Lectures on First World War

[BillB]

It's not about my ego, Bill.

Still not got anything of substance to contribute then, Tony? Just letting us know you're still around? Thanks for that.

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

Still not got anything of substance to contribute then, Tony? Just letting us know you're still around? Thanks for that.

 

BillB

 

Just answering the unspoken question you begged with your inane comment.

 

Substance? The substance is that you are so confirmed in your intellectual prejudices that you don't even realize they exist. Somebody says that the decisiveness of the British contribution to victory in the First World War was "undeniable", you have nothing to say. When somebody else says, "Now wait a second..." you're knee deep in their shit, accusing them of every crime short of raping the Queen. That's really intellectually honest, Bill.

[Rich]

Feel free to indulge in any jingoism necessary...

 

It was the 'Muricans by jingo! And if my ol' granddad had just been able to get into it.... (instead he was trying to avoid the flu while training in Missouri - as a driver - horse type - in an artillery battery, according to him the only six months in his life when he ever rode a horse, couldn't stand the animals ).

 

Fascinating thread to read though, always good to get advice on the best reads of a subject not in my forte. Have at it fellows, it actually feels good to be on the sideline for once! But I'm not sure of the score and who I'm rooting for, although as usual I favor BillB.

[BillB]

Just answering the unspoken question you begged with your inane comment.

 

Substance? The substance is that you are so confirmed in your intellectual prejudices that you don't even realize they exist. Somebody says that the decisiveness of the British contribution to victory in the First World War was "undeniable", you have nothing to say. When somebody else says, "Now wait a second..." you're knee deep in their shit, accusing them of every crime short of raping the Queen. That's really intellectually honest, Bill.

My my, I do believe someone has twisted your lemon, dear boy. I take it that this rather pathetic ad hominem rant means that you still don't actually have anything relevant to contribute to the thread then Tony?

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

My my, I do believe someone has twisted your lemon, dear boy. I take it that this rather pathetic ad hominem rant means that you still don't actually have anything relevant to contribute to the thread then Tony?

 

BillB

 

You know what? It really doesn't matter what I have to say, because I don't have to impress you with my command of chauvinistic claptrap to get a grade.

Edited April 16, 2008 by aevans

[Ariete!]

Ref the bolded bit, ("...scurrilous, unjustified, smirking tone that British-oriented historians I have read since seem to take on all armies bar the Commonwealth ones."), 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

 

I don't have my books here but I am not specifically referring to a single author or work. Rather, the general and indeed unfailing sense, over a few dozen treatments of (aspects of) WW1 and the post-war treaties, that the Italian effort and specific aspects of it (but even teh overall French conduct of teh war) are generally portrayed in English-language sources (which for me are 90% of waht i read) with a dismissivness, barely concealed ridicule that does not match the facts (or indeed a reasonabel hsitorical detachment).

 

As an example, I've read a couple of semi-scholarly books on Caporetto from the Italian side, one (in translation) from the German-Austrian side. They may or may nto be great hsitories but they were detailed and obviously differed in their narrative but references to it in (admittedly more survey-type) works tend to be super-dismissive (sort of: The Ities just broke and ran, thank god we sent a couple of our divisions to sort them out...).

[BillB]

You know what? It really doesn't matter what I have to say, because I don't have to impress you with my command of chauvinistic claptrap to get a grade.

Well that's an improvement, the first sentence and following clause are absolutely right, altho the rest looks rather like the sour-grapes-I'm-taking-my-ball-home face saving type of comment deployed by those who realise they are out of their depth but lack the courage, wit and manners to simply admit it and bow out gracefully.

 

As for the rest, you're prolly fortunate that you don't need a grade from me, as you have failed to impress and the absolute best you'd get based on your performance in this thread would be an F3 (Poor): "Attainment of intended learning outsomes appreciably deficient in critical respects. Lacks a secure basis in relevant factual and analytical dimensions." I'd be being generous there, mind, and a G (Very Poor) or even an N (No Credit) would be equally justified.

 

Oh, and if I were you I'd get a bag of anti-academic chips on the other shoulder too for balance, I'd hate to see you having to attend a chiropractor in a few years. Now if you've got nothing to contribute apart from vapid ranting and rather patheric ad hominem attacks you'd best dry your eyes and run along and bother someone else with your nonsense.

