The Kaiser's Battle

[doogal]

Hi,

I got this second hand via Amazon, including post, it came to £5.75

I'm now about half way through, and have been very impressed.

Thje book focusses its attention almost exclusively on March 21st 1918, with a couple of introductory chapters covering the situation just before, and some detail on the planning. However, with the focus on just this one day, he uses first hand accounts to tell the story - and it is a story, backed up with solid detail and good commentary from him, sewing these old soldier's recollections together. So far this has brought out an incredible detail, but remained immediate, personal and human.

The book was published in 1978, and he approached as many survivors of the war as he could, from both sides, so this kind of book just would not be possible now. Knowing that these soldier's accounts are being told from a distance of sixty odd years actually adds to the book's interest, giving an extra point of interest to consider. Although I have not read it, it appears to be done in a similar fashion to his book about the first day of the Somme.

I'm about half-way through, and have reached "lunchtime".

It is worth reading.

regards

doogal

[andigger]

Have you read Lyn MacDonald's books? On strictly the personal accounts, how do you think Middlebrooks presentation compares?

Andy

[doogal]

Hi Andy,

Unfortunately, I haven't read any of her books, so couldn't make a comparison - I would say however, that Prof Holmes' "Tommy" came to mind at certain points - I think this was because it seemed to be delivered with the same sense of enthusiasm - and ability to combine sometimes quite dry information with good story telling. I have my own criticisms about he overall success of Holmes' book, but both seem to hit the elusive mark of being useful (and credible) for both specialists and those with a general interest. Right now, probably because I'm in the middle of it, Martin Middlebrook's book achieves this with more clarity and ease - though he is covering a single day.

I think that's about as far as a valid comparison of these two books can go, as they are in essence attempting different things, but in broad terms, they do succeed in the same way.

I would be interested to see if others have read Lyn Macdonald's book on the Spring Offensive and also the Kaiser's Battle, just to see if its worth buying.

doogal

[Halder]

Both books have their merits as wonderful pieces of "human" military history. The only thing which lets MacDonald's book down is a parcity of accounts from the other side of the hill; for Middlebrook, I ended the book wanting to read how the battle panned out as its scope is extremely limited... but then he never set out to write a full account of the spring offensives. I still think there's scope for a Beevor-esque book featuring all the armies involved in the offensive on all sides.

[paul guthrie]

Halder a good inexpensive paperback follow up is Malcolm Brown 1918 Year of Victory.

[gporta]

I read Martin Middlebrook's book years ago, and, as doogal says, you can't really put it down. One of my favourites.

I'd like to know if there are any more books dealing with 1918 in the same vein of Middlebrook's volume. I'm particularly interested in the "Last hundred days". So far I have Malcolm Brown's book on 1918, and John Terraine's "To Win a War". Any suggestions?

Gloria

[Halder]

There's John Toland's No Man's Land and Barrie Pitt's 1918: The Last Act. Malcolm Brown's 1918 is a very good readable history. (Thanks Paul for reminding me of it; I'd forgotten!) Martin Kitchen has written the most thorough account of the German offensives from the German viewpoint. Gregor Dallas has written one on the armistice and aftermath, which I think is called 1918. My favourite book on 1918 has to be Stanley Weintraub's wonderful A Stillness Heard Around the World.

[SMG65]

A few years ago I was at a Martin Middlebrook talk about the 1916 Battles of the Somme and he said that his book 'The Kaisers Battle' is twice as good as 'The First Day On The Somme', but sells tens times less.

Does this give an insight into the British psyche for the disaster of July 1st 1916 to be the major point of the Great War and nothing else that happened is relevant?

[doogal]

Of course, as with everyone else who has read the book, I wish he'd attempted to cover a few more days, as it puts one's imagination and insight within hours of one of the most momentus battles of the war and the fate of so many- but of course, I would want it at the same level of detail as the existing coverage, which would be a lifetime's work, so I'm quite happy he limited it to the one day.

When I've finished it, I shall post comments here again.

regards

doogal

[Dikke Bertha]

Hello

Other books not mentioned are Gregory Blaxland's Amiens 1918 and William Moore's See How They Ran which covers the British retreat.

A more recent book is The Second Battle of the Marne by Paul Greenwood which is of course broader. No Man's Land by John Toland is still one of the best books on the subject.

