By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 01:10 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
You are a WW1 buff then? Read a lot of books? Me too. Fascinating and yet bloodily futile existence. But over 100+ years we have lost some of the connections which explain how the carnage was allowed to happen. Much of the recent writing (since Alan Clark in 1961) speaks of donkey generals and their exploitation and sacrifice of the millions of reluctant soldiers. But at the time it was a patriotic response to enlist and although they knew not of the mechanised death they were to face, it was the honourable thing to volunteer. Max Hastings is revisiting this period now, and is a masterful historian.
Most of the books and memoirs from WW1 were published in the period ten years after the war ended. There was not the appetite for such accounts immediately following the Armistice and, to be fair, a lot of the writers could not bring themselves to recount it for some years. In the 20s and 30s a lot these were simply reportage, as in ' I was there and this is what I did'. "Twelve Days on the Somme", by Sidney Rogerson, is good example of a relatively stoic account. But political thinking was also deeply affected, obviously, hence 'war to end all wars' and appeasement.
I didn't discriminate between pre-1915 and the other 3 years of the war. It is true that trench photos of the injured and shattered corpses were censored, seized and destroyed by the Army command. Even the Imperial War Museum admits as much. The decimation threats were passed down by word of mouth, obviously not in writing. There is some dispute about how widespread that was. Probably limited to some hothead divisional commanders, but it happened and has been alleged in histories. Nevertheless, top Army command were expressing their extreme anger within a day of two of the events, and that anger was swiftly passed down. It is significant there were never any more such events like the 1914 Christmas truce.
edit to add: After Christmas 1914, whenever subsequent significant dates came up that might indicate an increased risk of fraternisation, the top brass usually arranged an extensive artillery barrage of the Germans' trenches to keep everyone's heads down. This usually included the Good Friday-Easter Sunday period as well as Christmas-New Year in case religious zeal seized their thoughts.
Tell me, when you look at the standard WW1 text books, why do you see the same pictures again and again? Why is the same film of a soldier carrying his wounded mate over his shoulders through the trench the image of the Somme? And the explosion of the mine at Hawthorn Ridge ever present? Because they are part of the official Army film. And they are the best quality we have. But other than that, apart from official film and photos, much else was caught by the censorship. I have seen a few of the worst of the rest, from unofficial soldiers' sources, including half of a chap cut vertically in two by shrapnel from head to groin sitting on a fire step. But considering that was much more likely than a clean death from a bullet through the head there is very little such material still extant. It is likely that Tommies would be keener on photos of enemy dead than their mates, I agree. I suppose a visit to the IWM would ratify the extent, but that is too far and ghoulish for me.
"Official war photographers had no qualms about taking such pictures and indeed the official 1916 film of the 1st day of the battle of the Somme had shots of the dead and injured and that was seen by 20 million people just a few months after the event."
I am afraid that statement is somewhat misleading as well. While there was some footage shot on the 1st July, mainly of preparations, key sequences of the attack shown in newsreels in the cinemas at home were a reconstruction. The scenes of going over the top were filmed a week of so later, in trench areas already captured. Although some of it was staged after the event, the recovery of casualties and retreat to the trenches was real. But there was not much footage shown of the carnage in no man's land or up against the German wire. The cameras they used were just too heavy and bulky to get forward with, they needed tripods. Surely you know about this ? See the link on the film.
"The truth is that soldiers self censored their own letters home as they didn't want their families to know the truth about the danger they were facing."
That, I accept, is perfectly valid. This was largely a civilian volunteer army from 1916 whose thoughts were always turned to home. However, there were guidelines as to what to write about. Yes, of course casualty lists were in newspapers. Often phrased in terms of our glorious dead. They were biased towards officers in the nationals. But papers like the Bury Times covered all ranks including a young private who lived in the house I now own. They were perhaps the one focus that could have led to protest but society was not like that. It was very subservient.
I did not say that people were uninformed, but the information they were given of casualties was scanty and with no possibility to find the truth of the circumstances. They could have benefited from the platoon officers' duty to write a short letter home to relatives. Occasionally, later, they might receive visits from close comrades home on leave. Both the officers' letters and their comrades accounts would tend towards kindness and decency, stressing a merciful death with little suffering, no matter the truth. Officially, they simply got a telegram, Killed or Missing or Died of Wounds (which was actually the worst, since it implied suffering). Even families of soldiers shot for desertion were often told they were KIA.
What is your family experience? Your in-depth interest suggests you have some deep family connection. My great uncle, aged 20, disappeared on the Somme on 8th July 1916 between Contalmaison and Mametz Wood in a catastrophic frontal attack by the 2nd Manchesters. The details have only just been discovered. No-one in the family knew, for decades, much other than he was gone, they did not know how to enquire. He was lost in history, no known grave, presumably a field grave or more likely just chopped up and dissolved into the mud. His name is simply one listed on a panel on the Thiepval Memorial, amongst 72,194 of his countrymen lost in the battle, all of them with no known grave.
That is one of the main legacies of WW1; the people never truly unquestioningly accepted their lot again, due to the callous nature of the establishment in their inability to deal with the huge number of casualties. I think the Tower of London poppies installation has been very profound in bringing an understanding of the scale of the disaster into today.
