1918 - A Very British Victory

[Jim_Grundy]

I have recently finished Peter Hart's latest and, to my mind, best book to date. Why best? Perhaps it's a bug-bear of mine but I do get really fed up with the view that somehow the British army didn't achieve much beyond survival during 1918. The arguments go along the lines that the Americans won it; the tanks won it; the 'flu won it; the blockade won it; the German revolution 'lost' it; anything but the British army (albeit as part of a massive coalition of forces) played any significant part. The British army was led by old-fashioned, cavalrymen, steeped in visions of clashing sabres to ever have achieved anything or so some would have us believe.

Ok, my grandfather was a young machine gunner in 1918 and part of the 'Men of 18 in 18' generation, so I might be somewhat biased but I do get annoyed with the belief that these men were merely 'present' when the Germans got bored with effortlessly defeating each and every allied attack and decided to go home. This book of Peter Hart's is an important contribution to the debate showing just what did take place and how huge the effort was at every level by the British army in 1918.

I think there is a really perverse aspect to the British character that, whilst firmly believing everything British to be the best, at the same time positively revels in its failures. The ultimate example of this trait is the even more bizarre ability to turn what was the greatest achievement in British military history, the victories over the German army in 1918, into some kind of defeat. For too many, including very many historians, the history of the Great War seems to stop in March/April 1918 amidst much reverent expressions of admiration for German stormtroop tactics, clearly so superior to anything the staid old British could come up with (sic). The truth, though, is that the old fashioned stick-in-the-mud British did actually develop the all arms battle that so eluded the Germans - until 1940 anyway - and this is made brilliantly clear in Peter Hart's latest book.

Peter Hart once again displays his skill at telling the story from all angles, from the higher levels of command to the private soldier. The perspective gained by this approach helps explain what happened and why but, all importantly, what this meant for those quite literally in the firing line. And this is where, I feel, Peter Hart's work is unmatched by any other historian of the period writing today (and there are some very, very good ones too!).

What comes across time and again is how this book is rooted in a deep respect for those who went through experiences that most of us, fortunately, will never have to. That respect does not wallow in tales of 'mud, blood and endless poetry'; those that get trapped in that particular quagmire do no justice to the men of 1918. These were no passive victims blindly following a bunch of red-faced, stupid generals but first class, professional soldiers who achieved in 1918 what had been learned at such cost by the British army through the Somme, Messines, Third Ypres and Cambrai. But, as anyone reading this book will be left in no doubt about, war is hardly ever glorious, honourable or noble. And lessons learned or no, the cost was never cheap.

Time and again, after elegantly outlining the reasons for tactical and strategic success or failure, Peter Hart brings the reader back to the price paid by the ordinary soldier. You're never allowed to become an arm chair strategist pondering the events of 1918 in the abstract. What took place happened to real people and the author's clear passion to keep their memory fresh shines through each and every page.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It should be read alongside the author's earlier book about the 1918 air war, "Aces Falling", to get an even more complete appreciation of the events of 1918. As I've said, my own grandfather was a young 1918 recruit who served in the final advance to victory. I can think of no higher tribute to him and his generation than this superb book. Outstanding!

[George Armstrong Custer]

Thanks for that review, Jim. I'd briefly looked through the Hart book in the bookshop and liked what I saw, so will probably buy a copy. Other historians do emphasise the very real achievement of the British army in 1918 - J P Harris' Amiens to the Armistice (1998) is one which I only acquired earlier this year and would recommend.

ciao,

GAC

[Jim_Grundy]

GAC

You're absolutely right and Harris' book is in my library and may be I'm being a little precious but I think Peter Hart's book covers a gap in the kind of book that is based upon first-hand testimony. Now if there was more in a similar style from the German, U.S., French, etc. perspective, that's what I would really like to see!