Regards

[doogal]

Hi Dikke,

I've heard many things about how the allies began to use "combined arms" more effectively and began their offensive in a manner that was a break from the older tranch warfare approach - but never quite had these tactics explained (as for a beginner) - does the Amiens 1918 give any insight into this new approach?

regards

doogal

[John_Hartley]

I was at a Martin Middlebrook talk about the 1916 Battles of the Somme and he said that his book 'The Kaisers Battle' is twice as good as 'The First Day On The Somme',

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK. So the author's opinion is present important. But I don't agree with him. "Kaiser's Battle" is very good, but I find it didnt grab me like "First Day".

That said, I know the ground of the Somme battle better - and have better documentation of the history (including from Martin's own records - some unpublished).

John

[gporta]

A few years ago I was at a Martin Middlebrook talk about the 1916 Battles of the Somme and he said that his book 'The Kaisers Battle' is twice as good as 'The First Day On The Somme', but sells tens times less.

Does this give an insight into the British psyche for the disaster of July 1st 1916 to be the major point of the Great War and nothing else that happened is relevant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Last year I read Ilana Bet-El book "Conscripts". I read some criticisms about it, but one of her statements seems certainly to fit the official data given on official sources: namely that of the total of all british men serving in the armed forces, roughly half were volunteers, and the other half conscripts... And there is a significant difference in the bibliography available on one half or the other. If I check books on british history of WWI, you somehow get the image of the 1914 "rush to the colours", but then very little is said about what happened later, when the initial enthusiasm about the fight started to fade.

To put it shortly: if you're looking for bibliography for background information on WWI british army, you'll find a lot of books to figure how it was to be a young subaltern in 1916... but not so many to realize how the life of a 18-19 year old conscript in 1918 must have been.

BTW, I understand that british losses in the advances of the second half of 1918, were as great, if not more, than those of previous campaigns... Maybe the public was already hardened to the high numbers of casualties from 1915-16-17?

Gloria

[dycer]

Gloria,

Does this help?

From the History of the 8th Royal Scots

April 1918 " The enemy attacked in force during the early morning of the 11th,and during the whole of that day the Battalion bore their share of holding the enemy in check.Severe fighting took place in and in front of Paradis,but the enemy,after his initial success of crossing the River Lawe,made little progress,and that at great expense.The Battalion had been reinforced by youths of nineteen,who behaved like veterans."

George

[doogal]

"Kaiser's Battle" is very good, but I find it didnt grab me like "First Day".

That said, I know the ground of the Somme battle better

Hi John,

Although I've read a great deal about it, I haven't read the "First day..."

Is there anything specific about this one that is better - or is it just more of a qualitative thing - as you point towards?

regards

doogal

[gporta]

Gloria,

  Does this help?

  From the History of the 8th Royal Scots

April 1918 " The enemy attacked in force during the early morning of the 11th,and during the whole of that day the Battalion bore their share of holding the enemy in check.Severe fighting took place in and in front of Paradis,but the enemy,after his initial success of crossing the River Lawe,made little progress,and that at great expense.The Battalion had been reinforced by youths of nineteen,who behaved like veterans."

George

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks George, That helps to fill the gaps.

I've often wondered about young conscripts in 1918 -not to forget older conscripts., of course-. Obviously, their view of war must have been far from the idealized concept the 1914-15 predecessors might have had before, but still did their best. Also, I wonder if ther training and drill was still the old-style, as undergone by volunteers, or was more updated according to the realities of a more industrialized type of war, and other characteristhics of trench warfare.

At any event, a significant part of the british army of 1918 (the army of the great advances of late war period) were manned by these men. Surely they deserve as much recognition as those who came before them.

Gloria

[dycer]

Gloria,

I am sure there is a Book out there "Conscripts,The lost Generation" that sticks in my mind.I borrowed it from my Local Library(England) and covers the subject you are interested in.Possibly some Pal who reads this may be more familiar with the book and know it's full Title,Author,etc.This may be the Book you have already read.

