The Kaiser's Battle

[dycer]

Jim,

It's a while since I have read the Book but as you have an interest in the 51st H.D. this is how the 8th Royal Scots Historian viewed its contribution in 1919.

Enemy Attack ,March 1918

"From the 21st to 26th March,the Battalion was in the thick of the fight.They first came into contact with the enemy on the Morchies-Beametz line and repelled enemy attacks there.On the afternoon of the 22nd,the enemy made a heavy attack from Morchies,which was counteracted by our tanks,and so enabled the Battalion to make a slight advance,and so keep in close touch with the enemy during the night.While our posts held him in check,the Battalion withdrew to the"Red Line," east of Bancourt,where they strengthened and organised the position.

On the 24th,the Battalion held the postion there,until the Division had been successfully withdrawn.Not withstandind that the right flank had been turned,the Battalion set up a stout defence,and held on until all other troops had got safely away and darkness had fallen.

On the 25th,the Battalion held the line at Loupart Wood,which was to be held at all costs until 1 p.m..It was not until 2 p.m. when the right had given way,and the enemy had entered the wood that a retiral was made.Part of the Battalion retired on Irles and here a mass attack was again held up.The Battalion was finally withdrawn on the 26th.

It is impossible to estimate the casualties inflicted on the enemy,as time and time again he was caught in close formation,and his masses of men were staggered again and again by the withering fire brought to bear on them.Lt-Col Gemmill,Lt E. Jeffrey,and 33 other ranks were killed,4 officers,and 133 other ranks were wounded,while 45 were missing."

George

[doogal]

Hi Gloria

This is fascinating stuff - many thanks for taking the time to post it.

I'll be putting Death's men on my "to get" list and searching out other bookls and info on this subject.

With comparison to our present day understanding and experience of protest against wars, I just wonder how much continued throughout the Great War, but is now just ignored or forgotten.

Although we've pushed the discussion onwards a bit - and for the better - I thought I'd share my initial interest in this question, especially with reference to the Derby Scheme. My Gt Grandfather had every reason and possibility to have avoided signing or being conscripted for quite some time, yet had clearly not gone with the first rush in 1914, and had also waited until the last minute of the Derby Scheme. In Novemebr 1915, he was 28yrs old, married with a child (my grandfather). He was a grocer. (he says on his attestation). Yet he went into the recruiting office in Halifax, Yorkshire, and signed to the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, a line regiment. I guess he thought if he was going to go to war, go with a "known" regiment.

If only we could get an idea of what was happening... see the thread on time travel.

all the best

doogal

regards

doogal

[doogal]

maybe, an element of war wearines was being experienced by the Army as a whole

Hi Jim,

This is the overriding impression I've got thus far from reading The Kaiser's Battle. Middlebrook also seems to be pushing the idea that the German's got so far so quick in the first day/morning because of our lack of understanding of our own defensive procedures. Many of the passages he includes from veterans appear to indicate not only a complete ignorance of the nature of their defensive system, but a complete lack of grasp of what the consequences of being attacked were, and what it entailed to be attacked on this scale - to the extent many did not even know to be scared, even as Germans appeared in No Man's Land. I would add there are also passages that describe brutal fighting and stubborn defence, but even with these, once the position looked untenable, there really seems to be a sense of "now what?" - and at that not even "b****y hell now what?" Now, I've not progressed beyond about 11:30 am, so maybe this will change as I get further into the book.

regards

doogal

[gporta]

I'll be putting Death's men on my "to get" list and searching out other bookls and info on this subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doogal,

"Death's men" is I book I quite liked as it describes vividly what was to be a British soldier in WWI. The pages on recruitment, Conscription, Derby Scheme were not that many (placed within a chapter about enlistment of Kitchener men) but there is certainly more to read than the little resume I posted. Still it is a book on the general experience of WWI, not on recruitment.

The idea of the Derby Scheme was to keep a register, and within this, list the men who attested willingness to enlist when called up, and then keep them in England in their jobs (some of them relevant to war effort), until more manpower was needed, so probably some optimists expected that there would be no need for them to be called. The high number of casualties made evident to the Government that there wouldn't be enough with these men to keep a war on. Your Gt. Grandfather example is a very interesting one, surely didn't feel keen on war, but eventually enlisted under the Derby Scheme because he thought it the most proper thing in the circumstances.

