This was the title of the next in the series of lectures by the Herts At War project ( follow this link for more info http://www.hertsatwar.co.uk/ ) by Gordon Corrigan a former Gurkha officer, and very interesting he was too.
I suppose much of the lecture was explaining the popular myths and how they came about. The myth that WW1 wiped out a generation for instance is largely untrue, though notwithstanding there was an appalling lose of life. How did people start thinking this? One possible answer is from the soldiers themselves. A local battalion would have men who possibly worked together, socialised together and went into battle together. If they sustained 10% casualties its not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest that every soldier who survived would have known someone who didn't. Expand this over all the regiments up and down the country & maybe that's how this became a 'lost generation.' Infact the loses of France and Germany were greater than Britain.
Lions led by donkeys is another one. That is to say all the Generals were out of touch & miles behind the front line. Infact 146 officers of General rank were killed by the Germans & others were wounded or taken prisoner. Of course the Generals weren't in the front line, that wasn't their job. Information from brigade, division and army corps had to be passed back to the headquarters for the decisions to be made. There were some old duffers of course, recalled out of retirement on the outbreak of war and had never led men in battle. As colossal as the casualties were the General Staff were learning all the time & the tactics of 1914 had changed by 1916 and again throughout the war.
British soldiers were shot out of hand at Court Marshals. Abit more controversial this one. There was a Court Marshal process, soldiers were represented by officers who in civvy life were lawyers and barristers. 46 of the 300 or so soldiers executed were so for murder. In civilian life at that time murder was a capital offence so they were shot instead of hanged. Now that court marshal papers have come into the public domain it appears that alot (but by no means all) were serial offenders. In many cases the death sentence was suspended and the soldier returned to the front only to desert again & again, and shell shock was recognised as a real condition. Also Australia did have the death sentence for their troops but the sentence had to be ratified by the Governor General back in Australia & this was never done so none were ever shot.
I did know alot of what Corrigan was talking about but not in the depth he went into, for instance it's a common misconception that troops went to France and were in the front line trenches all the time. On average troops stayed a maximum of seven days in the front line and were then taken back to other bases though alot were then used to take supplies up to the front line. French troops on the other hand were left for months in the front line until the brigade had taken 30% casualties only then were they taken out of the line, this certainly fuelled their munity of 1917.
A war that need not have been fought? Major Corrigan thinks not. Germany were looking to expand, in the build up to war they launched 17 brand new battleships, this could only be in direct competition with the Royal Navy. Had Britain watched while Europe became embroiled in war the probable outcome would have been a German victory. It's unlikely they'd have stopped there so the thought was that Great Britain would then have had to take on a much stronger Germany. That's just one theory of course and there are no doubt many other different views but our speaker tonight put his take on things in a very lively and interesting way. I'd go to his lectures again.
I suppose much of the lecture was explaining the popular myths and how they came about. The myth that WW1 wiped out a generation for instance is largely untrue, though notwithstanding there was an appalling lose of life. How did people start thinking this? One possible answer is from the soldiers themselves. A local battalion would have men who possibly worked together, socialised together and went into battle together. If they sustained 10% casualties its not beyond the realms of fantasy to suggest that every soldier who survived would have known someone who didn't. Expand this over all the regiments up and down the country & maybe that's how this became a 'lost generation.' Infact the loses of France and Germany were greater than Britain.
Lions led by donkeys is another one. That is to say all the Generals were out of touch & miles behind the front line. Infact 146 officers of General rank were killed by the Germans & others were wounded or taken prisoner. Of course the Generals weren't in the front line, that wasn't their job. Information from brigade, division and army corps had to be passed back to the headquarters for the decisions to be made. There were some old duffers of course, recalled out of retirement on the outbreak of war and had never led men in battle. As colossal as the casualties were the General Staff were learning all the time & the tactics of 1914 had changed by 1916 and again throughout the war.
British soldiers were shot out of hand at Court Marshals. Abit more controversial this one. There was a Court Marshal process, soldiers were represented by officers who in civvy life were lawyers and barristers. 46 of the 300 or so soldiers executed were so for murder. In civilian life at that time murder was a capital offence so they were shot instead of hanged. Now that court marshal papers have come into the public domain it appears that alot (but by no means all) were serial offenders. In many cases the death sentence was suspended and the soldier returned to the front only to desert again & again, and shell shock was recognised as a real condition. Also Australia did have the death sentence for their troops but the sentence had to be ratified by the Governor General back in Australia & this was never done so none were ever shot.
I did know alot of what Corrigan was talking about but not in the depth he went into, for instance it's a common misconception that troops went to France and were in the front line trenches all the time. On average troops stayed a maximum of seven days in the front line and were then taken back to other bases though alot were then used to take supplies up to the front line. French troops on the other hand were left for months in the front line until the brigade had taken 30% casualties only then were they taken out of the line, this certainly fuelled their munity of 1917.
A war that need not have been fought? Major Corrigan thinks not. Germany were looking to expand, in the build up to war they launched 17 brand new battleships, this could only be in direct competition with the Royal Navy. Had Britain watched while Europe became embroiled in war the probable outcome would have been a German victory. It's unlikely they'd have stopped there so the thought was that Great Britain would then have had to take on a much stronger Germany. That's just one theory of course and there are no doubt many other different views but our speaker tonight put his take on things in a very lively and interesting way. I'd go to his lectures again.
 |
| Gordon Corrigan in full flight at the Lecture Theatre at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield. |
No comments:
Post a Comment