During the War tactics and training changed to adapt as the War progressed.However,I think the old adage applies "if the bullet's got your name on it!".For example,My Uncle was a pre-War Territorial and went out with the 8th Royal Scots in November 1914.He was killed on 22 March 1918 trying to stem the German attack(Kaisers Battle).Apparently he was wounded and was last seen crawling back for attention.He is an example of a very experienced Soldier,probably through 3 plus years service in the trenches rather than his pre-War training but it still counted for naught when the Germans attacked in March 1918.

George

[Graham-McAdam]

Hi John,

Although I've read a great deal about it, I haven't read the "First day..."

Is there anything specific about this one that is better - or is it just more of a qualitative thing - as you point towards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the ground Kaiser's Battle is THE book to have (apart, of course, from the usual 'Battleground Europe' books that cover the area). The maps are wonderful when wandering that empty country from Cambrai to St Quentin and south, and, as always, MM really gives you the feel of the episodes.

People don't visit it much - when did you see a British car reg. in St Quentin? Compare Albert.

[doogal]

On the ground it is THE book to have

This makes sense, as I have the other Martin Middlebrook book about the Somme -The Somme Battlefields. This is a very thorough book. As far as the Kaiser's battle goes, I've been caught up with the personal accounts more than anything, but there is clearly at least the same amount of precision and description in this book - though I think some of it is buried beneath his attempt to show how the British had set up their "defence in depth" (or not, as the case may be), so does spend some time refering to "Forward Zones" and "Battle Zones", with the places sometimes becoming secondary to this.

regards

doogal

[doogal]

Hi

I wanted to add a little to the discussion about conscription.

Purely observational, but my Gt Grandfather attested under the Derby Scheme on the 28th November 1915. Now, this was pretty close to the end date as far as I recall. I just wonder how many like him really didn't want to go (this is my assumption), and only did it at the last minute - because they felt they had to. I suppose I'm saying that whilst the definition of conscript is clear, I can't help think that many of these earlier "volunteers" weren't really anything more than conscripts in their own minds.

Also, when I read of conscripts being talked about in 1918, surely wasn't it introduced in 1916, so they would have been arriving in France by 1917, rather than just 1918?

regards

doogal

[gporta]

Now I excuse myself as I'm the one who has taken this thread out of its original theme. Maybe should we continue it in a new one? I wouldn't like to further distract those who want to discuss M. Middlebrooks' fine book.

Gloria,

  I am sure there is a Book out there "Conscripts,The lost Generation"  that sticks in my mind.I borrowed it from my Local Library(England) and covers the subject you are interested in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, George. I've read "Conscripts" already (Writer is Ilana R. Bet-El. My copy is the Sutton Publishing 2003 paperback). It's very interesting and covers the subject quite well (IMHO, I'm not an expert, after all). Ms. Bet-El, an israeli subject, had the experience of being a conscript herself, so this was one of the factors that possibly triggered her research on WWI British Conscripts.

Before buying the book I checked some reviews: one critiziced that the shock of passing from civvy street to army camp was not restricted to conscripts, as the earlier Kitchener volunteers had equally swapped the comfort of their homes for army camp life (with those charming training sarges) and later to the even more uncomfortable realities of the trenches. In spite of this criticism, I believe that Ms. Bet-El has a point: volunteers had, after all volunteered, even though if army life and war was not the way they had expected it to be. Conscripts were not asked about their opinion.

Another point in Ms. Bet-El book is that there has been more focus (et bibliography, etc...) on the WWI conscientious objectors, which were, compared to the number of conscripts, a small group. WWI british Conscripts still remain a silent majority.

During the War tactics and training changed to adapt as the War progressed.However,I think the old adage applies "if the bullet's got your name on it!".For example,My Uncle was a pre-War Territorial and went out with the 8th Royal Scots in November 1914.He was killed on 22 March 1918 trying to stem the German attack(Kaisers Battle).Apparently he was wounded and was last seen crawling back for attention.He is an example of a very experienced Soldier,probably through 3 plus years service in the trenches rather than his pre-War training but it still counted for naught when the Germans attacked in March 1918.

George

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think as you say, sadly, the best trained man couldn't do nothing against a shell exploding nearby, bullets or a piece of sharpnel heading towards him.

Also, when I read of conscripts being talked about in 1918, surely wasn't it introduced in 1916, so they would have been arriving in France by 1917, rather than just 1918?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, Doogal, I keep in mind conscripts of the previous years as well. I spotted on 1918 and 18-19 boys because of the theme of M. Middlebrook's book, and, of course, personal interest (ahem).