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

Well that's an improvement, the first sentence and following clause are absolutely right, altho the rest looks rather like the sour-grapes-I'm-taking-my-ball-home face saving type of comment deployed by those who realise they are out of their depth but lack the courage, wit and manners to simply admit it and bow out gracefully.

 

As for the rest, you're prolly fortunate that you don't need a grade from me, as you have failed to impress and the absolute best you'd get based on your performance in this thread would be an F3 (Poor): "Attainment of intended learning outsomes appreciably deficient in critical respects. Lacks a secure basis in relevant factual and analytical dimensions." I'd be being generous there, mind, and a G (Very Poor) or even an N (No Credit) would be equally justified.

 

Oh, and if I were you I'd get a bag of anti-academic chips on the other shoulder too for balance, I'd hate to see you having to attend a chiropractor in a few years. Now if you've got nothing to contribute apart from vapid ranting and rather patheric ad hominem attacks you'd best dry your eyes and run along and bother someone else with your nonsense.

 

BillB

 

Right, Bill. I only graduated Summa Cum Laude. I'm sure I could regurgitate any crud you threw at me and make it look like I even believed it. Lord knows I've done it before.

 

Out here in the real world, things are a bit different. I don't have to impress you, you have to impress me. You don't. It isn't ad hominem, it's fact -- you are a slave to your intellectual prejudices to the point that you don't even have a clue they exist.

[BillB]

Right, Bill. I only graduated Summa Cum Laude. I'm sure I could regurgitate any crud you threw at me and make it look like I even believed it. Lord knows I've done it before.

 

Out here in the real world, things are a bit different. I don't have to impress you, you have to impress me. You don't. It isn't ad hominem, it's fact -- you are a slave to your intellectual prejudices to the point that you don't even have a clue they exist.

How strange, I thought you said this wasn't about your ego, and here you are trying to provoke a my-degree-is-better-than-yours willy waving contest.

 

Having grown up and lived most of my life in what you'd call a project, and having spent more of my working life working on the tools as a tradesman (I hold City and Guilds Craft and Advanced Craft Qualifications with Three Distinctions, by the way) in the construction industry than writing and dabbling in teaching I really don't think I need any lessons from you in how it works in the real world, Tony. But you knew that as I've told you already - I assume your blinkers filtered it out as it doesn't suit your prejudices?

 

Methinks the only one enslaved to their prejudices here would be you, dear boy, and you become more of a text book study of small-man syndrome every time you put fingers to keyboard. What's the matter, didn't some nasty academic acknowledge the All Round Brilliance That Is Tony Evans at some point? Did you fail to cut it in a history course? Poor boy. Grow up, for goodness sake, and if you don't have anything relevant to add stop derailing the thread keep with your pathetic playground nonsense.

 

BillB

[Guest aevans]

How strange...

 

Not that it matters, but I always got As in History.

 

Let me articulate things in a slightly different way. I didn't say you had to impress me because I thought my degree was better than yours. I only have a BS. Can't compare that to a PhD. The point I was making was that society spends a lot of money, both public and private, so that guys like you can do your research and report on it. So the point is that I'm your customer, along with every other non-academic TN member, not your student or really even just another guy on the interwebs. Aside from your surly customer relations approach, you fail to produce a satisfactory product, IMO. That opinion is not for you to criticise. Nor are any of my other opinions, whether you agree with them or not. You don't pay for me. I pay for you. (Maybe not you directly as an individual, but your professional class certainly.)

[Yama]

OK, hows about you provide some evidence to show how you were allegedly fooled then.

 

Well, it was mostly combination of your snarling knee-jerk replies to those who expressed negative opinions on Haig, and your shall we say, "polished" portrayal of Haigs achievments in WW1.

 

First, I didn't say that Haig was irrelevant to the discussion, I said he was only marginally relevant to the point I was making. The two are not the same, altho you appear to be having some difficulty grasping the fact. The salient thrust of the current *British* popular view of WW1 is that it was a pointless, needless and futile conflict carried out by dupes too stupid to realise that they were being exploited by marginally less stupid political and more especially military leaders. Haig occupies only a supporting role in that view, not the central one as you seem to think. Regarding evidence of your unhealthy obsession with Haig, you have reinforced it with this post, it is clear from the way you weighed in with it as the central plank of your "contribution", and it was also clear in the discussion last year you refer to. You may not have started it but you certainly had plenty to say about Haig rather than anything else IIRC;

 

Well globviously; if you remember, said topic was "Another Haig thread". Somewhat surprisingly, it was mostly about Haig.

