In Flanders Fields by Leon Wolf 1958

[hazelclark]

In Flanders Field and Martin Middlebrook’s First Day on the Somme were the two books that really fired my interest in the First World War in the early 1970’s. One major point that has always stuck in my mind about In Flanders Field was the photograph on the cover of the book showing British soldiers trying to move a gun limber (I think) through the morass. The soldier in the foreground, who was knee deep in mud, was facing the camera and had a look of total disgust on his face. An extremely powerful photograph.

The description “Lions led by Donkeys” has never sat easily with me and a number of generals, particularly Haig, have been unfairly criticised. However, like us all, Haig was not without his faults. The Generals were of their time i.e. late Victorian and to try and adapt to the concept of modern warfare must have been extremely difficult. Unfortunately, their learning curve to the successes of 1918 resulted, in my opinion, in a lot of needless casualties in the previous years.

I cannot definitively say that certain phrases such as “Did we really send men to fight in this ..” are accurate or not. I was not there and neither were any other forums members. As I am taking an opposite stance to the “pure fiction” camp in this instance, does this make me a person of a certain childish emotional bent? Whatever that is supposed to mean.

One point should be made : if the General Staff knew of the ground conditions during the 3^rd. Battle of Ypres and continued to send men into battle, that is indefensible. If you disagree, as is your right, source the photograph and look at the face of the soldier.

Douglas

I am looking at the book and as you say, the expression speaks volumes.

Hazel C.

[Theletterwriter]

Stoppage Drill

Thanks for posting the photograph. Apologies for forgetting they were stretcher bearers.

Douglas

[phil andrade]

However flawed the book is by today's standards of scholarship, it stands out as one of the very best of its kind in the era that it was written.

Considering how much hyped up distortion there was being bandied about fifty odd years ago, I reckon this was a remarkably disciplined and fair account.

The style is journalistic, but Wolff carries it off with a properly structured and balanced narrative.

Not quite as good as Alistair Horne's contemporaneous ground breaking The Price of Glory, but it comes close, and stands as one of those rare books that nurtured the baby boomer generation into a decent appreciation of the Great War.

Edit : So highly do I rate this book that I've just clicked on Amazon to replace the copy that I lost several years ago. The book made a terrific impact on me in my adolescence, and I rather cherish it.

Phil (PJA)

[Don]

In Flanders Field and Martin Middlebrook’s First Day on the Somme were the two books that really fired my interest in the First World War in the early 1970’s. One major point that has always stuck in my mind about In Flanders Field was the photograph on the cover of the book showing British soldiers trying to move a gun limber (I think) through the morass. The soldier in the foreground, who was knee deep in mud, was facing the camera and had a look of total disgust on his face. An extremely powerful photograph.

The description “Lions led by Donkeys” has never sat easily with me and a number of generals, particularly Haig, have been unfairly criticised. However, like us all, Haig was not without his faults. The Generals were of their time i.e. late Victorian and to try and adapt to the concept of modern warfare must have been extremely difficult. Unfortunately, their learning curve to the successes of 1918 resulted, in my opinion, in a lot of needless casualties in the previous years.

I cannot definitively say that certain phrases such as “Did we really send men to fight in this ..” are accurate or not. I was not there and neither were any other forums members. As I am taking an opposite stance to the “pure fiction” camp in this instance, does this make me a person of a certain childish emotional bent? Whatever that is supposed to mean.

One point should be made : if the General Staff knew of the ground conditions during the 3^rd. Battle of Ypres and continued to send men into battle, that is indefensible. If you disagree, as is your right, source the photograph and look at the face of the soldier.

Douglas

Hi Douglas

I am a total amateur re research and have no military experience at all.

In my humble opinion you couldn't have put it better. I have the very same thoughts as you.

They were all victims of History,whose place were therein was denied them so long, in Ireland in particulary.

[geraint]

Well put Douglas and Don Don. Like you Phil, Horne's Price of Glory and In Flanders Field had a massive influence on me as a young undergraduate. Liddell- Hart was also on the reading list.

Men were sent out to fight and die in the morass and mud of Third Ypres. Period. Regardless of the theories of generalship in 1917 and today; or of our opinion of Haig - thousands of men perished unecessarily in barbarous conditions. Whether Haig was a bungler who undeliberately threw those lives away or an attritionist who deliberately pushed them into the field, or he did the best job possible under the circumstances; is neither here nor there. Fact is those men died unecessarily. That is the the thrust of Wolff's work.