Cheers,

Jim

[truthergw]

Good to see an enthusiastic review for a book which I also thoroughly enjoyed. For a close analysis of how the war was fought, Simon Robbins, " British Generalship on the Western Front 1914-18", Sheffield & Todman, " Command & Control on the Western Front" and Andy Simpson, " Directing Operations" can all be recommended although they lack the personal accounts, they make use of very recent research.

[Chris_Baker]

Peter's latest is truly excellent. I'm going to write a review of it when I get the chance. But for now, just go buy it.

[KJames]

In my copy the preface is dated August 2008 which is a bit of a worry for a history book given that we're still in July.

Ken

[Greenwoodman]

Delivered to the door today, BCE. With two reviews threads running, it may be enough to queue-jump it to the top of my list.

[sjustice]

I skimmed through it today at TNA. Am I missing something?

Didn't appear to differentiate itself from "Amiens to the Armistice" to me apart from a few anecdotes and a lot less operational detail?

Kind Regards,

SMJ

[truthergw]

I had a look at the Amazon blurb and of course , read the reviews here. It is the anecdotes that are putting me off. I am not keen on anecdotes as a rule. It rather depends on who is relating them I suppose.

[Jim_Grundy]

Didn't appear to differentiate itself from "Amiens to the Armistice" to me apart from a few anecdotes and a lot less operational detail?

SMJ,

I think they're fundamentally different types of book and I don't think you do '1918. A Very British Victory' justice; it is rather more than 'a few anecdotes'.

Peter Hart's work concentrates upon telling the story through the experiences of those involved, whilst 'Amiens to Armistice' tells you more what they were trying to achieve whilst having the experiences relayed in this new book. And 'Amiens to Armistice' doesn't exactly deal with what took place before August 1918. Having said that, I certainly feel that both are first class books and reading them would be something I'd recommend to anyone.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Unfortunately the other thread has been closed so I will post my review again here.

Same conclusion - buy the book and put it to the top of your reading list. But I do think Jim missed spelling out an important point in his review - with respect to his grandfather, I think this book is more worts and all about the British army of 1918 (and also the AEF!) than Jim suggests. Anyone that has read Peter's books before will know he doesn't duck an issue. 1918: A Very British Victory is no different.

My review:

What Peter Hart has consistently shown is that he can take numerous first hand accounts and reminiscences and weave them extremely well into any narrative of the Great War period. 1918: A Very British Victory is another fine example from his pen. Hart doesn't write in simple terms but he does write with a simplicity that makes it easy for his reader to follow the events and the chaos of warfare. Easy to follow maps detailing the Front and the lines of advance are found throughout to support the text.

As you would expect from the title, this book draws heavily upon the British participation but it is a history written from both Allied (British, French, Canadian, ANZAC and American) and the German experience and he has made very good use of his source material to bring the ebb and flow of 1918 alive. There is indeed something in this book for everyone.

And it's a mammoth book - over 500 pages detailing the return to mobile warfare after more than three years of deadlock on the Western Front. Hart has to deal with the rapid German blitzkreig and then end some seven months later following the Allied All Arms advance that finally crushed the German army. As such, it's a book of two halves! Hart makes sure his reader knows that infantry, artillery, tanks and aircraft all played their role in the final victory although mention of the air-support role is only brief as his equally impressive book, Aces Falling, has already covered the 1918 air war.

Hart outlines the context of the 1918 battles but in a book with this large a scope something has to give and the finer political perspectives are sometimes covered more in passing than detailed assessments but then this book is the soldiers' tale, not a detailed reference on such consequences as the implosion of the German home front or the previous three years of American industrial and financial support for the Allies. For all the arms and munitions that were available to the Allies in the summer of 1918 the German army still had to be defeated and this is a close to the ground account about the personal experience and the minutiae of battle. If you enjoy the first-hand account then this book is definitely worth the investment.

