IrishGunner

I always thought Churchill must have been Benny Hill's father...

Brian, an able tour d'horizon of the time. However, if I may, I'm a bit surprised at the lack of points to debate. Indeed, there can be no debating the factual events. But what of the role played by so-called leaders? Gallipoli was "all" Churchill, just as Munich was "all" Chamberlain. Scapegoat? I think not. Guilty as charged. He then spent six months "in the trenches" as a battalion commander before taking advantage of his privilege to return to Blighty to attend to his parliamentary duties (he was still a MP). While he was reportedly respected by his troops, his experience in France is hardly that of other future war leaders (Montgomery for example was wounded, won the DSO, and was at Passchendaele). I always have this nagging feeling that Chuchill's accounts of his "exploits" in the Boer War and the First World War are rather Hemingway-esque - I won't go so far as to say "mythic", but they seem more like great short stories, not truly authentic autobiography.

So, what changed in Churchill during the inter-war years to make him a more able war leader? I'm a "Churchill fan" - don't take me too wrongly on this - but I'm left with a notion that Churchill was a product of events rather than a maker of events. Churchill couldn't criticize his fellow travelers who played huge roles in winning WWII, because the victory was not "all" Churchill. He was simply the face of Victory.

Stuart, thanks for posting the article. The line I took from the end paragraph is this one: "Should we really fault Chamberlain for postponing a potentially disastrous fight that his military advisers cautioned against, his allies weren't ready for, and his people didn't support?"

The italics of the word "postponing" are mine. I could agree perhaps even with your quoted out-take, if there really was a grand strategy to buy time in order to be ready for war. But I don't think that really was the case. Chamberlain thought Hitler would stop with his "reasonable" demand for the Sudetenland. Neville thought it was the end game. He was blind to the real intent and long-term strategy of Hitler (He didn't read Mein Kampf I guess. Intell failure?) Therefore, Chamberlain failed to have a long-term strategy to deal with Hitler. I would have to read more, but if Chamberlain's move at Munich really was only a gambit to simply buy time, then it makes sense. But I haven't read anything up to this point that suggests that was the case. By not knowing his "enemy" Chamberlain failed to see that one morsel would not satiate the beast like he hoped.

Ok, you got me, I don't really have a Christmas Card list...but I do have a list...good news you are not on it.

Another point for Mr. Chamberlain. His parents named him Neville for God's sake. Poor little fellow was probably beaten up at

school and had his lunch money stolen on a regular basis. He was doomed to give things away without a fight.

Regards

Brian

I truly doubt he was bullied at school. Despite its tough sounding name, Rugby School, the place is primarily known for authors (like Lewis Carroll and Salman Rushdie) and accountants (like Neville).

Poor Neville was destined to be milk-toast coward; leading hospitals and never being called to the Colours.

I've just re-read the original blog and noted the following: "later that evening I removed him from my Christmas card list."

I didn't even know you had a Christmas card list. Wait, doesn't one have to be added before one can be removed?

Brian, notwithstanding... You betcha.

As the only Englishman present

Of course, the best leaders England ever had were Englishwomen. Right Megan?

These are simply musing and not an argument;

Hear, hear. (Parliamentary speak don't cha know).

I would consider my comments more along the lines of a Non-Paper (aka aide-mémoire). (Diplomatic speak don't cha know)

Megan, Chamberlain may have been doing what he thought the electorate wanted, but that doesn't make it right. While "politically correct," your argument would then justify what Hitler did in 1930s because he was "popularly" elected and, at least, in the beginning doing what the majority wanted. So, Chamberlain gets the Nuremberg Defense - Chamberlain was "just a good soldier; following orders; he had no choice."

A "good historian" - to use your words - doesn't just look at the facts or to use your words - "find out what was known at the time and to whom, and what the 'will of the people' was". That's easy. It's okay I suppose if you are producing a History Channel 30-minute piece. But where's the "so-what" factor? The difficult part is analyzing the facts to guide the future. It's not enough to know why or how something happened. A "good historian" is finding the right lessons for the leaders to learn.

