Mud, Blood and Poppycock

[truthergw]

............

Dave,drinking for the benefit of the Scottish economy

Dia-Geo have asked me to pass on their thanks and remind you that you are allowed to put water in it.

[Gunner Bailey]

I was berated earlier on on this thread for stating that the book was my favourite Great War Book. A couple of members felt compelled to insinuate that I was somehow defective because of what I said. I stand by what I said then - this book is very good compared to most efforts. I heartily recommend it to other members...

I look forward to reading the books written by those of you who feel inclined to HARSHLY criticise the content of this book (and often it must be said it's author). I assume that you could do better?

Neil

Internet forums are full of people who think they know more than God and the rest of us have to stand in their shadow. Just ignore them, state your opinions, don't be intimidated. There is a lot to be learnt here and enjoy it. I agree with you. This is a good book, provocative, diligently researched (i'd like to see the critics spend as much time researching things) and it does what is says. It dispells myths, removed half truths and tries to set the record straight.

Gunner Bailey

[Neil Clark]

Gunner Bailey,

Nice to know I'm not the only "defective" and that others enjoyed the book too.

Best Wishes to all allies...

Neil

[jtreve]

I finished the book last month and really enjoyed it. It was a very engaging read and hard to put down. As I continue reading (The Guns Of August most recently), I search the forum, as you have, to find perspective and opinion on what I've read. It helps me to 'finish' the book and our learned contributors, through their verbal jousting, often give me cause to question, challenge and then read on.

Thanks to all

arte et marte

Jake

[Tom A McCluskey]

Gunner,

Please don't be offended by the Engineer comment. Reading it again, I think I have delivered it in a vague manner. The point I was putting across, badly, was a more beneficial use of statistics would be publishing the statistics for arms, jobs, and which areas of the front were more deadly (and at which time); as personally, I would find that more interesting. If anything has caused offence, then I apologise unreservedly.

Charles M

Agree totally, at least if nothing else it has stimulated decent debate, and ultimately, it has attracted some interest in the First World War.

Aye

Tom McC

[Gunner Bailey]

Tom

Many thanks for your reply. No offence was taken. We all see things differently and sometimes we all write things in haste (I know I have from time to time). Happy to buy you one in Skindles!

Gunner Bailey

[Guest mruk]

I want to make it clear that I have not read MB&P, however a former teacher of mine who had read it preferred Gary Sheffield's equally revisionist and radical Forgotten Victory. This is a book that I have read and wholeheartedly recommend.

Regards,

Jon

Hi Jon,

I'm going to disagree on this one. He does raise some very interesting points on German militarism, and I know you have contributed most forcefully elsewhere, but Sheffield tells us nothing with regard to the 'myth of war' created by painters and poets, and nor does he help to dispel any argument surrounding the 'Butchers' or 'Lions Led By Donkeys' debate. In fact he hasn't really told most readers anything, and what they didn't already know. I also believe that he has rather compromised himself as a historian in his latest offering on Haig. Perhaps the objectivity lays in the collaboration with John Bourne, I don't know, but it must be extremely difficult to remain dispassionate and impartial when working with documents borrowed from the Haig Family Estate. However, Sheffield is certainly not a revisionist, more a cardboard copy who is merely attempting to redress the balance, and in this he doesn't succeed very well. Distinguished, almost certainly, but he is the only historian whose doctoral thesis [Leeds University] actually reads better than anything he has written since. The bloke could bore for Britain and the Great War.

Kind Regards,

Dave

[Take on me]

Hi Jon,

I'm going to ... snip ...and the Great War.

Kind Regards,

Dave

Have we read the same book here?

FV was not written with John Bourne. The first chapter of FV is entitled "Oh what a futile war? The First World War in British and American Memory" and tackles the questions of how popular culture has been shaped by the contribution of the war poets and other such literature.

Almost the whole of FV is concerned with dispelling the "Lions led by donkeys" argument. For me to agree with your statement that "he hasn't really told most readers anything" I would have to add "providing they have read fairly comprehensively the academic histories of the Western Front". Seeing as most people have not the essays in FV come as something of a revelation to many of those I have asked who have encountered this book.

