Gentlemen, We will stand and fight: Le Cateau 1914

[Jack Sheldon]

In 1914 the Geman infantryman would have been wearing what we would call jackboots. The superiority of boots and puttees, especially for troops moving or assaulting through thick mud, became clearer later. Even then, as far as I know, the wearing of boots and puttees was frowned on officially for a long time. It was not until probably 1917 that warm British boots, not to mention the owner's woollen socks, became prized finds amongst German front line troops and, by then, the shortage of personal equipment was so marked that disapproved of or not, it was next to impossible to stop the practice.

None of this confirms that the photograph was taken at any time after 1914; it is simply that the removal of boots strikes me as unusual so early in the war.

Jack.

[truthergw]

In 1914 the Geman infantryman would have been wearing what we would call jackboots. The superiority of boots and puttees, especially for troops moving or assaulting through thick mud, became clearer later. Even then, as far as I know, the wearing of boots and puttees was frowned on officially for a long time. It was not until probably 1917 that warm British boots, not to mention the owner's woollen socks, became prized finds amongst German front line troops and, by then, the shortage of personal equipment was so marked that disapproved of or not, it was next to impossible to stop the practice.

None of this confirms that the photograph was taken at any time after 1914; it is simply that the removal of boots strikes me as unusual so early in the war.

Jack.

On the retreat from Mons, supplies of all sorts were notoriously hard to come by. Perhaps it was not a German who removed their boots but a comrade who was desperately in need of a new pair. That, however puts us back to the original question. What is that thing if not a gas mask?

[Dan Morton]

Just to be specific - here are some photos of a repro canister and small box respirator copped from the somewhere on the web, maybe even elsewhere on GWF. I doubt that the original canister color was red.

To me the canister and hose in the photo in Mr. Bird's book look very much the same.

All the best,

Dan

[truthergw]

That looks very similar, mask and all.

I have just finished reading the book. I'll reference it here for future searchers. " Gentlemen We Will Stand and Fight: Le Cateau,1914", Antony Bird. The Crowood Press. 2008. I was very disappointed in the book. I expect Mr Bird is a very entertaining guide on a coach tour with a fund of stories to while away the miles. His style is not to my taste, I don't like being told what commanders were thinking and feeling. I thought that he succumbed too often to the temptation to draw rather vague analogies. In the book we wander from Napoleon into WW2 where the retreat from Mons is compared to the retreat in Malaya and the surrender of Singapore. General Montgomery pops up frequently in his guise as a subaltern and also as Field Marshal. I'm not sure if the author approves of him or not. On the whole, I think not. I prefer a fairly dry recital of the facts and a connecting narrative. I was puzzled at the various attempts to connect Haig to Le Cateau until I read towards the end of the book in his conclusions that Mr Bird does not apologise for ascribing to the conspiracy theory of Winter and Graham. Now, I am aware of Winter, his work sits on my shelf and I have joined in debate on his book elsewhere. We need not allow ourselves to be detained in a consideration of it here. Graham is listed in the bibliography as author of a recent book, he is American and I know no more. I have not seen his book mentioned elsewhere. I believe this is the first time I have seen a determined effort to attach the major share of the blame for Le Cateau to Haig. I find the charge unsupported with no real evidence provided. As a sample of the evidence we are assured that when offered 3 routes for withdrawal, Haig chose the southern route because it chimed with his career aspirations. I expect that there is quite a bit of wheat hidden in the chaff but none that will not be found in the author's sources. I will probably go to the well rather than trust a suspicious chalice like this. It is not often that I cannot find a redeeming feature in a book, even in the turkeys but this one was a waste of money. Null points, I'm afraid.

[Steven Broomfield]

As a sample of the evidence we are assured that when offered 3 routes for withdrawal, Haig chose the southern route because it chimed with his career aspirations.

So Haig saw his career (and reputation) going south even in 1914?

[Robert Dunlop]

Tom, it sounds like the Haig piece may have come from Nicholas Gardner's book "Trial by Fire: Command and the British Expeditionary Force in 1914.". Gardner is very scathing of Haig's response when attacked at Landrecies.

Robert

[truthergw]

Hi Robert. That is the book. It is referenced in the bibliography but I haven't read it or seen it referenced before so I did not feel I could say much about it. There was a great deal in Bird's book that I could have found fault with. That of course, is a personal opinion and does not alter the worth of the book for other people. The great benefit of the reviews here on the forum is the range of, hopefully honest, opinion. I would normally say, if in doubt, read the book, make your own mind up. I have read many books with which I profoundly disagreed but still enjoyed reading and could recommend to others. This is not one of them. This one will go on the small pile which includes Lloyd George's Memoirs and for much the same reasons. L G was at least trying to salvage a political career and regain some credence in governmental circles. I am at a loss as to why a modern author would hitch his wagon to Winter's spavined mule.

[Robert Dunlop]

Thanks, Tom. Gardner's is a very interesting book (I have a sneaky feeling that I reviewed it here way back). Not in the same league as Winter's. Gardner raised some very important issues about the lack of cohesion in the BEF. He got me reading more about these issues of command and control, particularly in this phase of the war. Several years on, I don't hold with everything he wrote, but it does challenge (more than just the bank balance). Can't speak to Bird's book and I thank you for the forthright review.

Robert

[Andrew Upton]

Just to be specific - here are some photos of a repro canister and small box respirator copped from the somewhere on the web, maybe even elsewhere on GWF. I doubt that the original canister color was red.

To me the canister and hose in the photo in Mr. Bird's book look very much the same.

I recognize my own SBR!

The canister is very much original, albeit a gutted WW1 American made one that required some cosmetic repair to make it look good again. The colour was a less than successful attempt to replicate the lacquered finish of the originals (it's actually rather more orange in the flesh). The hose is an original 1939 made one, the eye-pieces and angled mouth piece (along with the nose-clip inside) were taken from an original disintegrating SBR face-piece I acquired cheaply.

[Dan Morton]

Thanks Andrew! I collect photos of Great War equipment from all over the net plus people send them to me all the time. Sorry - I didn't remember exactly where I got them!

All the best,

Dan

I recognize my own SBR!

The canister is very much original, albeit a gutted WW1 American made one that required some cosmetic repair to make it look good again. The colour was a less than successful attempt to replicate the lacquered finish of the originals (it's actually rather more orange in the flesh). The hose is an original 1939 made one, the eye-pieces and angled mouth piece (along with the nose-clip inside) were taken from an original disintegrating SBR face-piece I acquired cheaply.