Hart sets out his stall from the very beginning - he is sympathetic to Haig and Gough whilst pointing a finger at Lloyd-George and the politicians. This isn't the book to closely question their respective performances in 1918, rather, the depth and the essence of the book is to be found in the dramatic and sometimes disturbing first hand accounts of the fighting men. This book provides a very personal account of war and dispels some myths whilst raising new questions - many of the Old Sweats no longer cared for war and the new drafts of 1918 were mostly inexperienced - men at the end of their mental tether looked for ways to avoid battle. Hart raises these sensitive issues whilst never taking his focus off the bravery and courage of the men that achieved.

Peter Hart is making a good name for himself and 1918: A Very British Victory is another outstanding effort. Similar to Hart's Somme, this is a book you will want to read again!

[squirrel]

I have a copy on order and look forward to receiving with great anticipation.

[ianw]

I note that the 5 x CD audio version is on 40% off sale for 9.99 at Play.com - read by Clive Mantle.

Sounds like a good 'un in book form and very good value delivered by WH Smith for pick up at your local branch or from Amazon if you can contrive free delivery.

[Jim_Grundy]

But I do think Jim missed spelling out an important point in his review - with respect to his grandfather, I think this book is more worts and all about the British army of 1918 (and also the AEF!) than Jim suggests. Anyone that has read Peter's books before will know he doesn't duck an issue. 1918: A Very British Victory is no different.

Jonathan, I wouldn't have books any other way than 'worts and all'!

Failure to do that pays no respect to those who took part and only increases my wonder at those who came out 'normal' at the end of it. I think my review made it rather clear that Peter Hart's book made it very clear that war was not exactly an adventure. And, since you brought up the subject of my family's experiences, I ought to tell you that my Dad's step-father was part of a firing squad in 1918. I have visited the grave of the man he shot with a party of school students and told them the story. You don't get much 'wortier' than that and I suffer no illusions about the reality of having to participate in war!

[George Armstrong Custer]

For what it's worth, Jim, I took away the impression from your excellent review that the Hart book did indeed present a balanced (or 'warts and all') picture of the British and Empire forces in 1918, and you spell out in comments like "Time and again, after elegantly outlining the reasons for tactical and strategic success or failure" that, brilliant feat of arms though it was, the advance to victory wasn't just a stroll from one unqualified success to another and the final victory was hard won. Inevitably some will come away from such a balaced book looking to highlight the negatives of the British performance, but as you rightly emphasise, I think, there's no denying that the British and Empire armies got more right than they did wrong in the Hundred Days, and played the most important part of any of the allied armies in bringing the German war machine to its knees.

What is absolutely fascinating - and not a little eerie - is that personal tale you've added about visiting the gravesite of the man shot by the firing party of which your Dad's step-father was a member. Did the step-father discuss his feelings about that duty? Did he pass on the details of the man he shot via your father, or did you have to find that information and the location of the grave out through your own research?

ciao,

GAC

[Jonathan Saunders]

Jonathan, I wouldn't have books any other way than 'worts and all'!

Failure to do that pays no respect to those who took part and only increases my wonder at those who came out 'normal' at the end of it. I think my review made it rather clear that Peter Hart's book made it very clear that war was not exactly an adventure. And, since you brought up the subject of my family's experiences, I ought to tell you that my Dad's step-father was part of a firing squad in 1918. I have visited the grave of the man he shot with a party of school students and told them the story. You don't get much 'wortier' than that and I suffer no illusions about the reality of having to participate in war!

Dont want to argue with you Jim as we are on the same side in recommending Peter's book - just want to make sure other GWF members get a good idea of what the book is about. As I think Peter makes clear from his primary sources, the British army of 1918 werent all "first class, professional soldiers".

Time to let others read the book and draw their own conclusions.