Edit to add: Like you, I try and take a realistic view. I am not a 'Blackadder' adherent although the comedy is grimly apposite. And many of the mistakes made in 1914-1916 were learned from, so that by 1918 the British Army was one of the most well-organised and tactically wise of any. But it did not stop the generals viewing them as numbers to be expended, as required in table-top battles. Attrition was the strategy and that did not change. For that, the conduct of the war deserves its reputation.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 0:03]
As to the practice of decimation, it can be proven that it did actually occur in one notorious incident in the French Army very early in the war and there are rumours of other events later in the war (during the extensive French Army mutiny of 1917) . The victims of the first instance of this practice were soldiers of the 10eme Compagnie of 8 Battalion of the Régiment Mixte de Tirailleurs Algériens. During the retreat at the beginning of the war these French-African soldiers refused an order to attack. They were shot on the 15th of December 1914 near Zillebeeke in Flanders. In the whole war in the French army more than 600 soldiers were put to death.
Zillebeeke is about 1 mile SE of Ypres. The scattering of Christmas truces took place around Ypres and as far south as Ploegsteert which is 10 miles S of Ypres. Therefore, it is quite likely that British Army commanders could have heard of this extreme French disciplinary action.
In total British court martials had 306 soldiers shot at dawn. Among them were 25 Canadians, 22 Irishmen and 5 New-Zealanders.
Australia was the only country that did not want its soldiers (all volunteers) to be executed. The 129 Australians (including 119 deserters) that were sentenced to death during the war (117 in France) were not shot.
Between April 1917 and November 1918 American court-martials sentenced 24 American deserters to death. None was actually shot. Stragglers and deserters were often publicly humiliated.
From the German army about 150,000 soldiers deserted. Most of them fled to the neutral Netherlands and to Denmark and Switzerland. From those who got caught, no more than 18 were executed (compare this to the 10,000 deserters Germany shot in WW2)
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 01:10 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
You are a WW1 buff then? Read a lot of books? Me too. Fascinating and yet bloodily futile existence. But over 100+ years we have lost some of the connections which explain how the carnage was allowed to happen. Much of the recent writing (since Alan Clark in 1961) speaks of donkey generals and their exploitation and sacrifice of the millions of reluctant soldiers. But at the time it was a patriotic response to enlist and although they knew not of the mechanised death they were to face, it was the honourable thing to volunteer. Max Hastings is revisiting this period now, and is a masterful historian.
Most of the books and memoirs from WW1 were published in the period ten years after the war ended. There was not the appetite for such accounts immediately following the Armistice and, to be fair, a lot of the writers could not bring themselves to recount it for some years. In the 20s and 30s a lot these were simply reportage, as in ' I was there and this is what I did'. "Twelve Days on the Somme", by Sidney Rogerson, is good example of a relatively stoic account. But political thinking was also deeply affected, obviously, hence 'war to end all wars' and appeasement.
I didn't discriminate between pre-1915 and the other 3 years of the war. It is true that trench photos of the injured and shattered corpses were censored, seized and destroyed by the Army command. Even the Imperial War Museum admits as much. The decimation threats were passed down by word of mouth, obviously not in writing. There is some dispute about how widespread that was. Probably limited to some hothead divisional commanders, but it happened and has been alleged in histories. Nevertheless, top Army command were expressing their extreme anger within a day of two of the events, and that anger was swiftly passed down. It is significant there were never any more such events like the 1914 Christmas truce.
edit to add: After Christmas 1914, whenever subsequent significant dates came up that might indicate an increased risk of fraternisation, the top brass usually arranged an extensive artillery barrage of the Germans' trenches to keep everyone's heads down. This usually included the Good Friday-Easter Sunday period as well as Christmas-New Year in case religious zeal seized their thoughts.
Tell me, when you look at the standard WW1 text books, why do you see the same pictures again and again? Why is the same film of a soldier carrying his wounded mate over his shoulders through the trench the image of the Somme? And the explosion of the mine at Hawthorn Ridge ever present? Because they are part of the official Army film. And they are the best quality we have. But other than that, apart from official film and photos, much else was caught by the censorship. I have seen a few of the worst of the rest, from unofficial soldiers' sources, including half of a chap cut vertically in two by shrapnel from head to groin sitting on a fire step. But considering that was much more likely than a clean death from a bullet through the head there is very little such material still extant. It is likely that Tommies would be keener on photos of enemy dead than their mates, I agree. I suppose a visit to the IWM would ratify the extent, but that is too far and ghoulish for me.
"Official war photographers had no qualms about taking such pictures and indeed the official 1916 film of the 1st day of the battle of the Somme had shots of the dead and injured and that was seen by 20 million people just a few months after the event."
I am afraid that statement is somewhat misleading as well. While there was some footage shot on the 1st July, mainly of preparations, key sequences of the attack shown in newsreels in the cinemas at home were a reconstruction. The scenes of going over the top were filmed a week of so later, in trench areas already captured. Although some of it was staged after the event, the recovery of casualties and retreat to the trenches was real. But there was not much footage shown of the carnage in no man's land or up against the German wire. The cameras they used were just too heavy and bulky to get forward with, they needed tripods. Surely you know about this ? See the link on the film.
"The truth is that soldiers self censored their own letters home as they didn't want their families to know the truth about the danger they were facing."
That, I accept, is perfectly valid. This was largely a civilian volunteer army from 1916 whose thoughts were always turned to home. However, there were guidelines as to what to write about. Yes, of course casualty lists were in newspapers. Often phrased in terms of our glorious dead. They were biased towards officers in the nationals. But papers like the Bury Times covered all ranks including a young private who lived in the house I now own. They were perhaps the one focus that could have led to protest but society was not like that. It was very subservient.
I did not say that people were uninformed, but the information they were given of casualties was scanty and with no possibility to find the truth of the circumstances. They could have benefited from the platoon officers' duty to write a short letter home to relatives. Occasionally, later, they might receive visits from close comrades home on leave. Both the officers' letters and their comrades accounts would tend towards kindness and decency, stressing a merciful death with little suffering, no matter the truth. Officially, they simply got a telegram, Killed or Missing or Died of Wounds (which was actually the worst, since it implied suffering). Even families of soldiers shot for desertion were often told they were KIA.
