Allan Mallinson - Too Important For The Generals

[593jones]

A new book from Allan Mallinson due to be published on 2nd June: Too Important For The Generals: Losing and Winning The First World War.

From the info on Amazon:

One of the great questions in the ongoing discussions and debate about the First World War is why did winning take so long and exact so appalling a human cost? After all this was a fight that, we were told, would be over by Christmas.
Now, in his major new history, Allan Mallinson, former professional soldier and author of the acclaimed 1914: Fight the Good Fight, provides answers that are disturbing as well as controversial, and have a contemporary resonance. He disputes the growing consensus among historians that British generals were not to blame for the losses and setbacks in the ‘war to end all wars’ – that, given the magnitude of their task, they did as well anyone could have. He takes issue with the popular view that the ‘amateur’ opinions on strategy of politicians such as Lloyd George and, especially, Winston Churchill, prolonged the war and increased the death toll. On the contrary, he argues, even before the war began Churchill had a far more realistic, intelligent and humane grasp of strategy than any of the admirals or generals, while very few senior officers – including Sir Douglas Haig – were up to the intellectual challenge of waging war on this scale.

This ought to provoke some debate when it comes out. I wasn't overly impressed with Mallinson's 1914: Fight The Good Fight, but may give this one a read.

[David Filsell]

Not sure about Mallinson's 'grip' personally. 1914 was totally unimpressive - like that by Falklands Mac.

[Muerrisch]

Good novels, though, if you like cavalry.

[593jones]

I've tried reading the novels but find them very hard going, give me Sharpe any day!

[keithfazzani]

The novels are OK, but very formulaic, read one you've read the lot. I must admit I have never finished one of his factual books, far too hard going.

[nigelcave]

A new book from Allan Mallinson due to be published on 2nd June: Too Important For The Generals: Losing and Winning The First World War.

From the info on Amazon:

One of the great questions in the ongoing discussions and debate about the First World War is why did winning take so long and exact so appalling a human cost? After all this was a fight that, we were told, would be over by Christmas.

Hmm: but both sides - or at least the populations - were encouraged/led to believe this: therefore why did the Germans lose, to put an alternative slant on it?

And how many senior generals said it would be a short war in 1914 - certainly not Kitchener and certainly not Haig? And how could the British possibly win it (since the blurb seems to apply only to the British doing the winning) until at least the summer of 1916 with such a small army by continental standards until then ...

I shall await a review or two before I get excited enough to get it. Perhaps the answers lie within; perhaps not.

[US Cavalry Trooper]

@593jones and David Filsell, What about Mallinson's book '1914' did you have issues with. I ask because I just finished reading it for the first time and thought it was an outstanding book. I'm interested to know your thoughts, and if you have book recommendations for a well-rounded view of the BEF in 1914. I was a career cavalryman in the US Army and am especially interested in the Cavalry Division.

All the best,

Mark

[bill24chev]

@593jones and David Fiisell, What about Mallinson's book '1914' did you have issues with. I ask because I just finished reading it for the first time and thought it was an outstanding book. I'm interested to know your thoughts, and if you have book recommendations for a well-rounded view of the BEF in 1914. I was a career cavalryman in the US Army and am especially interested in the Cavalry Division.

All the best,

Mark

For a good book from the sharp end of an Infantry Rifleman's war John Lucy's "There's a devil in the drum" is worth reading.

bill

[Steven Broomfield]

Fire and Movement by Peter Hart.

[SpencerJ]

@593jones and David Filsell, What about Mallinson's book '1914' did you have issues with. I ask because I just finished reading it for the first time and thought it was an outstanding book. I'm interested to know your thoughts, and if you have book recommendations for a well-rounded view of the BEF in 1914. I was a career cavalryman in the US Army and am especially interested in the Cavalry Division.

All the best,

Mark

For the British Cavalry Division in 1914, see the Marquess of Anglesey, A History of the British Cavalry Volume VII and Stephen Badsey, Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880 - 1918.

For the latest assessment of BEF command in 1914, I would be remiss not to point you towards my own edited volume Stemming the Tide: Officers and Leadership in the British Expeditionary Force 1914!

[Guest]

Analysis of the BEF in 1914 is usually hobbled by the dependence on the OH and some of the myths created by Edmonds. Lots of debates have raged over its alleged biases and inaccuracies, however the more populist accounts (I would include Hastings and Mallinson in this) tend to accept most of the OH at face value. The more objective critics tend to range from the more blunt criticism of the OH "It is official but it's not history", to slightly less extreme views: "Gentlemen We Shall Stand and Fight: Le Cateau 1914". The campaign of 1914 is a period that is rich in mis-information.

 

Andrew Green in his 'Writing the Great War" did a truly magnificent piece of analysis on the (British) Official Histories. It is a great pity he did not continue to write on the Great War.