 

I suspect that your erroneous characterisation of me as a "Haig champion" goes back to then, when ISTR pointing out some flaws in your Haig bashing.

 

Actually I thought my view was pretty balanced compared to more obvious Haig-bashing. I think I clearly stated that some things he was blamed on were beyond his control. My view of the thread is that I only stepped on to counter yours and KingS's somewhat overdone Haig glorification.

 

The fact that an avowedly and deliberately revisionist TV "comedy" Blackadder Goes Forth is being used as a tool to teach WW1 to secondary school pupils looking to qualify for university ought to illustrate the point, but apparently not.

 

Uh, all Blackadder seasons present British PTB's as idiots regardless of era. Aren't you taking this "leftist conspiracy" bit too far?

 

And I continue not to understand how you think pre-1960 critics of British military leadership in WW1 has anything much to do with a point discussing how the work of axe-grinding revisionists in the late 1950s and 1960s has shaped the current popular British view of WW1. That view may well have been around earlier, indeed it can be traced back to British pacifist thinkling and writings in the 1920s, but it only came to widespread prominence in *Britain* from the early 1960s thanks to the efforts of revisionist historians, pacifist playwrights and anti-establishment thinkers.

 

Again, I don't have beef with that, I'm only pointing out that "Lions led by donkeys" myth was not solely product of 1960s leftist writers.

[Rich]

Fascinating thread to read though, always good to get advice on the best reads of a subject not in my forte.

 

Uh, guys? HEY GUYS! (Sorry for shouting, I honestly usually try not to.) As fascinating as the back and forth is could you all drop it and get back to the actual discussion that was interesting? About the various sources and their pitfalls? I was serious in saying that a lot of that background reading is not my forte (okay, I'll fess up, for years I found the Great War boring and the signal to noise ratio in the literature I read wasn't especially high) and even though my time for reading for pleasure is limited I wouldn't mind knowing what might be good ones. And don't mind taking advice from those what has read them?

 

Or at least take it to the Lounge?

[Colin Williams]

So the point is that I'm your customer, along with every other non-academic TN member, not your student or really even just another guy on the interwebs. Aside from your surly customer relations approach, you fail to produce a satisfactory product, IMO. That opinion is not for you to criticise.

 

 

Right now I imagine Bill is looking around for a copy of the old sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[Guest aevans]

Right now I imagine Bill is looking around for a copy of the old sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

 

That's fine -- just as long as he forfeits his academic sallary. The two go together.

Edited April 17, 2008 by aevans

[Colin Williams]

There has been some comment in this thread about how WW1 debates tend to focus on the British in general and Haig in particular. I used to think that this was almost completely due to the fact that Americans are bound to be far more familiar with the English-language histories produced in the UK and its former colonies, with perhaps an extra boost from the professional interest in British and Commonwealth military affairs established by our close alliance in WW2 and afterwards. Thinking about it, I realize that in addition the national historical debates about WW1 have been profoundly influenced by the results of the war and subsequent national history.

 

The Russian and Austro-Hungarian governments disappeared after WW1, and no one from the successor states was inclined to argue against the popular views of Tsarist Army and government incompetence or a Habsburg army barely able to survive its ethnic divisions without German help. Germany was caught up in finding scapegoats for its defeat and then saw its entire history interpreted through the lens of Nazism.

 

For the victorious Allies there seem to have been two patterns of response.

 

The Americans and Italians became embittered soon after the war. The Americans seeing it as a costly overseas endeavor that ended up serving European power politics rather than the idealistic causes cited by Woodrow Wilson. The Italians (at least according to stereotype) were embittered by having fought at great cost for little tangible gain in territory or status.