What is your family experience? Your in-depth interest suggests you have some deep family connection. My great uncle, aged 20, disappeared on the Somme on 8th July 1916 between Contalmaison and Mametz Wood in a catastrophic frontal attack by the 2nd Manchesters. The details have only just been discovered. No-one in the family knew, for decades, much other than he was gone, they did not know how to enquire. He was lost in history, no known grave, presumably a field grave or more likely just chopped up and dissolved into the mud. His name is simply one listed on a panel on the Thiepval Memorial, amongst 72,194 of his countrymen lost in the battle, all of them with no known grave.
That is one of the main legacies of WW1; the people never truly unquestioningly accepted their lot again, due to the callous nature of the establishment in their inability to deal with the huge number of casualties. I think the Tower of London poppies installation has been very profound in bringing an understanding of the scale of the disaster into today.
Edit to add: Like you, I try and take a realistic view. I am not a 'Blackadder' adherent although the comedy is grimly apposite. And many of the mistakes made in 1914-1916 were learned from, so that by 1918 the British Army was one of the most well-organised and tactically wise of any. But it did not stop the generals viewing them as numbers to be expended, as required in table-top battles. Attrition was the strategy and that did not change. For that, the conduct of the war deserves its reputation.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 0:03]
I don't intend to enter a discussion between Ribble and AK who both seem to have an excellent, although it seems differing, view of the Western Front.
It does strike me somewhat that when people talk about the first world war it is nearly always about the Western Front, sometimes Gallipoli, occasionally the Italian/Austrian front but rarely does the war in Mesopotamia get a mention. Anyone interested in this theatre of the first world war should look at the siege of Kut Al Amora in 1915 and the aftermath when 30,000 British and Indian troups were killed or wounded and 13,000 were taken prisoner. The survivors of the seige were marched from Kut (Southern Iraq) to Aleppo (Northern Syria) about 650 miles, 50% of the Indians and 70% of the Brits were lost due to ill treatment by their captors or due to disease.
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 01:10 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
You are a WW1 buff then? Read a lot of books? Me too. Fascinating and yet bloodily futile existence. But over 100+ years we have lost some of the connections which explain how the carnage was allowed to happen. Much of the recent writing (since Alan Clark in 1961) speaks of donkey generals and their exploitation and sacrifice of the millions of reluctant soldiers. But at the time it was a patriotic response to enlist and although they knew not of the mechanised death they were to face, it was the honourable thing to volunteer. Max Hastings is revisiting this period now, and is a masterful historian.
Most of the books and memoirs from WW1 were published in the period ten years after the war ended. There was not the appetite for such accounts immediately following the Armistice and, to be fair, a lot of the writers could not bring themselves to recount it for some years. In the 20s and 30s a lot these were simply reportage, as in ' I was there and this is what I did'. "Twelve Days on the Somme", by Sidney Rogerson, is good example of a relatively stoic account. But political thinking was also deeply affected, obviously, hence 'war to end all wars' and appeasement.
I didn't discriminate between pre-1915 and the other 3 years of the war. It is true that trench photos of the injured and shattered corpses were censored, seized and destroyed by the Army command. Even the Imperial War Museum admits as much. The decimation threats were passed down by word of mouth, obviously not in writing. There is some dispute about how widespread that was. Probably limited to some hothead divisional commanders, but it happened and has been alleged in histories. Nevertheless, top Army command were expressing their extreme anger within a day of two of the events, and that anger was swiftly passed down. It is significant there were never any more such events like the 1914 Christmas truce.
edit to add: After Christmas 1914, whenever subsequent significant dates came up that might indicate an increased risk of fraternisation, the top brass usually arranged an extensive artillery barrage of the Germans' trenches to keep everyone's heads down. This usually included the Good Friday-Easter Sunday period as well as Christmas-New Year in case religious zeal seized their thoughts.
Tell me, when you look at the standard WW1 text books, why do you see the same pictures again and again? Why is the same film of a soldier carrying his wounded mate over his shoulders through the trench the image of the Somme? And the explosion of the mine at Hawthorn Ridge ever present? Because they are part of the official Army film. And they are the best quality we have. But other than that, apart from official film and photos, much else was caught by the censorship. I have seen a few of the worst of the rest, from unofficial soldiers' sources, including half of a chap cut vertically in two by shrapnel from head to groin sitting on a fire step. But considering that was much more likely than a clean death from a bullet through the head there is very little such material still extant. It is likely that Tommies would be keener on photos of enemy dead than their mates, I agree. I suppose a visit to the IWM would ratify the extent, but that is too far and ghoulish for me.
"Official war photographers had no qualms about taking such pictures and indeed the official 1916 film of the 1st day of the battle of the Somme had shots of the dead and injured and that was seen by 20 million people just a few months after the event."
I am afraid that statement is somewhat misleading as well. While there was some footage shot on the 1st July, mainly of preparations, key sequences of the attack shown in newsreels in the cinemas at home were a reconstruction. The scenes of going over the top were filmed a week of so later, in trench areas already captured. Although some of it was staged after the event, the recovery of casualties and retreat to the trenches was real. But there was not much footage shown of the carnage in no man's land or up against the German wire. The cameras they used were just too heavy and bulky to get forward with, they needed tripods. Surely you know about this ? See the link on the film.
"The truth is that soldiers self censored their own letters home as they didn't want their families to know the truth about the danger they were facing."
