Mud, Blood and Poppycock

[Guest Wayne Draper]

I just got done reading Mud Blood and Poppycock. This book and I found it very interesting and full of facts. I could not put it down. Has anyone else read it and feel the same? Are there other books along the same line of WWI and WWII?

I am now reading The Great Dominion by David Dilks

[thegreatwar]

I just got done reading Mud Blood and Poppycock. This book and I found it very interesting and full of facts. I could not put it down. Has anyone else read it and feel the same? Are there other books along the same line of WWI and WWII?

I am now reading The Great Dominion by David Dilks

Sssshhhh

I am reading it now. Only 10 pages into it.

[Joan and Terry]

I just got done reading Mud Blood and Poppycock. This book and I found it very interesting and full of facts. I could not put it down. Has anyone else read it and feel the same? Are there other books along the same line of WWI and WWII?

I am now reading The Great Dominion by David Dilks

Welcome to the Forum,have just ordered the book,I feel certain there will plenty of members only too willing to advise you on which books to read.

Joan

[Gunner Bailey]

I just got done reading Mud Blood and Poppycock. This book and I found it very interesting and full of facts. I could not put it down. Has anyone else read it and feel the same? Are there other books along the same line of WWI and WWII?

I am now reading The Great Dominion by David Dilks

I'm a fan of this book. It has been criticised on this forum for some minor historic mistakes but for a book with such a huge amount of factual detail I think it does the job it sets out to do very well.

If you believe that WW1 was just like it's been portrayed in 'Blackadder' and 'Oh what a lovely War'. You will be very shocked. If you know more than that you will still be enlightened.

It sets many myths straight, such as:- 'Brass hats' who never went near the front line, kangeroo courts for deserters, the lost generation, never leaving the trenches for 4 years etc etc. all of which are comprehensively debunked.

Well worth the time reading it.

Gunner Bailey

[Take on me]

Are there other books along the same line of WWI and WWII?

I want to make it clear that I have not read MB&P, however a former teacher of mine who had read it preferred Gary Sheffield's equally revisionist and radical Forgotten Victory. This is a book that I have read and wholeheartedly recommend.

Regards,

Jon

[Tom A McCluskey]

Ref: Mud, Blood & Poppycock: I'll-researched, selective, subjective pap! The general theme being that it was not as bad as made out, along with pointless facts and soundbites (played more football than fighting etc.). With an appeasing statement at the end of the facts delivered, to make it seem well-balanced.

Aye

Tom McC

[Take on me]

Sheffield's Forgotten Victory certainly has the reputation as the more scholarly work.

Jon

[Willywombat]

Mud, Blood and Poppycock does its job well.

Gunner Bailey's comment about 'Blackadder' and 'Oh! What a Lovely War' is spot-on. For many people, those productions, and the war poets, are the extent of many people's knowledge, usually backed up with having to write a school essay in which a simple Lions and Donkeys approach is the one most likely to gain the marks!

It wasn't a nice war to fight - none are - but it is a book that gets past the basic "up-to-your-eyeballs-in-mud for four years" line and has the courage to explore more realistic outlooks.

Not everyone likes it, but I do. Read it in conjunction with some of the more traditional works and strike a balance.

Bob.

[John_Hartley]

Has anyone else read it

Yes. There are at least four previous threads in this review section. Entering "poppycock" in the search box will bring them up.

It might be helpful to all if the moderators were able to merge them.

John

[ejcmartin]

I quite liked the book as it goes against everything that is "popular" understanding of the Great War. It is very in your face and not exactly a well balanced sholarly work. That aside given the common perception of "Lions led by Donkeys", it is good book for someone read and then look further for the truth.

[Gunner Bailey]

Ref: Mud, Blood & Poppycock: I'll-researched, selective, subjective pap! The general theme being that it was not as bad as made out, along with pointless facts and soundbites (played more football than fighting etc.). With an appeasing statement at the end of the facts delivered, to make it seem well-balanced.