I have an interesting ten-page article (the one I mentioned earlier) by Ian Beckett. It deals with conscription, but devotes a good deal of space to the Derby Scheme, and has notes with a fat lot of bibliographical/documental references. Since it is a magazine more than 10 years old, it won't be easy for you to locate: would you like me to post you a copy somehow?

Gloria

[dycer]

Hi Jim,

This is the overriding impression I've got thus far from reading The Kaiser's Battle. Middlebrook also seems to be pushing the idea that the German's got so far so quick in the first day/morning because of our lack of understanding of our own defensive procedures. Many of the passages he includes from veterans appear to indicate not only a complete ignorance of the nature of their defensive system, but a complete lack of grasp of what the consequences of being attacked were, and what it entailed to be attacked on this scale - to the extent many did not even know to be scared, even as Germans appeared in No Man's Land. I would add there are also passages that describe brutal fighting and stubborn defence, but even with these, once the position looked untenable, there really seems to be a sense of "now what?" - and at that not even "b****y hell now what?" Now, I've not progressed beyond about 11:30 am, so maybe this will change as I get further into the book.

regards

doogal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doogal,

From the 8th Royal Scots History(they were the Pioneers to the 51st HD)

Beugny and Beametz

"During these months(December 1917 to March 1918),the Battalion worked at high pressure,and,although they knew they would be required to assist in the defence of the line should the enemy attack,they could find no time for training.Many a time they watched the Infantry learning just that little bit more of tactics than they knew,but,as events subsequently showed the Battalion was receiving the best training they could get,namely,the training of endurance and of their impertubable character and the fostering of their keenness and spirits,characteristics which were to carry them succesfully through the strain of the next six weeks."

George

[doogal]

Since it is a magazine more than 10 years old, it won't be easy for you to locate: would you like me to post you a copy somehow?

Thanks for this kind offer Gloria - perhaps drop me a PM to sort out he best way.

hi George

the passage you quote brings to mind some of the notes sent to the 62nd Division and the 5th West Riding Regiment by Haig as March 1918 became April 1918 - he congratulated them on their "innate" stubborn Yorkshire nature, their stamina and their dogged persistence that saved the day.

(Nowt about tactical genius or highly polished battlecraft)

doogal

[dycer]

Doogal,

I can't disagree with your assertion, the History was wriiten for a Newspaper so would have to display a positive stance.This what it says on pre-Battle tactics

"From December 1917 to March 1918,the Battalion,-----,constructed the major part of the defences in the Louveral-Demicourt sector.The value of these was subsequently proved during the enemy offensive towards the end of March.It was here too,that the "Highland Division" pattern of wire entanglement,invented by Lt-General Sir G.M. Harper,K.C.B.,etc,was first erected by the Battalion,and which proved such a formidable obstacle"

I've not read Middlebrook's Book recently so I cannot remember how the above ties in with his summary of the Battle.

There is historical truth in the History though.

I quoted earlier

"While our posts held him in check(22 March),the Battalion withdrew to the "Red Line".

My Uncle lost his life on this day and the Newspaper report of his death records that he was the last of the original Maxim Gun Team that went to France in 1914.It would appear the Machine Gunners formed the rearguard and were killed accordingly.Whether this was apparent to my Uncle's relatives in 1919 is a question I cannot answer.

George

[gporta]

From the 8th Royal Scots History(they were the Pioneers to the 51st HD)

Beugny and Beametz

"During these months(December 1917 to March 1918),the Battalion worked at high pressure,and,although they knew they would be required to assist in the defence of the line should the enemy attack,they could find no time for training.Many a time they watched the Infantry learning just that little bit more of tactics than they knew,but,as events subsequently showed the Battalion was receiving the best training they could get,namely,the training of endurance and of their impertubable character and the fostering of their keenness and spirits,characteristics which were to carry them succesfully through the strain of the next six weeks."

George

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still, by this time it seems that soldiers were told something more than "Obey your officer". Martin Pegler mentions in his Osprey book on the "British Tommy 1914-18" that in the preparations for battle of Cambrai (1917), that the soldiers were surprised that their officers actually *Told them the objectives* and were shown a scale model of the terrain to get an idea. Still, This is the case of a well-planned attack, and the Kaiser's battle was a case in which they were surprised by a large scale enemy attack... (well maybe not THAT surprised, as it was evident that Germany would do something with all the troops released from the Eastern Front after the armistice with Russia).