That, I accept, is perfectly valid. This was largely a civilian volunteer army from 1916 whose thoughts were always turned to home. However, there were guidelines as to what to write about. Yes, of course casualty lists were in newspapers. Often phrased in terms of our glorious dead. They were biased towards officers in the nationals. But papers like the Bury Times covered all ranks including a young private who lived in the house I now own. They were perhaps the one focus that could have led to protest but society was not like that. It was very subservient.
I did not say that people were uninformed, but the information they were given of casualties was scanty and with no possibility to find the truth of the circumstances. They could have benefited from the platoon officers' duty to write a short letter home to relatives. Occasionally, later, they might receive visits from close comrades home on leave. Both the officers' letters and their comrades accounts would tend towards kindness and decency, stressing a merciful death with little suffering, no matter the truth. Officially, they simply got a telegram, Killed or Missing or Died of Wounds (which was actually the worst, since it implied suffering). Even families of soldiers shot for desertion were often told they were KIA.
What is your family experience? Your in-depth interest suggests you have some deep family connection. My great uncle, aged 20, disappeared on the Somme on 8th July 1916 between Contalmaison and Mametz Wood in a catastrophic frontal attack by the 2nd Manchesters. The details have only just been discovered. No-one in the family knew, for decades, much other than he was gone, they did not know how to enquire. He was lost in history, no known grave, presumably a field grave or more likely just chopped up and dissolved into the mud. His name is simply one listed on a panel on the Thiepval Memorial, amongst 72,194 of his countrymen lost in the battle, all of them with no known grave.
That is one of the main legacies of WW1; the people never truly unquestioningly accepted their lot again, due to the callous nature of the establishment in their inability to deal with the huge number of casualties. I think the Tower of London poppies installation has been very profound in bringing an understanding of the scale of the disaster into today.
Edit to add: Like you, I try and take a realistic view. I am not a 'Blackadder' adherent although the comedy is grimly apposite. And many of the mistakes made in 1914-1916 were learned from, so that by 1918 the British Army was one of the most well-organised and tactically wise of any. But it did not stop the generals viewing them as numbers to be expended, as required in table-top battles. Attrition was the strategy and that did not change. For that, the conduct of the war deserves its reputation.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 0:03]
I'm reading a book on WW1 at moment which has references on the Christmas truce. What I didn't realise was how many German soldiers were actually immigrants who had left England at the outbreak of war. There is one comment from a Tommy who said it was strange talking to a German soldier who had Cockney accent. Another Tommy relates how the Germans showed them their trench and he made a mental note of gun emplacements and sniper positions and thought 'I'll have them when the truce is over.
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 17:36 - Nov 23 with 1495 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 01:10 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
You are a WW1 buff then? Read a lot of books? Me too. Fascinating and yet bloodily futile existence. But over 100+ years we have lost some of the connections which explain how the carnage was allowed to happen. Much of the recent writing (since Alan Clark in 1961) speaks of donkey generals and their exploitation and sacrifice of the millions of reluctant soldiers. But at the time it was a patriotic response to enlist and although they knew not of the mechanised death they were to face, it was the honourable thing to volunteer. Max Hastings is revisiting this period now, and is a masterful historian.
Most of the books and memoirs from WW1 were published in the period ten years after the war ended. There was not the appetite for such accounts immediately following the Armistice and, to be fair, a lot of the writers could not bring themselves to recount it for some years. In the 20s and 30s a lot these were simply reportage, as in ' I was there and this is what I did'. "Twelve Days on the Somme", by Sidney Rogerson, is good example of a relatively stoic account. But political thinking was also deeply affected, obviously, hence 'war to end all wars' and appeasement.
I didn't discriminate between pre-1915 and the other 3 years of the war. It is true that trench photos of the injured and shattered corpses were censored, seized and destroyed by the Army command. Even the Imperial War Museum admits as much. The decimation threats were passed down by word of mouth, obviously not in writing. There is some dispute about how widespread that was. Probably limited to some hothead divisional commanders, but it happened and has been alleged in histories. Nevertheless, top Army command were expressing their extreme anger within a day of two of the events, and that anger was swiftly passed down. It is significant there were never any more such events like the 1914 Christmas truce.
edit to add: After Christmas 1914, whenever subsequent significant dates came up that might indicate an increased risk of fraternisation, the top brass usually arranged an extensive artillery barrage of the Germans' trenches to keep everyone's heads down. This usually included the Good Friday-Easter Sunday period as well as Christmas-New Year in case religious zeal seized their thoughts.
Tell me, when you look at the standard WW1 text books, why do you see the same pictures again and again? Why is the same film of a soldier carrying his wounded mate over his shoulders through the trench the image of the Somme? And the explosion of the mine at Hawthorn Ridge ever present? Because they are part of the official Army film. And they are the best quality we have. But other than that, apart from official film and photos, much else was caught by the censorship. I have seen a few of the worst of the rest, from unofficial soldiers' sources, including half of a chap cut vertically in two by shrapnel from head to groin sitting on a fire step. But considering that was much more likely than a clean death from a bullet through the head there is very little such material still extant. It is likely that Tommies would be keener on photos of enemy dead than their mates, I agree. I suppose a visit to the IWM would ratify the extent, but that is too far and ghoulish for me.
"Official war photographers had no qualms about taking such pictures and indeed the official 1916 film of the 1st day of the battle of the Somme had shots of the dead and injured and that was seen by 20 million people just a few months after the event."