Aye

Tom McC

Well Tom, glad you liked it.

Seriously, the point you make about time spent in the trenches shows a certain predjudice. Also quotes taken from regimental diaries by Gordon Corrigan are not fiction.

My grandfather was a sapper and he always complained that he spent more time in the front line trenches than the infantry. Whilst they were regularly rotated out, he spend day after day and night after night back in the front line repairing telephone wires and other maintenance jobs under fire.

He came back shell shocked, bald and the grumpiest old man you could find. Totally affected by his war service. His division (21st) had the highest casualties of the British Army, and it's a miracle he survived 1915-1918.

Gunner Bailey

[Jon6640]

Gunner Bailey's comment about 'Blackadder' and 'Oh! What a Lovely War' is spot-on. For many people, those productions, and the war poets, are the extent of many people's knowledge, usually backed up with having to write a school essay in which a simple Lions and Donkeys approach is the one most likely to gain the marks!

Bob.

Spot on Bob, my daughter received poor marks for arguing in an essay that contrary to received opinion, the battle of the Somme was not a futile waste of life, that Haig wasn't a mindless uncaring butcher, and that the battle had tangible benefit. Whilst the debate will no doubt go on and on on this matter (and I am not even going to go there here) it was apparent that the teacher knew very little about this period of history and only wanted the trite Haig was a butcher argument.

PS said daughter went on to get a B in her GCSE History.

Jon

[Gunner Bailey]

Spot on Bob, my daughter received poor marks for arguing in an essay that contrary to received opinion, the battle of the Somme was not a futile waste of life, that Haig wasn't a mindless uncaring butcher, and that the battle had tangible benefit. Whilst the debate will no doubt go on and on on this matter (and I am not even going to go there here) it was apparent that the teacher knew very little about this period of history and only wanted the trite Haig was a butcher argument.

PS said daughter went on to get a B in her GCSE History.

Jon

Give her a pat on the back from me. I hope her interest in history continues. Certainly for me it's been a lifelong interest.

Gunner Bailey

[truthergw]

This is a danger I have pointed out on the forum before. Although it is most frustrating for us as WW1 buffs, we should remember that exams are passed by repeating the lessons taught by the teachers. I have to tread very warily when I am consulted about homework questions. I usually restrict myself to passing on some maps and pictures to put in the project.

[Tom A McCluskey]

Gunner Bailey,

It is not a prejudice, it is called an opinion, and having read the book, and made my own mind up I have freely expressed it on this chat forum .

I have attended Gordon Corrigan's lecture on Loos, at the National Army Museum, and thoroughly enjoyed it. He is an eloquent and confident deliverer of information - as you would expect. I also enjoyed the book about this battle but find a lot of his assertions ridiculous - especially things like the epilogue of Sepoys in the trenches.

He mentions select months out of the diary of 1 Black Watch. He obviously does not pick October 1914 - as it does not exist, as there was nobody left to write it! This battalion lost more than 1500 men killed (other battalions of other regiments lost more) - the equivalent of losing a modern day infantry battalion of fighting men more than three times. I have an example of trench wastage in a battalion being 125 men in a night - quite considerable in my opinion, especially when their relief does not amount to this. But statistics like this would not give credence to some of his statements.

What he chooses to select to support his argument are clearly made to be rhetorical; there is first-hand testament of battalions being in the line for a month, but that would shatter his argument.

You mention 21 Division's casualty rate, how do you know it is the highest? Have you counted 1 Division’s casualties from August 1914 to the end of the war?

What was the probability of a Royal Engineer being killed to any other arm? Alternatively, does this involve other factors such as the task you are doing, and where you are? I would also be careful to use this book as a source of credible reference, as I do not think it is that well researched.

Lastly, John Hartley has made a good suggestion, one I followed and searched other links for Poppycock. May I suggest reading this one?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...mp;hl=poppycock

Wayne - There are a whole raft of books out there. Gary Sheffield, Hew Strachan, et al. All with more balanced and educated views; please read as widely as possible, and make your own mind up. Could I also advise coupling the information gained from the reference books with the often more enjoyable first hand accounts, along with the dryer Regimental/Divisional Historys and after action reports/appendices in diaries.