 

The British and French, by contrast, seem to have passed through much of the 1920s with some sense of accomplishment, albeit at a tremendous cost. With the rise of fascism, a growing threat of war, and extended economic problems, the war began to look like much more of a tragic waste. However, as much as French opinion may have vilified their own generals in retrospect, the fact remained that war with Wilhelmine Germany was much less of a choice for France than it was for Britain, and that war came with an invasion of France itself. In addition, France did not end the war with Joffre or Nivelle at the head of her armies but with Petain and Foch. Petain was known to be careful to avoid casualties, and Foch had the benefit of directing grand strategy only in the year of victory. Finally, the French had to deal later with the consequences of 1940 and could see the problems inherent in a passive defensive stance against a powerful foe. The British, on the other hand, did not have to enter the war, and the nature of their contribution was also open to question. The architect of the slaughters at the Somme and Ypres was in command at the end of the war. WW2 also saw victory, but at a much-reduced cost under the command of generals who seemed to be more competent than their WW1 counterparts. It is scarcely surprising that British historians have fought over the strategic, operational and tactical aspects of WW1 over and over again, with Haig serving as a major focus of debate.

[Brian Kennedy]

Yay, back on topic! Anybody read To Conquer Hell yet? Not especially earth-shattering, but a great summary of an under-studied Great Battle in US history, and pretty critical of Pershing et al (relying on the Cult of the Bayonet several years after it was proven to be suicidal, etc.)

 

Sort of continues the theme that most current US WWII history books present -- that in both wars, US forces made lots of unnecessary rookie mistakes initially (unnecessary because their allies had already made them and learned from them) but learned remarkably quickly from their initial screwups. I wonder if that's valid or just makes for a good narrative...

[Brian Kennedy]

Any thoughts on what would have happened if Foch et al had their way and the US troops were detached to French and British commands? Would they end up as cannon fodder or benefited from the European leaders' experience? Was this have even been acceptable to the US?

[capt_starlight]

Thanks for that, Starlight, but I wasn't trawling for suggestions. I have copies of almost all the works you mention on my shelves, and for the raising of the New Army I think you've missed a couple: Peter Simkins Kitchener's Army: The Raising of the New Armies 1914-1916 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), and John Jackson Private 12768: Memoir of a Tommy (Glos: Tempus, 2005). Agree about Terraine's importance and sorry I don't know of anything about stuff on Plumer and Gough. Despite Yama's unfounded assumption to the contrary, I'm not really big on individual commander studies as I don't think they are as important to the overall topic as they are painted.

 

BillB

 

And thank you for your suggestions.

 

I would also add Frank Richards (aka Francis Phillip Woodruff) DCM MM and his books Good Soldier Sahib and Old Soldiers Never Die. The first is his tales as a pre-war regular in India and the second covers his time on the Western Front from1914 to 1918 as a private in the 2RWF. "Proofing" for both was done by Graves. There is also Dr JC Dunn's The War the Infantry Knew.

 

I find it rather interesting that the number of "prominent" people writing from experience of the Western Front came from the 2RWF - Graves, Richards (Woodruff), Dunn and Sassoon.

 

Prior an Wilson used Rawlinson as a case study in the development of the British expertise over the course of the war....

[capt_starlight]

Uh, all Blackadder seasons present British PTB's as idiots regardless of era. Aren't you taking this "leftist conspiracy" bit too far?

 

Not really - I have had it and similar quoted back to me on an Australian forum yesterday as "shining examples' of what went on. The writer agrred that it was fiction but it must have been based on fact and thereby took it as "gospel". the writer was not a "young lad".

 

Again, I don't have beef with that, I'm only pointing out that "Lions led by donkeys" myth was not solely product of 1960s leftist writers.

 

No - that came about late 1920's when the first rush of unit memorials and personal diaries had run their course. Liddell Hart was amongst the first with Great Captains Unveiled and Reputations Ten Years On. It was in part the reaction to this work that Dunn put his book out. The "school" gained credence over time until by the late 1950's it had become universal. WW2 and Korea, et al did not help - as the scholarship on the Great War stagnated with the "newer" wars attracting the attention. It was Terraine and similar "Young Turks" that stated the re-examination of the of the source documents that began to change around the thinking of historians but the general public is a lot harder.

 

The "revisionists" also ran into the general "anti-war" backlash of the 1960's (one of the reasons it has taken so long to get traction in the general mood). A great exemplar of this is of course Attenborough's Oh! What a Lovely War - more general anti-war than just an expose on the Great War.

 

Note: Edited to correct a few typos

Edited April 18, 2008 by capt_starlight

[Colin Williams]

No - that came about late 1920's when the first rush of unit memorials and personal diaries had run their course. Liddell Hart was amongst the first with Great Captains Unveiled and Reputations Ten Years On. It was in part the reaction to this work that Dunn put his book out. The "school" gained credence over time until by the late 1950's it had become universal. WW2 and Korea, et al did not help - as the scholarship on the Great War stagnated with the "newer" wars attracting the attention. It was Terraine and similar "Young Turks" that stated the re-examination of the of the source documents that began to change around the thinking of historians but the general public is a lot harder.