I am afraid that statement is somewhat misleading as well. While there was some footage shot on the 1st July, mainly of preparations, key sequences of the attack shown in newsreels in the cinemas at home were a reconstruction. The scenes of going over the top were filmed a week of so later, in trench areas already captured. Although some of it was staged after the event, the recovery of casualties and retreat to the trenches was real. But there was not much footage shown of the carnage in no man's land or up against the German wire. The cameras they used were just too heavy and bulky to get forward with, they needed tripods. Surely you know about this ? See the link on the film.
"The truth is that soldiers self censored their own letters home as they didn't want their families to know the truth about the danger they were facing."
That, I accept, is perfectly valid. This was largely a civilian volunteer army from 1916 whose thoughts were always turned to home. However, there were guidelines as to what to write about. Yes, of course casualty lists were in newspapers. Often phrased in terms of our glorious dead. They were biased towards officers in the nationals. But papers like the Bury Times covered all ranks including a young private who lived in the house I now own. They were perhaps the one focus that could have led to protest but society was not like that. It was very subservient.
I did not say that people were uninformed, but the information they were given of casualties was scanty and with no possibility to find the truth of the circumstances. They could have benefited from the platoon officers' duty to write a short letter home to relatives. Occasionally, later, they might receive visits from close comrades home on leave. Both the officers' letters and their comrades accounts would tend towards kindness and decency, stressing a merciful death with little suffering, no matter the truth. Officially, they simply got a telegram, Killed or Missing or Died of Wounds (which was actually the worst, since it implied suffering). Even families of soldiers shot for desertion were often told they were KIA.
What is your family experience? Your in-depth interest suggests you have some deep family connection. My great uncle, aged 20, disappeared on the Somme on 8th July 1916 between Contalmaison and Mametz Wood in a catastrophic frontal attack by the 2nd Manchesters. The details have only just been discovered. No-one in the family knew, for decades, much other than he was gone, they did not know how to enquire. He was lost in history, no known grave, presumably a field grave or more likely just chopped up and dissolved into the mud. His name is simply one listed on a panel on the Thiepval Memorial, amongst 72,194 of his countrymen lost in the battle, all of them with no known grave.
That is one of the main legacies of WW1; the people never truly unquestioningly accepted their lot again, due to the callous nature of the establishment in their inability to deal with the huge number of casualties. I think the Tower of London poppies installation has been very profound in bringing an understanding of the scale of the disaster into today.
Edit to add: Like you, I try and take a realistic view. I am not a 'Blackadder' adherent although the comedy is grimly apposite. And many of the mistakes made in 1914-1916 were learned from, so that by 1918 the British Army was one of the most well-organised and tactically wise of any. But it did not stop the generals viewing them as numbers to be expended, as required in table-top battles. Attrition was the strategy and that did not change. For that, the conduct of the war deserves its reputation.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 0:03]
ArchibaldKnox, tangerinemoss, ribble,
I can admit to an interest in; "What life was like in the trenches, both German and Allies." However, I admit to only a layman's interest with the ability to think laterally, whatever that might mean.
I have read various accounts which made me wonder what the truth was.
Here is a piece I read recently which I share with you. ArchibaldKnox and ribble debate the truth. What really happened? I know not, I tend to side with ArchibaldKnox though by 60 : 40. Whatever is the truth, here is one I throw out for debate. Once the soldiers were in there and they saw what was going on, then how did the High Command (of both sides) stop them from running? I wonder?
Here is that piece : The Trench - life and death on the Western Front 1914-18, by Trevor Yorke, published in 2014.
Christmas 1914 and Unofficial Truces :
"Away from the busiest sectors of the Western Front unofficial truces between British and German troops were not uncommon early in the conflict. Sometimes they were called so that both sides could enter No Man's Land and retrieve their dead and wounded. The most famous of these truces took place in the days around Christmas 1914 at numerous points along the front. Soldiers began singing carols or shouting greetings at each other from their trenches until some plucked up the courage to step into No Man's Land. Gifts of food, alcohol or tobacco were exchanged, stories told, souvenirs taken and in a few locations a game of football took place. Despite several of the thousands who took part going before a court - martial, a similar attempt was tried by some in 1915. But attitudes towards the enemy were changing and only a few exchanges probably took place. By 1916, after regular poison gas attacks and the massacre at the Somme, any sort of truce seemed inappropriate with an enemy now viewed by many as sub human. The approach in many quiet sectors of 'live and let live,' whereby troops deliberately aimed fire at precise points at regular times so the enemy could avoid being injured, probably continued throughout most of the war."
So there you have it ribble. ....."going before a court martial" Just what does that mean in real terms? I wonder.
To Archibaldknox and ribble, I have gained knowledge from reading both your posts. My response is simply; I just wondered what must of gone on?
My "black" amusement, at young 'marketing and advertising executives,' of Sainsburys knocking together this advert is thus revealed! "Here is some rum lads."
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 19:16 - Nov 23 with 1482 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 01:10 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
You are a WW1 buff then? Read a lot of books? Me too. Fascinating and yet bloodily futile existence. But over 100+ years we have lost some of the connections which explain how the carnage was allowed to happen. Much of the recent writing (since Alan Clark in 1961) speaks of donkey generals and their exploitation and sacrifice of the millions of reluctant soldiers. But at the time it was a patriotic response to enlist and although they knew not of the mechanised death they were to face, it was the honourable thing to volunteer. Max Hastings is revisiting this period now, and is a masterful historian.
Most of the books and memoirs from WW1 were published in the period ten years after the war ended. There was not the appetite for such accounts immediately following the Armistice and, to be fair, a lot of the writers could not bring themselves to recount it for some years. In the 20s and 30s a lot these were simply reportage, as in ' I was there and this is what I did'. "Twelve Days on the Somme", by Sidney Rogerson, is good example of a relatively stoic account. But political thinking was also deeply affected, obviously, hence 'war to end all wars' and appeasement.
