Post by Stephen RainsburyAs a balance I wopuld recommend "Blood and Poppycock" by Carrigan.
Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan, ISBN: 0304366595.
The author is an ardent revisionist, and his bias is no surprise. He
retired from the Army as a Major, so it is perhaps not surprising that
he should try to rehabilitate the reputation of the General Staff.
Post by Stephen RainsburyIt relies heavily on documentary evidence, log books, letters home,
daily reoprts etc.. to prove that the hsitory of WW1 as tol in schools
was wrong and lkargely due to exgeration by the Lloyd George Government
of the early 1920s.
It presents records to show that there were very few pwoplw killed by
gas compared to other means and that men were not summarily shot for
"Lack of moral fibre" in fact the records showed that only a few hundred
were shot by firing squad, which was not that much higher than WW2,
The gas attacks were shocking because they were perceived as unfair,
inhuman, uncivilised - they were in violation of the Hague Convention.
When they worked they were effective in causing panic, but too much
depended on the vagaries of the weather. The biggest effect was not in
the deaths, but in the walking wounded they caused, many of them
blinded. Bear in mind that neither side had anything resembling an
effective gas-mask.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ypres2.htm
*Only* a *few hundred* were shot by firing squad!
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/stonesexecution.htm
Post by Stephen RainsburyIt also went through the reasons behind many of teh so called "Lions
Lead by Donkeys" incidents, yes some were cock ups but most were part of
a greater strategy and actually hold up to scrutiny.
It is inescapable that almost a million British casualties were suffered
for no significant gain. If the general staff was not incompetent
then you must lay the blame on the soldiers inability to carry out their
orders. Is this really the reason for their inability to carry an
attack in the face of machine-gun fire? Or was the advantage on the
side of the defense simply too great?
Post by Stephen RainsburyFor examplke, our army was much better treated than teh French who at
one point were in open mutiny and their part of the line was largely
undefended for extended periods.
Nivelle. There should be a special hell, just for him. A man who
believed his own publicity and told France that he could win the war
in 48 hours, on the Aisne. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/aisne2.htm
Nearly 200,000 casualties later, the French Army had had enough of empty
promises. Their mutiny (April-May) took the form of holding their
positions but refusing all orders to advance, so the line was never
undefended.
Post by Stephen RainsburyDuring one of these the (Second?)
Verduns offensive was launched to fool teh Germans into thinking the
line was heaveily fortified. It cost us dearly but without it we could
have been surrounded and cut off from the rest of the allies.
The only battle that fits the timescale is Third Ypres, more usually
known as Passchendaele. I can't find any historical support for the
idea of this as a diversionary attack.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/ypres3.htm
The danger to the Allies at this time was the influx of German troops
from the Eastern front, freed up by the Russian Revolution. They had
one last chance to win before the influx of American troops overwhelmed
them.
Post by Stephen RainsburyIt also points out that we were very much a junior player in WW1, the
Germans, French and Russians had far more troops committed than us and
had far higher casualties.
We were on French soil as an allied expeditionary force. The casualty
figures that I can find don't indicate that our losses were
significantly smaller:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/casualties.htm
http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Casualties.html
We lost nearly a million, almost as many as France.
Post by Stephen RainsburyI don't normally read things like this but 'er indoors recommended it so
I got it out the library. At more than one point he openly attacks
Black Adder 4 as being completly wrong and being just as accurate as
Mickey Mouse is as a wild life documentary.
An easy target, both are comedy programs aiming for laughs. The
end sequence of Blackadder IV is no different from the other three
series, everybody dies a gruesome death...only in Blackadder IV we are
not invited to laugh.
What to do about Remembrance Day?
Remembrance is about remembering the fallen, who willingly gave their
tomorrows for our today. As far as possible, leave the politics, the
pro- and anti-war arguments, the factional battles of historians to one
side, and remember the people who died. Remember the past so that we may
be reminded not to repeat it. That means looking for tales of individuals.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/diaries/index.htm
The usual Scouting tale is of Jack Cornwall VC.
http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/cornwell.htm