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Jim_Grundy]

What is absolutely fascinating - and not a little eerie - is that personal tale you've added about visiting the gravesite of the man shot by the firing party of which your Dad's step-father was a member. Did the step-father discuss his feelings about that duty? Did he pass on the details of the man he shot via your father, or did you have to find that information and the location of the grave out through your own research?

ciao,

GAC

GAC

My Dad's step-father died before I was born but he told my Dad that he'd been a member of a firing squad that shot a man from his own battalion. Not surprisingly, he didn't say much about it and only when he himself was very close to death. He told the story about one of the squad having a blank. I suppose his conscience must have troubled him throughout his life and clung onto the thought that he might have not shot him after all. Although I'm sure, experienced soldier that he was (a Gallipoli veteran) he would've known the difference in the kick between the real thing and a blank cartridge.

I pieced together when he was with his respective units (he was wounded twice and transferred from one battalion to another, then came back after that unit was disbanded in the early 1918 shake-up) and referred to the lists of those 'shot at dawn'. Whilst I suppose I can never be absolutely 100% certain that I've got the right man, I'm about as certain as I could be.

Yes, it was quite an experience. Some of the kids had tears in their eyes and I wasn't far off, I can tell you!

Regards,

Jim

[Jim_Grundy]

Dont want to argue with you Jim as we are on the same side in recommending Peter's book - just want to make sure other GWF members get a good idea of what the book is about. As I think Peter makes clear from his primary sources, the British army of 1918 werent all "first class, professional soldiers".

Time to let others read the book and draw their own conclusions.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Not sure I'm arguing but the fact that there were individuals in the BEF who didn't cope with their front line experiences, like the man my relative executed - but that's a slightly different story - as well as the likes of Percy Topliss (!), doesn't undermine the assertion that the British army by 1918 was a 'first class, professional' force with 'first class, professional soldiers'.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Not sure I'm arguing but the fact that there were individuals in the BEF who didn't cope with their front line experiences, like the man my relative executed - but that's a slightly different story - as well as the likes of Percy Topliss (!), doesn't undermine the ascertion that the British army by 1918 was a 'first class, professional' force with 'first class, professional soldiers'.

I guess a book can be a bit like a football match – you can sit two people next to each other and they will concentrate on different aspects and reach varying conclusions. For me a reoccurring theme in Peter’s book was the morale of the British army in 1918 and having read the book I came away with the impression that morale was never particularly good in 1918 and that those who did achieve were driven more by doggedness to get the job done rather than any other factor.

I don’t dispute the professionalism of the British army of 1918 but as I said, I found morale a central theme in Peter’s book and part of his “worts and all” honest approach to 1918. Having read your otherwise very fair review I didn’t come away with recognising this element in Peter’s book, hence why I wanted to raise it in my own review.

Using his own conclusions and using first-hand accounts as evidence I recall Peter raising the following issues – from memory so I may not be spot on in each case and there may be some generalisation.

• By the end of 1917 most of the soldiers in France didn’t care if Alsace and Lorraine were held by Germany. They just wanted the war to be over one way or the other.

• The British human war-machine was kept going by conscription – generally speaking conscripted men didn’t want to be part of the armed forces.

• That a significant volume of the new drafts were mostly youthful and certainly inexperienced in warfare and sometimes a hindrance – I think Peter gave an example of a “boy” having to be taken out of the Line just before he “went over the top” circa Aug 1918, because he was crying and was in such a state he was badly affecting those around him.

• That into 1918 morale had not greatly improved from end of 1917 - not even during the advance, which witnessed a period of one of the highest fatality rates of the war in the British army.

• That some soldiers made self-inflicted wounds – Peter gave an example of a cook returned to Front Line duty circa Aug 1918 who shot himself in the foot and a couple of friends who shot each other in the arm and leg respectively “where do you wants yours” or words to that effect.

• That some soldiers that had sustained bonafide wounds in action then hampered their recovery so as not to be returned to the fighting line.

That such occurrences took place or featured as part of the experience of the British army of 1918 I find of equal interest as the doggedness of those that were able to cope with the continued pressure of warfare right up until the Armistice – I am genuinely grateful that Peter has written a balanced view in this regard.