I didn't discriminate between pre-1915 and the other 3 years of the war. It is true that trench photos of the injured and shattered corpses were censored, seized and destroyed by the Army command. Even the Imperial War Museum admits as much. The decimation threats were passed down by word of mouth, obviously not in writing. There is some dispute about how widespread that was. Probably limited to some hothead divisional commanders, but it happened and has been alleged in histories. Nevertheless, top Army command were expressing their extreme anger within a day of two of the events, and that anger was swiftly passed down. It is significant there were never any more such events like the 1914 Christmas truce.
edit to add: After Christmas 1914, whenever subsequent significant dates came up that might indicate an increased risk of fraternisation, the top brass usually arranged an extensive artillery barrage of the Germans' trenches to keep everyone's heads down. This usually included the Good Friday-Easter Sunday period as well as Christmas-New Year in case religious zeal seized their thoughts.
Tell me, when you look at the standard WW1 text books, why do you see the same pictures again and again? Why is the same film of a soldier carrying his wounded mate over his shoulders through the trench the image of the Somme? And the explosion of the mine at Hawthorn Ridge ever present? Because they are part of the official Army film. And they are the best quality we have. But other than that, apart from official film and photos, much else was caught by the censorship. I have seen a few of the worst of the rest, from unofficial soldiers' sources, including half of a chap cut vertically in two by shrapnel from head to groin sitting on a fire step. But considering that was much more likely than a clean death from a bullet through the head there is very little such material still extant. It is likely that Tommies would be keener on photos of enemy dead than their mates, I agree. I suppose a visit to the IWM would ratify the extent, but that is too far and ghoulish for me.
"Official war photographers had no qualms about taking such pictures and indeed the official 1916 film of the 1st day of the battle of the Somme had shots of the dead and injured and that was seen by 20 million people just a few months after the event."
I am afraid that statement is somewhat misleading as well. While there was some footage shot on the 1st July, mainly of preparations, key sequences of the attack shown in newsreels in the cinemas at home were a reconstruction. The scenes of going over the top were filmed a week of so later, in trench areas already captured. Although some of it was staged after the event, the recovery of casualties and retreat to the trenches was real. But there was not much footage shown of the carnage in no man's land or up against the German wire. The cameras they used were just too heavy and bulky to get forward with, they needed tripods. Surely you know about this ? See the link on the film.
"The truth is that soldiers self censored their own letters home as they didn't want their families to know the truth about the danger they were facing."
That, I accept, is perfectly valid. This was largely a civilian volunteer army from 1916 whose thoughts were always turned to home. However, there were guidelines as to what to write about. Yes, of course casualty lists were in newspapers. Often phrased in terms of our glorious dead. They were biased towards officers in the nationals. But papers like the Bury Times covered all ranks including a young private who lived in the house I now own. They were perhaps the one focus that could have led to protest but society was not like that. It was very subservient.
I did not say that people were uninformed, but the information they were given of casualties was scanty and with no possibility to find the truth of the circumstances. They could have benefited from the platoon officers' duty to write a short letter home to relatives. Occasionally, later, they might receive visits from close comrades home on leave. Both the officers' letters and their comrades accounts would tend towards kindness and decency, stressing a merciful death with little suffering, no matter the truth. Officially, they simply got a telegram, Killed or Missing or Died of Wounds (which was actually the worst, since it implied suffering). Even families of soldiers shot for desertion were often told they were KIA.
What is your family experience? Your in-depth interest suggests you have some deep family connection. My great uncle, aged 20, disappeared on the Somme on 8th July 1916 between Contalmaison and Mametz Wood in a catastrophic frontal attack by the 2nd Manchesters. The details have only just been discovered. No-one in the family knew, for decades, much other than he was gone, they did not know how to enquire. He was lost in history, no known grave, presumably a field grave or more likely just chopped up and dissolved into the mud. His name is simply one listed on a panel on the Thiepval Memorial, amongst 72,194 of his countrymen lost in the battle, all of them with no known grave.
That is one of the main legacies of WW1; the people never truly unquestioningly accepted their lot again, due to the callous nature of the establishment in their inability to deal with the huge number of casualties. I think the Tower of London poppies installation has been very profound in bringing an understanding of the scale of the disaster into today.
Edit to add: Like you, I try and take a realistic view. I am not a 'Blackadder' adherent although the comedy is grimly apposite. And many of the mistakes made in 1914-1916 were learned from, so that by 1918 the British Army was one of the most well-organised and tactically wise of any. But it did not stop the generals viewing them as numbers to be expended, as required in table-top battles. Attrition was the strategy and that did not change. For that, the conduct of the war deserves its reputation.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 0:03]
Archie
Yes, I’m a WW1 buff. We obviously share similar passions, or at least two.
My interest in the Great War started in my teens and as I’m now edging towards my middle fifties I can say that WW1 has been a longstanding obsession. It was triggered by the discovery that two of my Great Uncles fought in the war. One joined up in August 1914 aged 16, was sent to France in 1915 and fought with the 1st Royal West Kents on the Somme, at Messines, Vimy Ridge and the Ypres Salient until his capture, badly wounded, on 23 October 1917 near Gheluvelt. He’d been part of a disastrous action which saw two whole companies wiped out in a matter of hours. His family was informed that he had been KIA only to discover on Christmas Eve, 1917 that he was actually still alive. He spent the rest of the war in POW camps in Belgium and Germany. My other Great Uncle was attested into the Cheshire Yeomanry in 1915 but was transferred to the infantry on his arrival in France in October 1916, just in time for the final few weeks of the Battle of the Somme. He eventually became a 2nd Lieutenant in the 2nd South Lancashires and only survived the near decimation of his Battalion on the first day of the March Offensive of 1918 because, as a new Officer, he had been held back from front line duty. He also survived the war.
