altho in this case pendulum is not a very good analogy. The British perception of WW1 was deliberately skewed 40-50 years after the event by revisionists driven not by sound, objective academic research and scholarship, but by an adherence to the then-current zeitgeist and the concommitant shift toward individualism and anti-Establishmentism in British society in the early 1960s. In short it was merely a British manifestation of the "no more war" crowd that was prevalent in the US around that time, and was concocted by a motley crew of left-wing fellow travellers, pacifists and others for their own disparate agendas. In the US they demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, in the UK they railed against WW1.

 

And that's the biggest myth of all, that "Lions led by Donkeys" myth was created solely as a British self-flagellation in the '60s. Non-Anglic histories I've read tend to be very critical of Haig, and not only him but also Joffre, Nivelle, Conrad, Cadorna etc.

 

Hitler commented after Battle of France, in effect "...as in World War 1, British soldier is skilled and valiant in defence, but his leadership remains inept...". Clearly, the perception - regardless of how correct it is - predates 1960s and is not limited to English world.

[Guest aevans]

I disagree. Those linked essays actually show the pendulum comiing to rest at a relatively objective centrish position, altho in this case pendulum is not a very good analogy.

 

Sorry, Bill, but as soon as both lectures took excursions into pathos, they totally lost me. They may be more reasonable sounding than a lot of anti-war trash, but at bottom they're still polemics.

[BillB]

And that's the biggest myth of all, that "Lions led by Donkeys" myth was created solely as a British self-flagellation in the '60s. Non-Anglic histories I've read tend to be very critical of Haig, and not only him but also Joffre, Nivelle, Conrad, Cadorna etc.

 

Hitler commented after Battle of France, in effect "...as in World War 1, British soldier is skilled and valiant in defence, but his leadership remains inept...". Clearly, the perception - regardless of how correct it is - predates 1960s and is not limited to English world.

Nothing mythical about it all. That is the view that shaped and continues to shape the popular *British* perception of WW1. That specific perception is all I was talking about and on that basis the content of non-Anglic histories are irrelevant, as are critiques of Haig or any other nation's military leaders. As for the last bit, what would Hitler the WW1 corporal know about it? Especially given that the same allegedly inept British leadership handed out the worst defeat the German Army had suffered to date in 1918 and then went on to provide Guderian et al with something to copy.

 

BillB

[BillB]

Sorry, Bill, but as soon as both lectures took excursions into pathos, they totally lost me. They may be more reasonable sounding than a lot of anti-war trash, but at bottom they're still polemics.

Sorry Tony, but I suspect that the lectures lost you because you were out of your depth. Let's face it, your personal opinion of the lectures doesn't really count for much in the scheme of things, does it? Until you can demonstrate a decent fraction of the knowledge Bond and more especially Holmes (I attended a lecture of his on the British Army in WW1 a few weeks back and he talked for almost two hours without notes or any PowerPoint bells and whistles) have of the subject matter your opinion amounts to the ignorant yapping of a self-important contarrian making noise to conceal the vapidity of his opinions.

 

BillB

[Ariete!]

The narrative of WW1 as sensless laughter perpetrated by callous "bourgeois" politicians and incompetent generals was pretty much what we were fed in Italy when I grew up. What we weren't fed were the (IMHO) scurrilous, unjustified, smirking tone that British-oriented historians I have read since seem to take on all armies bar the Commonwealth ones.

 

I doubt that Cadorna's "spallate" (literally, when one tries to shoulder down a door) will ever go down in history as exemplars of operational art but reading more detailed histories (for instance of the logistics of the Itie Army in WW1, or the evolution of assault troops) give you a sense of much greater professionalism and initative.

[BillB]

The narrative of WW1 as sensless laughter perpetrated by callous "bourgeois" politicians and incompetent generals was pretty much what we were fed in Italy when I grew up. What we weren't fed were the (IMHO) scurrilous, unjustified, smirking tone that British-oriented historians I have read since seem to take on all armies bar the Commonwealth ones.

 

I doubt that Cadorna's "spallate" (literally, when one tries to shoulder down a door) will ever go down in history as exemplars of operational art but reading more detailed histories (for instance of the logistics of the Itie Army in WW1, or the evolution of assault troops) give you a sense of much greater professionalism and initative.

Ref the bolded bit, who exactly are you referring too? Not looking for a fight, I'm genuinely curious as I'm aware that sometimes Anglocentricism can go over the top. I've noticed it myself with regard to the French contribution.

 

BillB

[Colin Williams]

They even use Blackadder Goes Forth to teach WW1 in schools...

 

How else is one going to learn how to make a decent cappuccino under wartime conditions?