Neville Chamberlain is not a very good lesson in leadership. I recommend Joshua Chamberlain instead.

1 Other than quotes this blog consists of my opinions

Indeed and so diplomatically enunciated.

I can only agree that Chamberlain is not alone to blame. He was simply the leader of the international community at the time. He is no more to blame alone for WWII than George Bush was to blame alone for Iraq. But being a leader means sometimes making unpopular decisions. It is my opinion that Neville did not have the requisite leadership ability (read back-bone) to make the hard decision. Instead, he chose "hope" as his option. Not a good strategy. He hoped by avoiding the hard decisions - read confrontation - he could secure Britain. Daladier had the same approach for France. Neither cared for random specks on a map.

Thus, as "leaders" of the League of Nations it was easier to let Japan have Manchuria (what does Downing Street care about that far away place?); Italy have Abyssinia (oh, why we should bother - it won't endanger Cornwall if Italy gets some African "colonies"); Germany get parts of Czechoslovakia - (they weren't a real country anyway but some leftover vestige of the Hapsburgs) - surely the loss of those independent lands to aggressors isn't sufficient to risk war for Britain. (Not to mention, once those aggressor nations withdrew from the League; they were not subject to the League's rules.) I mean after all, it's just business ... just diplomacy. Just the way things had been done for decades and decades. The League was a sham. A fake. (Perhaps like the UN?) Britain and France really didn't need the League to act, did they? I'm sure if Whitehall or the Elysee had interests to protect they wouldn't have worried about some old diplomats in Geneva. The League was a mere fig leaf for cowards.

I mean, why not follow the US lead; don't even join the League (the brainchild of our own president); why should we care about what happens in Europe or anywhere else (as long as Manifest Destiny isn't involved). At least that was a "honest" approach - a democratic approach - the Senate decided it wasn't in US national interests to join despite Wilson's personal and political investment. (Oh by the way, the US isn't a "parliamentary" democracy; the President can't be removed by a vote of no-confidence. He can be impeached, but that's a different story.)

The best way to avoid war, is to prepare for war. Deterrence. Appeasement only signaled that we won't go to war for specks on the map (unless they are our specks on the map). Appeasement had no chance to avert war. It had no deterrence value. It encouraged war, only in a matter of time. No, Chamberlain didn't surrender. He had options. His back wasn't against the wall. He wasn't facing overwhelming odds. He could resist. Instead, he abdicated. He quit. He took the easy way. Much worse than surrendering.

I can only agree that we should not vilify Neville...alone..., but I'm sorry, in my opinion, history should not forgive him his failure to lead at a time when leadership was needed.

Recently found this excellent article about Fort Loncin's final hours and its legacy... Well worth a read.

Thank you for the presentation. I look at the regiment's known killed through the war and see that 1914's losses were followed by much lighter casualties in 1915-16-17, which then pick up again a bit in the 1918 offensives and Hundred Days. Still, the worst year from these partial data is nevertheless the short year of 1914.

Mark, interesting observation. Remember though...these are only a sampling found in the public domain on the internet. The Regiment's total casualties surely were much higher.

Damn, now I see Brian Wolfe used Poe and The Raven in his blog of February 2014. Will I always be a step behind Obi Wan Wolfe?

Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Damn, and I thought I was going to be original with my most recent blog post citing physics and the end of summer gardening, but I see now you beat me by over two weeks! I still say Nick should start issuing diplomas.

My 22 year old son is a huge Star Wars fan. His son was born in June this year. He named him Lucas. His wife is already tired of hearing: "Luke, I am your father."

Oh, and I have a similar umbrella; it's quite large and stands almost 10 feet tall. Exactly like these (yes, including the Żywiec logo):

However, I usually have no problem with getting it into it's mesh bag. I just recall my youth and putting similar bag-like covers over lengthy tubular items.