I still say that you’re slightly overplaying it regarding the control exercised by the Army and the Coalition Government. Yes, the Somme film was censored but it was (considering the time) quite remarkable in some of the scenes shown. Some were staged, of that there is no doubt, but that does not detract from the fact that death was being depicted. Whether it was always real or not is to miss the point. For the audience it was real enough. Footage of live WW1 operations is rare, of course, which is why we see the same scenes being shown time after time — although I sometimes feel this is somewhat down to editors (especially news editors) lazily reaching for stock footage. But to put this rarity down to censorship or control is to overlook the difficulties in shooting such footage in the first place. Malins showed not inconsiderable bravery in filming from the front line using heavy, immobile and expensive equipment and clearly he could only have done so with official support, which was granted when he needed it - two more films were shot after ‘Somme’. Malins and McDowell were at the forefront of front line filming. No-one else was really in the game so the amount of footage is limited by the simple fact that there were very few prepared to take the risk to obtain it. This was pioneering stuff.
As for photographs, the IWM holds thousands upon thousands of WW1 images. Of these perhaps a few hundred have become ‘classic’ shots which get repeatedly used by publishers - not because of ‘establishment’ censorship at the time they were taken, but because they have become iconic images of the war the accompanying text is describing. I’m sure you’re right in saying that cameras were confiscated and film destroyed but that in itself does not explained why we see the image of the 1st Lancashire Fusiliers in the Sunken Lane in front of Beaumont Hamel so many times. We see it again and again because it’s a haunting image of men about to go into an action from which most did not return. It sends a shiver down my spine every time I see it.
And remember too that journalists had pretty much a free reign to report what they wished, in stark contrast to later conflicts. Was it not The Times which nearly brought down the government with its revelations of the poor quality and quantity of the heavy gun ammunition used at Loos? Many nationals continued to regularly criticise the performance of both the Coalition and the General Staff throughout the course of the war, far more than they were permitted to do in WW2.
But you’re right about the 1914-18 war fundamentally shifting the public’s perceptions of authority and never again would it flock to the colours with such naivety and enthusiasm as it did in 1914.
That said, both my Great Uncles served again in 1939 (in the Home Guard) while their much younger brother, following in their footsteps, went off to fight in northern Europe.
Fortunately for me, my Grandfather also managed to returned in one piece.
[Post edited 23 Nov 2014 21:24]
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 19:41 - Nov 23 with 1477 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 17:36 - Nov 23 by Osbourne
ArchibaldKnox, tangerinemoss, ribble,
I can admit to an interest in; "What life was like in the trenches, both German and Allies." However, I admit to only a layman's interest with the ability to think laterally, whatever that might mean.
I have read various accounts which made me wonder what the truth was.
Here is a piece I read recently which I share with you. ArchibaldKnox and ribble debate the truth. What really happened? I know not, I tend to side with ArchibaldKnox though by 60 : 40. Whatever is the truth, here is one I throw out for debate. Once the soldiers were in there and they saw what was going on, then how did the High Command (of both sides) stop them from running? I wonder?
Here is that piece : The Trench - life and death on the Western Front 1914-18, by Trevor Yorke, published in 2014.
Christmas 1914 and Unofficial Truces :
"Away from the busiest sectors of the Western Front unofficial truces between British and German troops were not uncommon early in the conflict. Sometimes they were called so that both sides could enter No Man's Land and retrieve their dead and wounded. The most famous of these truces took place in the days around Christmas 1914 at numerous points along the front. Soldiers began singing carols or shouting greetings at each other from their trenches until some plucked up the courage to step into No Man's Land. Gifts of food, alcohol or tobacco were exchanged, stories told, souvenirs taken and in a few locations a game of football took place. Despite several of the thousands who took part going before a court - martial, a similar attempt was tried by some in 1915. But attitudes towards the enemy were changing and only a few exchanges probably took place. By 1916, after regular poison gas attacks and the massacre at the Somme, any sort of truce seemed inappropriate with an enemy now viewed by many as sub human. The approach in many quiet sectors of 'live and let live,' whereby troops deliberately aimed fire at precise points at regular times so the enemy could avoid being injured, probably continued throughout most of the war."
So there you have it ribble. ....."going before a court martial" Just what does that mean in real terms? I wonder.
To Archibaldknox and ribble, I have gained knowledge from reading both your posts. My response is simply; I just wondered what must of gone on?
My "black" amusement, at young 'marketing and advertising executives,' of Sainsburys knocking together this advert is thus revealed! "Here is some rum lads."
Osbourne
A few may well have been court marshalled after the truce but to the best of my knowledge no-one was severely punished. However, as Archie has indicated, General Staff was furious at what had occurred and dire warnings were issued to Officers throughout the Army command chain that a repetition would not be tolerated. I don't believe that this cage rattling extended to a threat to shoot 1 in 10 though. I think that may have been just a rumour, perhaps deliberately started. But as the piece quoted says, there was little appetite for further Xmas truces in later years in any case.
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 22:49 - Nov 23 with 1449 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 19:41 - Nov 23 by ribble
Osbourne
A few may well have been court marshalled after the truce but to the best of my knowledge no-one was severely punished. However, as Archie has indicated, General Staff was furious at what had occurred and dire warnings were issued to Officers throughout the Army command chain that a repetition would not be tolerated. I don't believe that this cage rattling extended to a threat to shoot 1 in 10 though. I think that may have been just a rumour, perhaps deliberately started. But as the piece quoted says, there was little appetite for further Xmas truces in later years in any case.