 

For a really objective analysis of 1914, I found Nikolas Gardiner's "Trial by Fire: Command and the British Expeditionary Force in 1914" to be the most refreshing read. It is worth reading it twice. As a Canadian he was not shackled by the British propensity to slip into the hero-romanticism of the BEF 1914 that paints the retreat and all its horrendous disasters as successes or misfortunes.

 

In order to really understand the BEF in 1914, I would argue that it is impossible to do the subject justice without considering the revolution in British tactics and doctrine in the inter-war years (Boer War to Great War). This is touched on by Peter Hart in his 'Fire and movement" already flagged by Steven Broomfield, however for the definitive study, Spencer Jones wrote a rather interesting book called "From Boer War to World War: Tactical Reform of the British Army 1902-1914" which covers it in fine detail. This period is a foundation stone for the Great War and I would argue it is impossible to understand 1914-15 from the British perspective without having studied this first

MG

Edited. typos.

[David Ridgus]

and if you have book recommendations for a well-rounded view of the BEF in 1914. I was a career cavalryman in the US Army and am especially interested in the Cavalry Division.

All the best,

Mark

Mark

Slightly nervous at pitching in when so many Forum heavyweights have already made their recommendations, but here goes. I have read and enjoyed those mentioned ('Stemming the tide' being the pick for me) but could I just put in a word for an old stager, 'Farewell Leicester Square' by Kate Caffrey. I reread it recently and was reminded just how enjoyable a straightforward narrative history can be, especially one that obeys Terraine's dictum that only the dustiest of historians can neglect emotion.

I'll get my coat Martin

David

[US Cavalry Trooper]

Thanks very much to everyone for the outstanding input! I am waiting for the two pertinent volumes of the Marquess of Anglesey's history of British cavalry. I've also ordered some of the recommended books in this thread, and I intend to read them all.

I came to the subject of the BEF almost by accident in the 70s. I had the steroetypical American-centric view of what little I knew of the war. Both of my grandfathers served with the AEF, and for all intents, I believed then that they basically won the war. I remember reading 'First Day on the Somme' in high school for history class, and totally bought-in the the conventional 'wisdom' of the First World War.

In 2013 I got interested in my family history, and my research led me to the British side of our family. Both sides of my family tree are from The UK. I was shocked at how many our my distant relatives were ilisted in the CWGC list of missing or dead from the war. As a retired soldier myself, this kindled what has turned out to be something of an obsession on the topic.

Among the first casualties were all of my preconceived notions about the British Army and its conduct of World War I campaigns. I almost feel embarassed that I bought so much of the party line regarding how our society views the war. I've come to the view that the BEF of 1918 was among the most capable armies fielded by any nation in the 20th Century and its role was critical to victory in the Hundred Days.

I served on several occasions during my career with British soldiers and still keep in contact with several who became close friends. A few weeks ago, I posted on Facebook about how many British generals were killed or wounded in the war. (That alone turns the opinion of 'chateau generals' on its' head.) The result was a number of comments, including from a close British battle buddy. He mentioned the lions and donkeys thing, which surprised me. One person not a veteran wrote that most of the casualties to British generals was from artillery fire versus small arms fire. To me, under fire is under fire. I made a comment asking that person if he had ever been under artillery fire. He never replied.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm excited that I found this forum and this is my first interaction with other members.

[paulgranger]

Welcome to the Forum,hope you find plenty to interest you.

[Guest]

US Cavalry Trooper

If you have interest in the Cavalry, in the remote chance you have not already read these books, they are worth tracking down:

 

Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918 by Stephen Badsey

Theirs Not to Reason Why: Horsing the British Army 1875-1925 by Graham Winton

A Trooper in the Tins by R A Lloyd (also under the title Troop Horse and Trench)

Massacre of the Innocents: The Crofton Diaries: Ypres 1914-1915

 

There are a number of good regimental histories from the Cavalry and the Yeomanry. At the top of the respective piles I would recommend;

 

The Eleventh Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) 1908-1934 by L R Lumley

The City of London Yeomanry (Roughrders) by A S Hamilton

MG

[Steven Broomfield]

Horsemen in No Man's Land (David Kenyon) is well-worth getting, too, for a view on British cavalry on the Western Front.

Returning to the original theme, there was a review of Mallinson's book in yesterday's Times. The review (by Lawrence James) is best described as "effusive". However, having read the review, I fear I am less than effusive about the reviewer's views.

Having attended a talk by Brigadier Mallinson last year ostensibly about the role of cavalry in the GW, I am also less than effusive about his views.