I have not read Sheffield's latest work on Haig (according to Amazon it comes out in 2009) therefore I will withhold judgement in this respect. Unless you ae referring to him being the editor of the 2005 edition of Haig's Diaries, along with John Bourne.

I am afraid I just cannot see how Sheffield can be called a 'cardboard copy' of a revisionist historian. I simply cannot think of any other books that do what FV does; that is to look at the British experience of the Great War, and in particular the military experience on the Western Front, without producing some vast unreadable tome. I think that the fact that revisionism of the First World War has gained far more credit in academic circles and even a little more in public ones can be put down to the efforts of historians like Sheffield and books like FV.

Regards,

Jon

[Guest mruk]

Jon,

You put forward a very passionate and spirited defence, but my point is that there is nothing new in any of Sheffield's arguments. I have been reading something along similar lines for about ten years, and all Sheffield has done is merely add to the debate rather than further it with some sparkling insight or revelation. It was also his collaboration with John Bourne that I was referring when I was spoke of 'The Haig Diaries' and not 'FV', but I thought I had made this quite clear in my previous post. It is obvious that I was not clear enough--unless you have misread or misinterpreted my reply. Indeed, I have set out my own views on 'revisionist history' elsewhere, and what draws my attention, but I suspect we are on opposite sides of the debate here, and I much prefer the liveliness of social and cultural, rather than the dry and plodding pace of military history. This also includes the pedestrian work of Gary Sheffield. I've tried, but I just can't connect.

Kind Regards,

Dave

[Take on me]

Looking back over FV I see that it really is the scholarly opinion of others, rather than Sheffield's, which is so groundbreaking. Really the value of the work lies in the compilation of this work in a work that I found very easy to read and eye-opening. Looks like we are on other sides of the debate indeed, social history and me do not get on!

Oh, do you mean 'subjectivity' when referring to the Haig diaries.

Regards,

Jon

[Dickie]

I found MB&P an easy and entertaining read. He's one of those authors who writes exactly as he speaks...every sentence I read, I could imagine the animated Pyke-esque delivery as though it was a tv documentary.

The views are thought-provoking, argumentative and/or controversial (something, I get the impression, he likes to be...in a mischievous way). I think statistics can be used to bear out most arguments, it's often what's not on the page that raises the biggest points, and the use of stats in this book are a little weak - that is, the information is not comprehensive enough to get a full picture.

I enjoy his work and he clearly has a passion for the subject, which transmits itself to the audience. His opinions are worth reading and to be added to the research that helps us make up our own (and we know what opinions are like... ).

[General Melchett]

Mud, Blood and Poppypcock was written to be provocative, as the title suggests. While I did not agree with everything he wrote Gordon Corrigan certainly made me sit up and think and I enjoyed it as a lively read. That many others have commented on it in the various threads on this Forum concerning the book confirms my view that it achieved its aim. It is good to have a work that provokes debate once in a while!

Charles M

Thats sums up my view in many ways.

I found it a welcome addititon to the genre and also found it an easier ready (perhaps I'm not intellectual enough). I've read Sheffield's book as well and enjoyed that, but found Corrigan an easier read. The thing I liked about Corrigan is the fact is he is very prepared to back up what he asserts with evidence, perhaps too much at times.

One thing he did write about, which was later partially bourne out for me was the assertion that perhaps whole towns and villages didn't necessarily lose a generation of men.

Whilst it would be totally incorrect to say that certain area's didn't lose heavily, he identified a village in Kent that sffered no casualties.

On a recent holiday in the South West I was in the village of Starcross (Devon) and happened to find myself standing by the War memorial. I noted that there were 3 casualties in WW1, 4 or 5 in WW2 and one in Cyprus in the 70's.

Starcross is a small archetypical type of village / small town that no doubt would have lost men. I found it interesting that they suffered a higher casualty rate in WW2. There may well be other factors for this, population expansion for example, but it made me think of Corrigans book all the same.

[Gunner Bailey]

Starcross is a small archetypical type of village / small town that no doubt would have lost men. I found it interesting that they suffered a higher casualty rate in WW2. There may well be other factors for this, population expansion for example, but it made me think of Corrigans book all the same.