I kind of see things this way: It's not that they don't understand. It's that they don't want to understand. After all, haven't you learned that the meaning of life is giving women what they want. What a man wants is childish at best, irrelevant most times, and sadly insane in the worst case. The only time a man gets what he wants is when the woman wants to feel superior by feigning magnanimity. I need some (Irish) coffee.

12. bFAR Militär-Max-Joseph-Orden:

• Ritter von Nastvogel, Philipp; geb.: 13. 03. 1884 Würzburg; Leutnant der Reserve; 2./ 12. bayerisches Feldartillerieregiment; Gefecht bei Liedersingen am 20. 08. 1914
• Ritter von Schöpf, Hermann; geb.: 06. 11. 1886 Leimersheim/ Pfalz; Leutnant; 4./ 12. bayerisches Feldartillerieregiment; Kämpfe bei Maricourt am 27. 09. 1914

Thanks for the comments, Brian and Chris. I've viewed the area with Google Earth and other photos; it would be a great area to tour.

Verlust List 12. bFAR (assembled from the internet - weltkriegsopfer.de - certainly the list is imcomplete)

• Plinganer, Alois 5. Batt.; 24.08.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: nicht bekannt
• Depper, Wilhelm Gefreiter 4.Batt,; 29.09.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: bei Montauban, Frankreich; im Gefecht gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Fricourt (Arrondissement Peronne)
• Wöllmer, Karl Fahrer; 01.11.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Hollebeke, Belgien; gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Menen, Belgien
• Hecht, Walter Kanonier 5. Batt.; 07.11.1914; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Oosttaverne, Belgien; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Langemark-Poelkapelle (Arrondissement Ypern)
• Augustin, Jakob Fahrer 1.Komp.; 17.06.1915; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Belgien; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Menen, Belgien
• Marx, Otto Gefreiter 6.Komp.; 28.12.1915; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Carvin (Arrondissement Lens)
• Mederer, Alois Kanonier 2.LMK; 13.01.1916; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Carvin (Arrondissement Lens)
• Bär, Hugo Gefreiter 1.Komp.; 03.04.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort: Frankreich; gefallen; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Saint-Quentin (Arrondissement Saint-Quentin)
• Bausewein, Maximilian Vizewachtmeister 8. or 9. Batt.; 16.08.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort: südöstlich Lagny, Frankreich; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Nampcel (Arrondissement de Compiègne)
• Albert, Julius Gefreiter 1. Bttr.; 11.10.1918; Todes- / Vermisstenort Gondrecourt, Frankreich; infolge Krankheit; Letzte Ruhestätte/Stadt: Deutscher Soldatenfriedhof Briey (Arrondissement Briey)

The list is organized in chronological order as a means to help track the Regiment's "path" through the war.

Thanks to GRA - Jonas, we have the RHA battery allocation per cavalry brigade:

According to Anglesey's "A History of the British Cavalry", volume 7, I Battery RHA could well have belonged to 4th Brigade (they were ordered together towards Néry by Allenby). This would give the following brigade-battery allotment:

1 Bde - L Bty

2 Bde - E Bty

3 Bde - D Bty

4 Bde - I Bty

5 Bde - J Bty

The Russia article might be delayed due to work on Artillery in the First World War: Special Issue – Belgium’s Artillery and the Battle of Liege, 1914

Certainly the world seemed "safer" when we all were outside playing soldier as kids. Even growing up in the 60s, I had little knowledge of Vietnam - until my neighbor's son didn't come home and my brother went to Southeast Asia. Even then, I knew nothing of what was going on in African wars.

There always were nasty little wars going on somewhere. We just didn't know about them. Now with advancements in media, we know minute by minute what's going on...

The world never was safe. We were just unaware. Now that we are aware. We still can't make it safe. We are just animals caught up in the battle for survival. Only we are more efficient, brutal, and don't eat our kills.