[David Ridgus]

I was very surprised by the review in the Times. James has written two excellent books on the British Empire and when I saw his name as the reviewer I certainly wasn't expecting such an antidiluvian set of views to come out. His dismissal of the learning curve argument with an airy assertion would have annoyed me if it had come from one of my A level students let alone a respected historian. All very odd.

As Mallinson is chronicling the Great War through the centenary fir the Times I was expecting a sympathetic review but not one that appeared to ignore the last twenty years of Great War studies!

David

[David Filsell]

Anglesey does not cover the work of the cavalry during the Great War in its dismounted actions other than at Ypres. He implies that it is irrelevant and not the job of cavalry!

[Steven Broomfield]

I was very surprised by the review in the Times. James has written two excellent books on the British Empire and when I saw his name as the reviewer I certainly wasn't expecting such an antidiluvian set of views to come out. His dismissal of the learning curve argument with an airy assertion would have annoyed me if it had come from one of my A level students let alone a respected historian. All very odd.

As Mallinson is chronicling the Great War through the centenary fir the Times I was expecting a sympathetic review but not one that appeared to ignore the last twenty years of Great War studies!

David

David - my thoughts exactly. Almost 'bad enough' to warrant inclusion in the 'Books and Bookmen' bit of Lord Gnome's organ!

[paulgranger]

I have just taken delivery of a copy. It should go to the bottom of the reading pile, but I will jump it to the top.

[Steven Broomfield]

Reviews of this book are like London buses: large and red they come along in pairs. I've just read a review in the current Speccie, by Nigel Jones (author, I assume, of War Walk). The review is splendidly non-committal, to be honest, although it does comment that Brigadier Mallinson's military background permits him to 'consider both arguments' (the Butcher and non-Butcher argument) without really commenting on whether this is done successfully,

The reviewer does finish by stating that Mallinson, like his hero Churchill' is 'no Westerner'; this I feel Jones says with a slight air of disapproval, but as to whether he agrees or disagrees with Mallinson I wouldn't like to say other than that '... the price [of victory] was too high, and we are still paying it a century on.'

I will be interested to see, in the fullness of time, what Mr Granger thinks.

[paulgranger]

I'll be reading it next, it's jumped the queue. FWIW I couldn't work out what Nigel Jones actually thought of the book.

[Len Trim]

At the risk of being thought something of a cynic I have recently thought that after twenty years the revisionist view is now the accepted view and that a new generation of writers must now oppose the now standard revisionist view point. How else are they going to get into print and have a writing career?

 

Len

[Steven Broomfield]

On ‎13‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 9:52 PM, paulgranger said:

I'll be reading it next, it's jumped the queue. FWIW I couldn't work out what Nigel Jones actually thought of the book.

It was a classic of non-commitment. I hope Mrs Jones doesn't get the same impression.

[Toby Brayley]

On 5/18/2016 at 0:42 AM, US Cavalry Trooper said:

Thanks very much to everyone for the outstanding input! I am waiting for the two pertinent volumes of the Marquess of Anglesey's history of British cavalry. I've also ordered some of the recommended books in this thread, and I intend to read them all.

I came to the subject of the BEF almost by accident in the 70s. I had the steroetypical American-centric view of what little I knew of the war. Both of my grandfathers served with the AEF, and for all intents, I believed then that they basically won the war. I remember reading 'First Day on the Somme' in high school for history class, and totally bought-in the the conventional 'wisdom' of the First World War.

In 2013 I got interested in my family history, and my research led me to the British side of our family. Both sides of my family tree are from The UK. I was shocked at how many our my distant relatives were ilisted in the CWGC list of missing or dead from the war. As a retired soldier myself, this kindled what has turned out to be something of an obsession on the topic.

Among the first casualties were all of my preconceived notions about the British Army and its conduct of World War I campaigns. I almost feel embarassed that I bought so much of the party line regarding how our society views the war. I've come to the view that the BEF of 1918 was among the most capable armies fielded by any nation in the 20th Century and its role was critical to victory in the Hundred Days.

I served on several occasions during my career with British soldiers and still keep in contact with several who became close friends. A few weeks ago, I posted on Facebook about how many British generals were killed or wounded in the war. (That alone turns the opinion of 'chateau generals' on its' head.) The result was a number of comments, including from a close British battle buddy. He mentioned the lions and donkeys thing, which surprised me. One person not a veteran wrote that most of the casualties to British generals was from artillery fire versus small arms fire. To me, under fire is under fire. I made a comment asking that person if he had ever been under artillery fire. He never replied.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm excited that I found this forum and this is my first interaction with other members.

Welcome to the forum! 

Have you read Horsemen in No Man`s Land by David Kenyon ?  A brilliant read. 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Horsemen-No-Mans-Land-1914-1918/dp/184884364X 

 

*edit* I completely missed the post by Steven! My apologies! 

 

Regards

Toby