Yes - Corrigan makes the point that the casaulty rate in Normandy in 1944 was actually higher than the battle of the Somme when you compare numbers / percentages. I expect Market Garden was the same yet nobody calls Montgomery a donkey or a butcher.

Gunner Bailey

[General Melchett]

Yes - Corrigan makes the point that the casaulty rate in Normandy in 1944 was actually higher than the battle of the Somme when you compare numbers / percentages. I expect Market Garden was the same yet nobody calls Montgomery a donkey or a butcher.

Gunner Bailey

I think another, perhaps unmade point here, but is well made in Max Hasting's Armageddon book is that that "Poor Bloody Infantry" are often the only way to win a war, and in doing so you have high casualty rates. had the british Army fought in Normanday for 4 years in WW2 i reckon we might have run out of men! We certainly couldn't have sustained what the Russians did on the eastern front.

The US found this out in Vietnam and in Iraq. The reason the Israeli's baulked in their "mini war" in Lebanon recently was they were unprepared politically to incur the necessary losses. Anyway appreciate that's somewhat going off at a tangent.

More so back to topic I was somewhat stunned to learn that a work colleague of mine told me that his son was told to watch the Blackadder series (presuming they meant series 4) as they could learn a lot about WW1 from it. Again Corrigan made the point that for amny people their knowledge of WW1 is strictly limited to Blackadder and other such programmes.

It seems to me a bit of a worrying precedent for a teacher to set, any other comment on this from people? Personally I'd have thought a read of MB&P would be a decent counter measure at least!

[Tom A McCluskey]

Chaps,

Roughly, how many british soldiers were killed in Normandy between June and August 1944?

Aye

Tom McC

[loganshort]

Mud, Blood and Poppypcock was written to be provocative, as the title suggests. While I did not agree with everything he wrote Gordon Corrigan certainly made me sit up and think and I enjoyed it as a lively read.

Quite right! It is a provocative book and it is because of this that the reader should balance Corrigan's arguments with other books. He has not all the answers and he profers suggestions, facts and ideas to support the theme of his book. I must disagree with one aspect of the book however. He does stress the point that the losses in lots of areas of Gt Britain were very low or even non-existant but this does not take into account the fact that whole communities were still affected even if losses were extremely low in some places. People did move around the country for work, marriage, etc and one man's death could affect many more people than his immediate family in one town. It is wrong to assume that just because one village did not suffer any casualties that no-one there suffered from the loss of a relative or old friend in another village or city, as well as their injured men who had loss of limbs, eyesight, or mental damage who's lifes would never be the same again. These men are not listed on the war memorials. While normal life had to carry on, the whole of Britain suffered from the great amount of dead and injured in the Great War.

[Gunner Bailey]

Chaps,

Roughly, how many british soldiers were killed in Normandy between June and August 1944?

Aye

Tom McC

Tom

I thought you had read the book?

Gunner Bailey

[Tom A McCluskey]

I haven't got it anymore

Aye

Tom McC

[Gunner Bailey]

More so back to topic I was somewhat stunned to learn that a work colleague of mine told me that his son was told to watch the Blackadder series (presuming they meant series 4) as they could learn a lot about WW1 from it. Again Corrigan made the point that for amny people their knowledge of WW1 is strictly limited to Blackadder and other such programmes.

It seems to me a bit of a worrying precedent for a teacher to set, any other comment on this from people? Personally I'd have thought a read of MB&P would be a decent counter measure at least!

This is the weird thing about Blackadder. Nobody says how historically accurate the episodes with Queen Elizabeth the first, or the Prince Regent are, they are just treated as comedy, yet the WW1 series is regarded as history . Are people mad?

Gunner Bailey

[Gunner Bailey]

Chaps,

Roughly, how many british soldiers were killed in Normandy between June and August 1944?

Aye

Tom McC

Tom

The comparison in the book is as follows:

Page 298 Table 12

The Somme 1.7.16-18.11.16 - 20.5 weeks - 53 British Divs engaged - 95,000 dead - 89 Dead per Division

Normandy 6.6.44 - 25.8.44 - 11.5 weeks - 19 British Divs engaged - 22,000 dead - 100 Dead Per Division.

Gunner Bailey

[Tom A McCluskey]

Gunner,

A WWII Division was a different entity to a WWI Division in size, and make up.