Ribble
Thank you for your detailed and considerate reply. I believe that we agree on so much more than we disagree about. It is such a massive subject that affected 100's millions of people that there are bound to be various shades of opinion on events.
1
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 09:15 - Nov 24 with 1426 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 22:49 - Nov 23 by ArchibaldKnox
Ribble
Thank you for your detailed and considerate reply. I believe that we agree on so much more than we disagree about. It is such a massive subject that affected 100's millions of people that there are bound to be various shades of opinion on events.
My Great Grandad died on the first day of the Somme - was 19 - Grandad was 2 months old - tragic.
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 09:15 - Nov 24 by steve_g
My Great Grandad died on the first day of the Somme - was 19 - Grandad was 2 months old - tragic.
Yes, it was tragic for so many. Nearly every family was affected if you search back in detail and sideways across the grandparents and great-grandparents' generations. Most of those who died were our great uncles etc. Because so many were so young, most had not married and had no children.
There is a list of 'Blessed Villages', sometimes called 'Thankful Villages'- only 52 of which are known amongst the ca 5000 villages in the country. These are villages that sent men to fight in the Great War, and all of them came back alive. Of course, these villages have no war memorials.
In Lancashire, we have Arkholme and Nether Kellet. Nether Kellet sent 21 men. Their near neighbour, Arkholme, sent 59 men, all of whom returned safely.
In France, where the human cost of war was higher than in Britain, Thierville was remarkable as the only village in the whole of France with no men lost during the Great War.
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 19:14 - Nov 24 by ArchibaldKnox
Yes, it was tragic for so many. Nearly every family was affected if you search back in detail and sideways across the grandparents and great-grandparents' generations. Most of those who died were our great uncles etc. Because so many were so young, most had not married and had no children.
There is a list of 'Blessed Villages', sometimes called 'Thankful Villages'- only 52 of which are known amongst the ca 5000 villages in the country. These are villages that sent men to fight in the Great War, and all of them came back alive. Of course, these villages have no war memorials.
In Lancashire, we have Arkholme and Nether Kellet. Nether Kellet sent 21 men. Their near neighbour, Arkholme, sent 59 men, all of whom returned safely.
In France, where the human cost of war was higher than in Britain, Thierville was remarkable as the only village in the whole of France with no men lost during the Great War.
When visiting France I'm often struck by the sheer number of names each war memorial carries. You can go to the smallest of French hamlets and there will be dozens of names of local men who lost their lives in the Great War. Go to the larger villages and small towns and the numbers can run into the hundreds. In towns and cities it's thousands. France lost a total believed to be in access of 1,300,000 men killed in the war.
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 20:28 - Nov 25 with 1353 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 19:14 - Nov 24 by ArchibaldKnox
Yes, it was tragic for so many. Nearly every family was affected if you search back in detail and sideways across the grandparents and great-grandparents' generations. Most of those who died were our great uncles etc. Because so many were so young, most had not married and had no children.
There is a list of 'Blessed Villages', sometimes called 'Thankful Villages'- only 52 of which are known amongst the ca 5000 villages in the country. These are villages that sent men to fight in the Great War, and all of them came back alive. Of course, these villages have no war memorials.
In Lancashire, we have Arkholme and Nether Kellet. Nether Kellet sent 21 men. Their near neighbour, Arkholme, sent 59 men, all of whom returned safely.
In France, where the human cost of war was higher than in Britain, Thierville was remarkable as the only village in the whole of France with no men lost during the Great War.
You may have already seen it, but if you haven't I'd highly recommend you go over to the BBC iPlayer and watch 'The Man Who Shot the Great War'. It's a tremendous programme about an Ulsterman, George Hackney, a sniper with the Connaught Rangers and a pre-WW1 professional photographer. He took a number of superb photographs on the Western Front in 1915/16 including, incredibly, three shots taken during the 36th Ulster Divisions assault on the German Trenches opposite Thiepval Wood on 1 July 1916. He was part of the attack and took them whilst out in no-mans land. I watched it last night. Amazing stuff.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 21:25]
0
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 18:29 - Dec 24 with 1278 views
Sainsburys Christmas Advert .. on 20:28 - Nov 25 by ribble
Archie
You may have already seen it, but if you haven't I'd highly recommend you go over to the BBC iPlayer and watch 'The Man Who Shot the Great War'. It's a tremendous programme about an Ulsterman, George Hackney, a sniper with the Connaught Rangers and a pre-WW1 professional photographer. He took a number of superb photographs on the Western Front in 1915/16 including, incredibly, three shots taken during the 36th Ulster Divisions assault on the German Trenches opposite Thiepval Wood on 1 July 1916. He was part of the attack and took them whilst out in no-mans land. I watched it last night. Amazing stuff.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2014 21:25]
In the 1st World War, between 1914 and 1918, over 290 soldiers of the British and Commonwealth armies were executed by firing squad, some for desertion and cowardice, two for simply sleeping at their posts. Many of these men we now know were traumatised by shell shock. Court martials were brief, the accused often unrepresented. It was only in 2006 that the authorities recognised the injustice these soldiers suffered. A conditional pardon was granted in November 2006.
Sainsbury's continue the propaganda then. Nice bars of chocolate.
Just saying. Maybe Sainsbury's should of sold some charitable bottles of Rum instead of Chocolate bars? What is the percentage going to charity again?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
"Here is some rum lads." 
Maybe Sainsbury's should of sold some charitable bottles of Rum instead of Chocolate bars? What is the percentage going to charity again?