Conscription was introduced in the United Kingdom (less Ireland) in january 1916. Initially, only for single men and childless widowers, though married men were to be called up as well after May 1916. When I wrote in a previous post "older conscripts" I was not merely referring to older men, but those nineteen year olds sent to the front also in 1917, and, well, as I said I'm not an expert, but I'll bet something that there were conscripts sent to fighting fronts in 1916 as well: regulars and territorials had been suffering casualties since 1914, men in Service battalions had been equally losing manpower since 1915...

Purely observational, but my Gt Grandfather attested under the Derby Scheme on the 28th November 1915. Now, this was pretty close to the end date as far as I recall. I just wonder how many like him really didn't want to go (this is my assumption), and only did it at the last minute - because they felt they had to. I suppose I'm saying that whilst the definition of conscript is clear, I can't help think that many of these earlier "volunteers" weren't really anything more than conscripts in their own minds.

Your comment on the Derby scheme is very interesting. Even though many young, single menvolunteered, there was a good deal of them who were "pushed" somehow (i.e.: white feathers, "if you're a MAN, join the army", etc...), yet if one resisted such pressures, joining up was not compulsory. I dug out a 1989 issue of "The Great War": it has an article by Ian F.W. Beckett entitled "The real unknown army: british conscripts 1916-1919". There's a caption which is illustrative that men under the Derby Scheme (like your Great Grandfather), may have felt a pressure to volunteer: "The last days for men to attest voluntarily under the group system of the Derby Scheme saw long queues forming at recruiting offices as men sought to volunteer and avoid the possible stigma of being conscripted". So Derby scheme men were technically volunteers, but some of them, as you say, may have felt "forced" to join.

Hope that was interesting,

Gloria

[David_Blanchard]

Hello,

On the 100 days campaign, I would recommend 'Amiens to the Armistice' by J P Harris and Niall Barr ( 1998), not quite in the style of Middlebrook but a good analysis of the battles leading up to the armistice.

Regards

David

[doogal]

gloria - no need to worry, I think this is all interesting.

I want to raise a couple of questions in relation to conscription:

Firstly, although the 18-19yr olds may well have been the most visible and identifiable conscripts - and perhaps most compliant(?), I would be interested to know whether anyone can shed some light on the broader demographic; If the UK experienced a marked reluctance from a significant proportion of the male population (hence conscription), surely conscription would have picked up many of these men. From 20 - 42 is a wide scope, surely there were many many more men within this "age group" to be conscripted than the single year group of 18-19.

Also as a slightly different question, I wonder just how resistant the population managed to become - ie those who did not want to go, and really stuck to it - not as consciencous objectors, but just didn't go. When I read of the clear tone of tiredness exhibited in the comments of the soldiers in Middlebrook's book, this becomes an interesting context - we never really hear about dissent and refusal in the UK during the Great War as a social and cultural process. It always seems limited to individual "cowardice", illness or conscience. I suppose in broad terms, this question is how many men said "stuff it, I' ain't going, and you can stick your war...", and if so, on what scale, and how organised (even fleetingly) was this?

regards

doogal

[gporta]

Sorry about the delay, but there was a book I had to dig out as I remember it had an interesting paragraph about the matter... Here, in Dennis Winter's "Death's men. Soldiers of the great war" (My edition is by Penguin books 1978).

You said:

I want to raise a couple of questions in relation to conscription:

(...) I would be interested to know whether anyone can shed some light on the broader demographic; If the UK experienced a marked reluctance from a significant proportion of the male population (hence conscription), surely conscription would have picked up many of these men. From 20 - 42 is a wide scope, surely there were many many more men within this "age group" to be conscripted than the single year group of 18-19.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dennis Winter gives the following number of men joining in each year of the war:

1914:1,186,357

1915: 1,280,000

1916:1,190,000

1917:820,646

1918: 493,562

Mr. Winter's conclussion is that, in spite of a public suspicion that there were many "shirkers", it was not a fair perception, as it came to be seen that there were not so many men to be "combed out". He says: "since about half a milion men would have become eligible each year as they reached military age, conscription had clearly been unable to unearth a significant number of dodgers" and that "the bottom of the barrel (of manpower) had been reached much earlier than expected, in fact". It is evident that, after 1916, conscription was getting the population who reached military age, or those who got in by the ampliation of military age (raising the limit from 41 years of age to 50 in april 1917). As you say, probably many men joining in late 1915 thought that, since they were going to be conscripted anyway at the beggining of 1916, they'd better do it in a more "honorable" way, that is, as Derby Scheme volunteers instead of as compulsory recruits.