Somme Day 1

Attack of 120,00 men: 19000+ killed, 40,000 wounded, 500+ prisoners of war - 50% chance of becoming a casualty

DDay DAY 1 into 2

Attack of 140,000 men, 2500 dead in total (US and British)

British total casulties (dead/wounded): 2700

I know which day one I would rather be at!

Somme in total; 146,500 British and Commonwealth dead.

Normandy: Allied Dead (US & Commonwealth, ground forces):37,000.

Again, I think I know which campaign I would rather stake my chances in

Food for thought

Aye

Tom McC

PS - It is also a well known fact that the same select spearpoint Divisions in the Second World War were Monty's vanguard of attack. Hence the near mutiny of one of his 'Eighth' Army Tank Regiments (think the 6th) being near mutiny prior to the 6th of June.

[General Melchett]

Gunner,

Again, I think I know which campaign I would rather stake my chances in

Food for thought

Aye

Tom McC

PS - It is also a well known fact that the same select spearpoint Divisions in the Second World War were Monty's vanguard of attack. Hence the near mutiny of one of his 'Eighth' Army Tank Regiments (think the 6th) being near mutiny prior to the 6th of June.

Tom interesting statistics, rather like yourself I think I know which campaign I'd preferred to have been in (thankfully neither)

However I have different figures which put the British and Canadian casualties in the Normandy campaign at a combined 16,000 dead and 67,000 wounded. The US comparison is 29,000 dead and 106,000 wounded.

Also I have the Somme combat deaths at 95,000 for the British Army and 50,000 for the French. Does your figure only include Britisha dn Commonwealth or does it include French. It seems worrying that different numbers crop up from different sources. Will we ever know thew true number?

I suppose the point GC (and myself) was making was that yes casualties in WW1 were high, however casualty rates in all intensive land campaigns are high and proportionately the battle for Normandy was nearly as costly although my abiding memory of Corrigans analysis in the book was that WW1 was still more costly.

For example I'm pretty certain he states a massive 10% of British Army casualties recorded in WW1 were from non enemy action.

[bmac]

For example I'm pretty certain he states a massive 10% of British Army casualties recorded in WW1 were from non enemy action.

Do you (sorry, does GC) mean friendly fire or accidents?

[General Melchett]

Do you (sorry, does GC) mean friendly fire or accidents?

I've actually gone and looked it up.

His exact wording was "10% of British deaths in the Great War were from causes other than enemy action."

Causes of these included: disease, heart attacks, being run over, drowing, carbon monoxide poisoning, food poisoning from civilian cafes, died on home leave.

In all 9% he states of western front deaths were attributed to these non enemy action causes. He never actually mentions friendly fire! The 10% figure above includes all theatres of war.

[Tom A McCluskey]

Meltchett,

I do a lot of research into the Black Watch TF Battalions and the Highland Division. The 7th Bn The Black Watch have on public record the AFB 213 for every single casualty. This would be available for nearly every battalion had it not been for someone at the National Archives thinking it prudent to dispose of the records of casualties and pensions in the 1980s. However, the 7th BW do provide what I would consider a decent sample of infantry casualties for the Western Front. You can pick a month and recanted to you will be a candid account of the cause of injury or death of each soldier (and they are, whether shell-shocked, killed, wounded, self-inflicted, or executed - as this is also recorded in 153 Bdes and 51 HD's orders). Remember this is a TF battalion and their honesty on casualties might shock Alan Clark. There are nowhere near the 10% stated earlier. Most, if not nearly all, are attributed to enemy action, and they occur when there is a major action, or trench wastage (shells, rifle grenades, etc.). The odd man dies, but let's put this into perspective: the 7th Black Watch had more than 755 men killed during the war, that would be like saying 75 to 76 of them died for other reasons; or of the approximate 2100 casualties, 210 became casualties for anything other than enemy action - and that is strictly not the case!

Anyway, hope this has been of use and been of some counterbalance to the facts provided by GC. PM me if you want the AFB 213 figures for 7 BW for a particular month.

The only theatre where I think Illness and other causess may be larger than battle casualties would be Salonica, and that was in no way on the same scale as the Western Front. Possibly Mesopotamia too, but I do not have the figures.

Aye

Tom McC