A post on the Army Rumour
Service web site led me to the BBC item on the characterisation of the British
Army during World War One as lions led by donkeys. The article is a debunking of ten beliefs of
the war that have been become
common place in recent decades.
The linked article is
short enough and clear in making its points. In spite of the intention to avoid
this subject until much later in the year, this week there was cause to change
the mind. The National Archive has
digitised a number of the War Diaries of some of the units and they are
available to view or download.
It is a while since I was
going through some of these at Kew, then the Public Record Office, now the
National Archive. It was a costly and
time consuming business to go, call up the records and read them, despite being
free to enter and look. Photocopying was
not cheap and some not allowed because of the delicate state of the documents.
Now it can be done at home,
at leisure and very cheaply given that the broadband links and computer are
already in place. There is still the
question of what you are looking at. The
writers of the diaries were different men in a different time and the nuances
and meaning of the terse phrasing are not of our present language structures.
Also, it is often almost a
technical wording that needs some expertise to fully understand. Some historians I feel do not fully grasp the
essentials of what is there. Having been
in the Army and although mercifully never in battle conditions, I did spend a
great deal of time out there in the field doing what might have to be
done. That included keeping the
Divisional Log, the basis of any diary or reporting.
A great deal of debate is
about officers and men. Again you have to go back to the realities of
the period. The officer corps was not
simply aristocratic. As well as their
younger sons making a military career there were many others from the lower
ranks of the county and minor landed classes.
In all of these was commonly a long military or naval tradition.
That they had been to
public schools or equivalent on the whole meant that they had a substantial
basic education. Also, they were likely
to have done time in the school Army Training Corps. Then there is the bit rarely mentioned. For most, nearly all of them there was the
experience of field sports, rushing around the countryside becoming familiar
with "ground" and using guns.
This was not the case with
the modest number of those who had some higher level day secondary education. The great majority of men had only a handful
of years experience for the most part in Elementary Schools of variable
quality. Physical training was usually
basic drills on a small school yard.
There were numbers of men
who had studied further after school and many of these became warrant officers
(senior NCO's) and sergeants because they were capable of dealing with the
paper etc. as well as doing well as soldiers.
In the later years of the war some of these men were commissioned as the
manpower crisis worsened.
The officers in 1914 were
broadly of three levels. Junior officers
who were leaders of men but did not make decisions, field commanders of
companies, battalions/regiments and at brigade who made decisions within a
determined framework of operations, and senior staff at Division, Corps and
Army who issued the general operation orders.
The Army then was
relatively well trained with high standards of marksmanship and with a lot of
field experience around the world in small wars. So at the level of field commander it was
very capable. The junior officers and
men were professional and also capable.
The senior staff knew how to fight small mobile wars but not large scale
continental wars. They had to learn on
the job.
As the war went on the old
professional Army was lost, but among the field commanders were many men of
experience and still capable. The junior
officers suffered heavy losses and became increasingly junior. The senior staff had to direct a war for
which the Army had neither been prepared or equipped and without experience of
the logistics on this scale.
The politicians who had
started the war proved unable to come to a way of stopping it and there was no
other major world power to intervene to knock heads together. The USA was busy with elections, making money
and regarded the matter as one to stay away from until 1917.
The critical difference
between WW1 and many others is the relatively static nature of the fighting in
the trench warfare This meant that in
many ways it was a far more bureaucratic war than others, so there is a much
bigger paper trail at all levels.
Also there was almost a
permanent infrastructure behind the lines in which more time was spent than in
the trenches. The reason for this is
quite simple. After very few days of
action a typical unit could be exhausted, even if casualties were light. The 24/7 nature of time in the trenches was
not sustainable for long. My memory is
that ten days out there of constant movement and work with little or no rest left
you shattered.
One period of the war
typically is less mentioned than others and that is the Great Spring Offensive
of Spring 1918, also known as the Ludendorff Offensive (see Wikipedia for
summary) when for a short space of time the Germans had an advantage. The assault south of Arras succeeded. The Germans nearly made it to the coast.
But Arras was held and the
Germans became exhausted and ground to a halt.
This left them both exposed with major salients and vulnerable to
counter attack. The rest of 1918 was a
story of Allied advance and gradual attrition of Germany both in the field and
in the factories.
What is not said was that
to some extent the British were aware and ready. In one part of my download above, is a report
by the GOC of 3 Div (The Iron Division) to Army about a trench raid by the
Germans on 13 Bn Kings Liverpool in mid February 1918. It is clear he knew what Storm Troopers were,
that there was a general awareness of the dangers of any German assault and was
deeply worried whether the British could handle it.
One matter that has to be
allowed is that because of modern technology and facilities it is now far
easier and less time consuming to go through much of the detail. And it is the detail that can tell us so much
more than we knew in the past. It has become possible to track very many men
individually, who they were, background and the rest and this in itself tells
another part of the story.
Again, it was the
politicians who started the war who had little or no idea of what might
happen. For the UK it had been a century
since our last major continental war.
Thank you. There does seem to be much media focussing on Europe and us Brits - I have to constantly inform the grandchildren (20 and 21 - not much history taught in school nowadays) that it was a World War, fought on land sea and air by many different nations. I took their mothers to Ypres in the early 70s. My uncle died near Ypres, my Dad was at Scapa Floe as a boy sailor WW1, then on the China station, and he survived on a destroyer through WW2.
ReplyDelete