 

The "revisionists" also ran into the general "anti-war" backlash of the 1960's (one of the reasons it has taken so long to get traction in the general mood). A great exemplar of this is of course Attenborough's Oh! What a Lovely War - more general anti-war than just an expose on the Great War.

 

Note: Edited to correct a few typos

 

Consequently, isn't the real problem these days more with popular misconceptions based on glib media presentations and less with the historical community?

[capt_starlight]

Consequently, isn't the real problem these days more with popular misconceptions based on glib media presentations and less with the historical community?

 

I think you may have answered your own question there - just that there are a few "historians" who cannot see any other perspective as well....

[Colin Williams]

Any thoughts on what would have happened if Foch et al had their way and the US troops were detached to French and British commands? Would they end up as cannon fodder or benefited from the European leaders' experience? Was this have even been acceptable to the US?

 

Actually it was the British who were most eager to deploy American soldiers at company level within Allied divisions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that an objective look at US engagements indicates that US units were most successful deployed as regiments and divisions under French command. Any idea of deploying US forces in smaller groups was a political non-starter and would have severely retarded development of higher level formations. Actions by US corps were mixed, and the Meuse-Argonne effort by the 1st Army under Pershing was a disaster. From what I can tell the combined stress of handling combat operations by green divisions, coordinating actions of their commanding corps and handling the logistics for an entire army was simply too much for the AEF at the time. Things were much better by mid to late October (after Pershing had given up day-to-day control), but I think the Meuse-Argonne action would have been much more successful with a mixed Franco-American force relying on the French to oversee artillery plans and help with logistics.

 

Edit to add: Many of Pershing's subordinates - Hunter Liggett, Bullard and Dickman for example, were first rate generals and had a much better grasp of tactical and operational realities than Pershing.

[philgollin]

........ The British and French, by contrast, seem to have passed through much of the 1920s with some sense of accomplishment, albeit at a tremendous cost. With the rise of fascism, a growing threat of war, and extended economic problems, the war began to look like much more of a tragic waste. ........... ........... The British, on the other hand, did not have to enter the war, and the nature of their contribution was also open to question. The architect of the slaughters at the Somme and Ypres was in command at the end of the war. WW2 also saw victory, but at a much-reduced cost under the command of generals who seemed to be more competent than their WW1 counterparts. It is scarcely surprising that British historians have fought over the strategic, operational and tactical aspects of WW1 over and over again, with Haig serving as a major focus of debate.

 

It is more than arguable that the "backlash" against WW1 started much earlier, in the early 20s. The losses of WW1 were quite traumatic, both the scale and the fact that they were spread over all the country. In sheer drudgery and horrors of the trenches were very effectively spread through the photographs, silent movies, memoirs and even poetry - the effects of gas and shell-shock as well as the effect of "the loss of a generation" of young men had an effect on society at all levels. Emotive responses were found throughout society whether they had personal experience of the trenches or not. The pacifist movement took off very quickly. Remember, even the army ended up with a sincere belief that the losses were excessive.

 

.

[Ken Estes]

.... The point I was making was that society spends a lot of money, both public and private, so that guys like you can do your research and report on it. ....

I was wondering when you would finally come clean with your prejudices. Pray tell, is there a whit of evidence that "society [huh?] spends a lot of money, both public and private" on history? At least, compared to animal control, that is? Perhaps you intend to lump all university research into the pot? You'd have great difficulties, even with all your evident skills, finding anything to support your charge, as you have formed it.

[Guest aevans]

I was wondering when you would finally come clean with your prejudices. Pray tell, is there a whit of evidence that "society [huh?] spends a lot of money, both public and private" on history? At least, compared to animal control, that is? Perhaps you intend to lump all university research into the pot? You'd have great difficulties, even with all your evident skills, finding anything to support your charge, as you have formed it.

 

Where does the money come from, Ken? Tax money, endowments, grants, tuition, book sales, etc. Maybe academic sallaries whould be greater in the opinion of some people, and research money more freely given, but academics aren't exactly starving artists. It all ads up, and it is a lot of money. Maybe not as much as you want, but it ain't chicken feed.