Aye

Tom McC

[PMHart]

Aye Aye,

Pete

[Guest tafski]

want a good read see the post above his book a belter the somme

tafski

[CROONAERT]

I... ...find a lot of his assertions ridiculous - especially things like the epilogue of Sepoys in the trenches.

I don't know what you mean by that Tom - I found it the most hilarious thing I've read for years! it might just be his opinion, but i do sometimes wonder if Mr.Corrigan has been living on Mars for the past 20 years!!!

"Sepoys..." has managed to stay in my library (just!), but Mud, Blood & Poppycock went out quite a while back. I did do it the justice of reading it the whole way through (it was like having a portable arguement in all reality), but I'm afraid that that book and the end of Sepoys has made me refrain from even considering buying any further tomes he may produce - I just find it difficult to take much of what he writes seriously!

Dave

[Gunner Bailey]

Hi Tom

Tom wrote:

'It is not a prejudice, it is called an opinion, and having read the book, and made my own mind up I have freely expressed it on this chat forum '.

Tom - Agree with that all opinions should be welcome here.

'What he chooses to select to support his argument are clearly made to be rhetorical; there is first-hand testament of battalions being in the line for a month, but that would shatter his argument'.

Tom - He does cover instances where troops were in the trenches for such legnths of time but points out this was rare.

'You mention 21 Division's casualty rate, how do you know it is the highest? Have you counted 1 Division's casualties from August 1914 to the end of the war?'

Tom - I read this a few months ago but am struggling to find the reference again. Still looking.

'What was the probability of a Royal Engineer being killed to any other arm? Alternatively, does this involve other factors such as the task you are doing, and where you are? I would also be careful to use this book as a source of credible reference, as I do not think it is that well researched.'

Tom - If you've walked the Western Front cemetaries as I have you will have noted how frequently you see RE Graves. I am relating a first hand piece of family history here, from someone who was there. A far stronger piece of history to me than anything I could read in someone else's book.

There are obviously very differing views on this book as there are on most books about the war. However I believe it is thought provoking and makes a valuable contribution to our perspective on the war. I prefer Gordon Corrigan to Ben Elton any time!

Gunner Bailey

[CROONAERT]

I prefer Gordon Corrigan to Ben Elton any time!

Totally agree. Gordon Corrigan's much funnier!

Dave

[Gunner Bailey]

Totally agree. Gordon Corrigan's much funnier!

Dave

I bet he can shoot straighter too!

GB

[Neil Clark]

I was berated in an earlier on on this thread on this subject for stating that the book was my favourite Great War Book. A couple of members felt compelled to insinuate that I was somehow defective because of what I said. I stand by what I said then - this book is very good compared to most efforts. I heartily recommend it to other members...

I look forward to reading the books written by those of you who feel inclined to HARSHLY criticise the content of this book (and often it must be said it's author). I assume that you could do better?

[truthergw]

Unfortunately, there are people who do not feel that others may legitimately hold a different opinion on any matter. If an opinion is different to theirs then it is, ipso facto, wrong. The holder of that wrong opinion must be convinced of the error of his ways and publicly admit his error. Once identified, it is perhaps best to avoid or ignore these people.

[59165]

Once identified, it is perhaps best to avoid or ignore these people.

Very hard to ignore them,Tom.

Luckily,I've never had that problem 'cos everyone knows I'm always right

except for when I'm p****d of course

Dave,drinking for the benefit of the Scottish economy

[charlesmessenger]

Mud, Blood and Poppypcock was written to be provocative, as the title suggests. While I did not agree with everything he wrote Gordon Corrigan certainly made me sit up and think and I enjoyed it as a lively read. That many others have commented on it in the various threads on this Forum concerning the book confirms my view that it achieved its aim. It is good to have a work that provokes debate once in a while!

Charles M