Among those who were too old or not enough fit to do frontline service (though medical categories would be miraculously -"C" men becoming "B", "B" men becoming "A"- changed as more cannon fodder was needed) would serve in non-combatant duties (i.e.: Labour Corps) or Home Defence (along with the kids too young to be sent to the front)

Of those older than boys just reaching military age, there were many different cases with different reasons to remain civil: married men, many with children, with a settled life and regular work (needed by their families: the situation of widows and orphans could be terrible); men serving as skilled workers (and thus needed for the war effort); men phisically unfit for active service (which might have volunteered earlier in the war but rejected), and of course those who weren't keen on war because of personal beliefs (wether these were of a religious type or more profane), and those who were not bent on war and thought "I don't want to kill or be killed" (and, seeing today the history books, it is understatable that there was people reluctant to join the massacre).

All this is a very short resume of what I read, so there is much more to say on the matter, of course.

Also as a slightly different question, I wonder just how resistant the population managed to become - ie those who did not want to go, and really stuck to it - not as consciencous objectors, but just didn't go. When I read of the clear tone of tiredness exhibited in the comments of the soldiers in Middlebrook's book, this becomes an interesting context - we never really hear about dissent and refusal in the UK during the Great War as a social and cultural process. It always seems limited to individual "cowardice", illness or conscience.  I suppose in broad terms, this question is how many men said "stuff it, I' ain't going, and you can stick your war...", and if so, on what scale, and how organised (even fleetingly) was this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From my sources, there were organizations as the No-Conscription fellowship, and I understand that those who chose to become C.O. might ask for advice to one of these groups. In any event, they had the right of being defended by advocates in a trial, etc... C.O.s were disregarded by most of the population, who had their relatives serving when not maimed or dead in the front, and probably thought that it was selfish of them to want to "get out" of it. It has to be said that some C.O.s eventually served in the army, but in non-combatant duties (i.e.: stretcher bearers). Those who refused completely to serve in any way had to go to prison: it seems that the prospect of this was not very rosy either (and certainly got you a bad reputation in the neighbourhood, hence a silent majority prefered to join.

The numbers of Conscientious Objectors are these (I take the data from Mr. Winter's book): 16.000 men registered as COs. Of these, "Only 1,500 refused to do any work connected with the war effort". put this 16.000 against the 2,504,208 conscripts of 1916-18, and they are evidently a small percentage. As Mr. Winter puts it "it would seem therefore that few men doubted tat war was a fully acceptable job socially".

(...)Firstly, although the 18-19yr olds may well have been the most visible and identifiable conscripts - and perhaps most compliant(?),

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably there was a bit of everything. You can take, for instance F.H. Hodges, who according to his statements in his memoir "Men of 18 in 1918", was the type of man who would have volunteered anyway had conscription not been introduced: he joined at the age of seventeen and eight months, that is, four moths before the WO might have sent him the call-up notice. Another fellow of his same age, on the other hand, would state that, when he was sent to the front "I was naturally extremely frightened of what I was about to experience" so he was evidently reluctant... but then, he follows "However, it did not take me very long to learn to do what I was told" which is a matter-of-fact statement that he ultimately did his job as ordered.

Gloria

[Jim Gordon]

I read Martin Middlebrook's "The Kaiser's Battle" several years ago and can thoroughly recommend it.

However, I did find one fault with his explanation of why the 51st(H) Division was the only Division to lose it's Battle Zone on the Third Army front on the first day i.e. that Highland troops have never been renowned for their defensive qualities and that , maybe, an element of war wearines was being experienced by the Army as a whole. ('I've served three years in this Hell and survived so far and I'm damned if I'm going out on a limb now' sort of thing). I agree with the latter assessment but disagre with the former. Surely 'The Thin Red Line' at Balaclava was one of the finest defensive actions ever carried out by the british Army !

Regards

Jim Gordon