[Guest aevans]

Sorry Tony, but I suspect that the lectures lost you because you were out of your depth. Let's face it, your personal opinion of the lectures doesn't really count for much in the scheme of things, does it? Until you can demonstrate a decent fraction of the knowledge Bond and more especially Holmes (I attended a lecture of his on the British Army in WW1 a few weeks back and he talked for almost two hours without notes or any PowerPoint bells and whistles) have of the subject matter your opinion amounts to the ignorant yapping of a self-important contarrian making noise to conceal the vapidity of his opinions.

 

BillB

 

Yes, Bill. Of course, Bill.

 

All repeat after Saint Bill: By Jingo, by Jingo, by Jingo...

Edited April 15, 2008 by aevans

[Conall]

Yes, Bill. Of course, Bill.

 

All repeat after Saint Bill: By Jingo, by Jingo, by Jingo...

 

 

Tony,

 

Even by your standards this is pretty feeble and puerile. Your comments about the pathos in Holmes' piece don't appear to have noted that most of the pathos in the lecture was in direct quotes from the participants rather than from Holmes. Hard though it is for us to understand the generation of 1914-18 were genuinely patriotic and in many cases retained their idealism. As a personal anecdote my maternal great-grandfather joined up as a private in 1914 aged 40 espousing exactly those views articulated in the lecture and died a subaltern in France in July 1916. His letters are full of such idealism, and with the benefit of hindsight, heart-rending pathos. Even the experience of two years on the western front in an infantry battalion (Royal Berkshires) didn't disabuse him of these views. Equally my paternal grandfather held not dissimilar views despite being a regular army officer (joined 1910) and being in active service throughout the war in the RFC in France. His diaries and general writings, both contemporary and post-war (and even in the 1950s) espouse exactly such idealism despite being a professional soldier and no stranger to the reality of war (he started WWII as an infantry battlion commander and fought in N.Africa).

 

I think you've either misread the lecture or are being deliberately contrarian. Furthermore I would support the point that Bill makes in that the British historiography is such that the combination of Lloyd-George's disingenuous politicking (to hide his own flaws), the influence of the wartime poets and the revisionist anti-war historians (such that they were) of the 1960s & 70s have dominated the historical record in the UK. As such the work of more contemporary historians, as listed above, merely addresses the balance rather veering towards a jingoistic and excessively chauvinist British reinterpretation of WW1. Finally I would note that it is undeniable that it was the Commonwealth armies which were primarily responsible for defeating the German Army in 1918 and explaining that requires a careful refutation of the commonly held received wisdoms of the 1960s & 70s.

 

Tom

[Yama]

Nothing mythical about it all. That is the view that shaped and continues to shape the popular *British* perception of WW1. That specific perception is all I was talking about and on that basis the content of non-Anglic histories are irrelevant, as are critiques of Haig or any other nation's military leaders.

 

As I understand, Haig-bashing in Britain began well before 1960s. Lloyd George was of course the most prominent one - of course one may question his motives but he was a former Prime Minister, nevertheless. And I don't think people like Liddell Hart, Montgomery, etc. could be characterized as "...revisionists driven not by sound, objective academic research and scholarship, but by an adherence to the then-current zeitgeist and the concommitant shift toward individualism and anti-Establishmentism in British society...".

 

I do note that this WW1 revisionism, or rehabilitation, however you want to put it, seems to concentrate on almost solely on Haig. Few, for example, seem to be willing to make similar case for Joffre, whose achievments as a commander were broadly equal to Haig. I've never seen even French posters, on any forum or newsgroup, to make a case that Joffre was in fact a great commander limited by circumstances and politicians. Admittably I'm not familiar with French military historians, so perhaps there is indeed a similar body of pro-Joffre literature as exists on Haig and I have just missed it.

 

As for the last bit, what would Hitler the WW1 corporal know about it?

 

Well I dunno. John Terraine was not even born by WW1, what would he know...?

[Yama]

I think you've either misread the lecture or are being deliberately contrarian. Furthermore I would support the point that Bill makes in that the British historiography is such that the combination of Lloyd-George's disingenuous politicking (to hide his own flaws), the influence of the wartime poets and the revisionist anti-war historians (such that they were) of the 1960s & 70s have dominated the historical record in the UK. As such the work of more contemporary historians, as listed above, merely addresses the balance rather veering towards a jingoistic and excessively chauvinist British reinterpretation of WW1.

 

Haig proponents maintain that he was "Great Captain" equal to Wellington and Marlborough - honestly, the only way that could be described as "balanced" is to accept that latter two were then greatly overrated...but I doubt such a notion would go over well with the British...