This brings to my mind two things mentioned By Middlebrook: that the artillery technique used in the attack, as well as the strategy for the use of troops (with the sturmtruppen leading the way and infiltrating enemy lines) were devised by two relatively low-ranking officers of the German army: Oberst Georg Bruchmüller (artillery) and Hauptmann Geyer (in pages 51-56 of my copy). About the use of Bruchmüller's ideas by the German High Command, Middlebrook says "It was as though Haig had allowed an obscure territorial Army Colonel to prepare artillery plans for the Lieutenant-general who was his General Officer Commanding" which suggests that the British Bigh Command was Class minded to the point that wouldn't get the best idea in the world if it came from ranks below.

A point in Bruchmüller's plan was to shell enemy lines with LOADS of gas. more concretely, a combination of a new kind of tear gas, -a much more irritating kind- against which the gas masks were useless. The idea was that the strong irritation caused by this tear gas would prompt the soldiers to take away their masks, becoming then victims of the deadly phosgene gas which was released along with tear gas. In a recent thread on gas, a contemporary british officer was quoted stating that, in his opinion, many gas casualties were due to poor discipline and carelessness of the troopers (things were always that easy as seen from headquarters, weren't they?). It is evident that in Bruchmüller's plan the idea was so ingeniously (and fiendishly) conceived, that even for the utmost caring and disciplined british soldiers, it woud be difficult not to be victims of such a gas attack. Or so I think.

Gee, I'm actually back in the original subject of the thread... can you believe it?

Gloria

[neutrino]

Just started to read the Kaiser's Battle.

MM has for me, tremendous style, and although it's a great read it's not simplistic in the least.

I've read First Day of the Somme and a book on the Flaklands War which IIRC he wrote.

I've a question though, I'm interested in what happened after the first Day of the Kaiser's Battle, up to ten days after, and wondered if any of you know any book I might get which continues the battles to the end.

[Robert Dunlop]

The most comprehensive accounts are in the British Official History. There are two volumes covering this period. I found them compelling reading - from cover to cover. Highly recommended. You may not want to buy both (or either) as they are quite expensive. But it should be possible to get them via a library. Martin Kitchen's book 'The German Offensives of 1918' is ok but quite light on detail. It comes at the events from quite a different perspective to Middlebrook. There are several anecdotal accounts, including some German ones. Are you interested in these at all?

Robert

[Desmond7]

Robert - would appreciate any different (i.e. German!) perspective on 36th Div sector on March 21 and of course 12th R Ir Rif in particular.

Des

[Robert Dunlop]

Des, I will see what is the 'library'. Robert

[Roxy]

I've just finished 'The Kaiser's Battle' (should probably have been reading 'The First Day of the Somme'!) and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought that it was a very easy book to read - difficult to put down. Thoroughly recommended.

However, I think that I may have missed something:

In his Analysis, Middlebrook ascertains that the "average Third Army division attacked lost 1019 men killed...in the Fifth Army and the average casualties of each of its divisions was 461 men killed" yet in the table that follows the 59th (North Midland) Division has the largest number of men killed (807).

Can anyone enlighten me?

Roxy

[Staffsyeoman]

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.

He reiterated that remark in his talk at the National Army Museum on 29 June. He thinks it's his best book. (I think Arnhem, myself, but..)

[Gyrene]

I recently read both The Kaiser's Battle and The First Day on the Somme for the first time. I'm probably resisting the tide here but I found The Kaiser's Battle to be the better book. I can see myself thumbing through that book over and over again.

[JMcCulloch]

I have read it three times and consider it one of the 10 best books on the war. The episodic narrative is brilliant. Who can forget the image of Ernst Junger coming into the dugout with the record player still going?

[Paul Hederer]

I have read it three times and consider it one of the 10 best books on the war. The episodic narrative is brilliant. Who can forget the image of Ernst Junger coming into the dugout with the record player still going?

I also think its a great book, but I found your example a bit ironic. I think I'd have to give the lion's share of the credit for the narrative brilliance of the episode you mention to Junger vice Middlebrook as the latter simply quoted it verbatim from Junger's own book!

Paul