Perhaps the squirrels are the best off - but even they are nasty little critters.

They eat young birds in their nests - I shot 50 in 2 months in my garden in the Uk to protect them. Perhaps a desert island would be best......

Mervyn, I know you meant this statement in a light hearted manner; however, I think it really gets to the crux of the world's obsession with conflict. No one has ever "grown up" in a "safe world." There have always been and will always be "nasty little critters" and we will always choose sides. In the battle for survival (squirrels have just as much right to survive as birds), you chose a side and became an Iron Dome for the birds. This is not a criticism of your statement, rather more a statement of cynicism on my part.

I honestly don't think the world could have avoided WWI, unless the leaders would have pulled back (which in 1914 was impossible).

Chris, I agree with your statement above. But perhaps for a slightly different reason. The "power" to avoid war was indeed in the hands of each nation's leadership. It was "impossible" for them to pull back in 1914 because they didn't want to pull back. They wanted war and had been preparing for some time. It was only a question of when. Sarajevo only provided a spark to light the fuse.

Brian, another great blog entry. Of course, we've kicked this topic around quite in bit in the forum. I'm in the "nothing is inevitable; we always have choices" camp. But rather than re-debating if WWI was avoidable or not, I prefer to redirect the conclusions to how can we avoid the bad choices. That's the value of the inevitable/avoidable debate. As with military tactics, we often hear "lessons learned." I mentioned previously in another space in a discussion with Bernhard that, in reality, we have few tactical "lessons learned," but plenty of "lessons identified." They are only lessons learned when they are analyzed, adapted, and changes in the way things are done are implemented. The same is true at the operational and strategic levels of warfare, as well as diplomacy. We identify from the past many things that could have been done differently, but unfortunately, we don't "learn" those lessons and history repeats itself. I was particularly struck by this paragraph you wrote...

"If we could travel back in time to the turn of the twentieth century what would we find? What was the political and social atmosphere of the day? France was still stinging over the loss of territory to Germany as a result of the Franco Prussian War and still in distrust of Britain, Germany and Russia due to their alliance against Napoleon. The British were embroiled in a very unpopular war in South Africa and was being criticised for their involvement by just about everyone outside of their own Empire. The Russians had been a pain in the behind of the British and the French in the Crimea and through their involvement in adding to the hatred of the British Raj in India through Afghanistan resulting in the Indian Mutiny of 1857 (First War of Indian Independence?). Fear and distrust were the watch words of the day. It would be quite accurate to suggest that this period in history was not unlike the Cold War of post WW II times, which was experienced by many of the older members here at GMIC."

You didn't carry the time-line analogy far enough. Fear and distrust are still the watch words of the day. I'd say your description of the pre-WWI era is strikingly similar to today.

France is still stinging from the loss of influence in the world and control of the EU to Germany. Of course, Eastern Europe (Poland et al) are in distrust of Germany/France due to their "alliance" with Russia. The US has been embroiled in an unpopular war (Iraq/Afghanistan) and is criticized by everyone by just about everyone outside their own Empire. The Russians are a pain in everyone's backside...oh, because they are back in Crimea (interesting coincidence).

Oh, and we can add some of the scariest parts of pre-WWII era to the soup. War weariness and Appeasement come to mind. Many would call Princip a terrorist (oh, they had that scourge back then too). Others would hail him as a freedom fighter (oh, many consider jihads in a similar way). So, add those to the pot.

Was WWI inevitable or avoidable? (And I say WWII was a continuation of the first with a strategic pause in between) ((I also say that the Cold War was a continuation of the second with an operational pause in between)) It doesn't matter if WWI was inevitable or unavoidable. It is inevitable to be continued if we don't consider the way it might have been avoided - LEARN the lessons. Change our thinking. Adapt. Otherwise, we risk moving into the Dénouement of this drama, which saw WWI as the First Act.

The German attack was overwhelming.

Yea, Germany has won more football games than wars in the 20th Century.