I am sure Peter is grateful for the debate his book is causing already!

Regards,

Jonathan S

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks guys for the debate. Irrespective of which of you is "right", I'll make sure I read the book now with increased interest and attention!

[squirrel]

My copy turned up in the post this a.m. so am really looking forward to some serious study later today.

Incidentally, there is an account of a soldier not doing the exercises on his injured arm and losing the use of it in the book "Harry's War".

[Jim_Grundy]

Jonathan

I think it is important to remember that the British army was the only participant not to suffer a catastrophic collapse in morale during the war (not allowing for the AEF given their relatively limited exposure to the war), a point made long ago by Correlli Barnett amongst others. That doesn't mean that the British army was full of cheery Tommies, shouting "'Arf a mo, Kaiser!" every other moment but neither is it true to say that each and every soldier was crying inside all the time either clutching their copy of Keats.

No-one taking part in the last hundred days campaign with the British suffering an average of 4,000 casualties daily could be expected to regard it as a holiday. The fact that they did keep on, despite the losses, despite the scale of the fighting is a source of constant wonder to me. That wonder does not manifest itself by idealising the British soldier of 1914-1918 but is reinforced every time I read their stories, knowing that it was made up, not of supermen, but of men from every walk of life, coward, criminal, hero, saviour, the lot! They might not have been happy with their lot but they kept on and achieved the victory.

Peter Hart's book reflects this and I am struck at your take on my review. I've looked at it again and fail to draw the conclusions you have. But, hey no, it's a first class book and we certainly agree on that!

Cheers,

Jim

[George Armstrong Custer]

neither is it true to say that each and every soldier was crying inside all the time either clutching their copy of Keats.

Great War veterans such as Charles Carrington and Sidney Rogerson hated how that kind of image of the 'average' British soldier began to prevail by the start of the 1930's due to the undue influence of the publishings of a few 'War Poets' who were not by any means articulating the way all - or even most - ex-soldiers regarded the war. I'm glad to hear from your review that Hart redresses the balance on this.

Thanks, too, for the earlier update on your step-grandfather and the firing party. Finding the grave of the shot man must have been a strange, thought-provoking moment.

ciao,

GAC

[truthergw]

Great War veterans such as Charles Carrington and Sidney Rogerson hated how that kind of image of the 'average' British soldier began to prevail by the start of the 1930's due to the undue influence of the publishings of a few 'War Poets' who were not by any means articulating the way all - or even most - ex-soldiers regarded the war. ......................

ciao,

GAC

It is interesting to read Keith Simpson's introduction to " The War the Infantry Knew". The internecine warfare between Sassoon and Graves with contributions by Blunden and attempts to involve Captain Dunn, were perhaps as vicious as anything which occurred in Flanders. It casts a new light on the author who was merciless in his criticism of the hypocrisy of civilians.

[Jim_Grundy]

Thanks, too, for the earlier update on your step-grandfather and the firing party. Finding the grave of the shot man must have been a strange, thought-provoking moment.

ciao,

GAC

GAC

Thanks for your post. Yes, visting the grave was a very odd experience but one that I am very glad to have had.

The man in question had problems at home. In brief, he was faced with having a wife and a baby at home without support from family that had disowned him, his wife and child. Did he desert the army or his family? In 1918, many were overstaying their leave and he was one who seemingly had little intention of going back. He chose to stay with his young family but, and this wasn't the first time he'd 'deserted', he was arrested in June 1918 in Edinburgh in civilian clothes. In July he was sent back to France, tried and executed. I suppose there was little doubt about the likely outcome after his arrest.

He must have known what might have resulted from his desertion. No doubt his family lost out on any pension because he was executed. I've never found out what happened to his widow or his child. Who knows what any of us would've done in his shoes. My leaving flowers on the grave was, doubtless, pretty pathetic in many respects but all I could do.

I hope they're all at rest now.

Regards,

Jim