[Dust Jacket Collector]

I couldn't agree more. The amount of spleen coming my way for suggesting elsewhere that Haig was other than a genius & it was not all worthwhile because we won in the end has quite shaken me. There have been several articles in the press recently, written by Military historians, who want to ensure the coming Centenaries focus on the victories rather than the disasters. Looks like poor old Tommy will get pushed even further into the mud. I'm rather proud of my 'childish emotional bent'.

[SteveMarsdin]

The amount of spleen coming my way for suggesting elsewhere that Haig was other than a genius

Having read this thread and the other one you started I haven't seen any reference to Haig been a genious, rather more seem to suggest he made several mistakes on the way but in the end learnt, improved and got the job done. If you make mistakes as a platoon commander a handful will get killed, in charge of an army and mistakes can result in thousands killed.

There have been several articles in the press recently, written by Military historians, who want to ensure the coming Centenaries focus on the victories rather than the disasters.

I think you will find that these articles were in response to the Government's proposals that focussed largely on, to use your phrase "disasters", so that a more balanced viewpoint was put.

"Looks like poor old Tommy will get pushed even further into the mud."

Those victories are largely down to "poor old Tommy"

[phil andrade]

The thing about Wolff's book - and I speak here from memory : it'll be very embarrasing for me if I turn out to be wrong - is that he gives proper ackonwledgement to the successful phases of the battle ( the three blows of Menin Road, Polygon Wood and Broodseinde) and his " Haig bashing" is tempered by some sympathetic awareness of the awful difficulties of the time.

He certainly gives a sober and meticulous rendition of the casualty statistics, never allowing the sensational estimates to go unchallenged.

He clearly strives for accuracy rather than go along with the hyperbole.

Edit : He was way out in his estimate of French casualties in the campaign, though.

Phil (PJA)

[Stoppage Drill]

Okay, look the story is not true. It takes little to consider the details to realize it makes no sense. It's the usual pap that lions led by donkeys feast upon. The fact it is repeated in various books does not make it true.

Someone, find the source and tell me who said this and where and when. Good luck.... It's not true.

The story has been distorted, and a little embellished, but I believe its genesis may be in the account given by (then) Lt Col Baker-Carr, Tank Corps of a conversation he had with (then) Brig Gen Davidson, Haig's D Ops in August 1917.

"You asked me how things were, I told you"

"What you say is impossible"

It isn't. Have you been there yourself?"

"No"

Has anybody in Army Ops been there?"

"No"

"Well then, if you don't believe me it would be as well to send somebody up to find out"

Baker-Carr recounts it in his book "From Chauffeur to Brigadier".

I have edited the passage a little, for brevity, but I think I have retained the flavour.

[David Filsell]

Does anyone really think it credible that a General or any other member of staff did not know the conditions at the front?

Its unrevisionism gone mad.

[mhurst]

I see that I am in quite a club of members whose interest in the FWW was inspired by this book - in my case at the age of thirteen in 1962. My copy miraculously survived the years and many moves and attic storage periods, and on re-reading it a few years ago I found it as powerful as ever. The phrase which stuck with me over the years was one of the chapter titles: "The Slough of Despond". I had no idea what it meant then (except that it had nothing to do with the much-maligned Berkshire town) but later discovered it was a quote from Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress", meaning 'Swamp of Despair', which is an apt description of the landscape at Ypres in 1917, if ever there was one.

i too have always been moved by the face of that stretcher bearer in the photograph, whose anguish seems to sum up the whole tragedy at Ypres. I hope that he survived the war. Disappointingly, the same photograph is reproduced in a recent book on Edith Cavell, captioned as being taken in 1915, despite the clear presence of helmets rather than service caps.

[PMHart]

Looks like poor old Tommy will get pushed even further into the mud. .

Indeed!

With the earth hammered down by people who disparage everything 'the Tommies' achieved (or tried to achieve), The same sad people who pour scorn on the lads' military attributes, while denigrating the generals who led the survivors to the victory. Above all hammered down by people who insist on treating 'the Tommies' as 'victims' in that awful 'trendy' modern manner. I can hear the refrain from here, "We are all to blame!"

On an unrelated topic you are not a bearded social worker are you young Dusty?

Pete

PS With sandals?