252 replies to this topic

[David Filsell]

Ms S
Thank you. I shall move on and back, totally, out of the Forum again - leaving my own knickers untwisted and with the anticipated wrath of the mods which you have called upon me hovering over my head.
Regards
David

[SteveMarsdin]

Good morning David,

I don't see any reason for you to leave, there is much sense in your postings. As long as we all refrain from personalising the postings I don't see why an open debate shouldn't continue.

[truthergw]

...........................................
large edit there
..............................................

If I have a real complaint it is that I wish the Zube's research from British sources, and his knowledge of the British army of the time, matched that of the German. That would offered better balance. But there is no point in all of us whinging about the lack of material in English about "the other side of the hill" if we all crwal up our own fundaments when it challenges our view. Some of us really need to "get real". Its just a book which fails to match our Britocentric recieved and developed opinions.

Move on.

Hi David, I agree with almost all of your points and I think my disagreement is mainly on how much weight we ascribe to lack of balance. I believe that,  in his overall philosophy and his general approach, he has allowed himself to stray into error. The Histories of any regiment need reading with a degree of critical detachment. We expect them to extol the virtues and minimise the deficiencies. In the same way, we need to filter personal memoirs. No one would seriously set out to write a factual history based on the published memoirs of the main participants. If I pick up a book which is presenting the German view of the war or a battle, I read it accordingly. I expect it to be pro-German. When an author writes a book which sets out to demolish a long standing myth, I expect more than an over simplistic analysis supported by completely one sided testimony. I expect at least a token effort at balance. For low level unit operations in this area of the Battles of the Frontiers, this book will be of value in the same way as its companion on the fighting in the Ardennes. As a commentary on relative abilities, it is so one  sided as to make it of very little use and as a commentary on the relative abilities of the opposing commands, positively mistaken.

[Nigel Cave]

I honestly do not  see much to disagree about in David's comments. As regards regimental histories (as for any source), surely it is most important to note why they were written in the first place and for whom. Surely we can all agree that they vary enormously in quality as regards the historical record and certainly in analysis; they pick and choose what they want to talk about - usually a matter of sources and of the money available for the project, in addition to a eye for the intended market. Not all regiments could produce something as magisterial as Stacke's history of the Worcesters. So, one needs to be sure of the background to any individual regimental history before getting too excited about it (or not). One can assume this applies to German, French, Belgian, American, Japanese etc etc regimental histories as well. The best British account of either Mons or Le Cateau is, in my opinion, Becke's The Royal Artillery at Le Cateau (sorry if the exact title is wrong), allowing for its limitations as concentrating on the RA.

As regards WD's for this period, my experience in general is that these were very skimpy for Mons and Le Cateau - and understandably so! As I pointed out in Le Cateau, it would seem both sides got highly excited about the casualties they were causing the other side, probably mistaking diving for cover or fire and manoeuvre in many cases with 'kills'. In fact, if CWGC records are even remotely accurate (and thanks due to the late Jack Horsfall, who went through all the possible registers) there were relatively few British kia at Le Cateau (I have not got the figures with me); indeed I am suspicious of definite casualty figures for Mons and even more so for Le Cateau, given the anarchic conditions and the separation of units.

Personally, I think the conduct of Mons and Le Cateau on the British side were reasonable performances, given the 'fog of war'; in particular I think the conduct at battalion level was good - it had to be, given the circumstances. As regards British dispositions at Mons and Le Cateau, again I think these were at least reasonable, given the circumstances.

Finally, I do think it would be useful if everyone interested in military history were to spend time reading Clausewitz; not necessarily the easiest read, but full of basic, common sense, whatever LH might have had to say about the 'Mahdi of mass', which was completely to misunderstand what the man was talking about. It provides a core document from which one can begin to appreciate the problems and issues facing command; we all have the advantage of having a fairly clear idea of what was going on and of the outcome. Sometimes a bit of empathy is not at all a bad thing.

[salesie]

Ms S
Thank you. I shall move on and back, totally, out of the Forum again - leaving my own knickers untwisted and with the anticipated wrath of the mods which you have called upon me hovering over my head.
Regards
David

I was not trying to force you out of the debate, David - just pointing out that my own response to what I saw as your patronising tone in your penultimate post may well be not to your liking, nor the mods - and for the sake of clarity, I will point out that I have never reported anyone to the mods ever, I much prefer to do my own "fighting" (and have been punished with jankers on two occasions, as well as had more than a few shots fired across my bows, without whinging-on about it).

You do make some good points in your posts - but I won't beg you to stay as others have, as I would never patronise you by attempting to change your mind, because you're a grown man quite capable of making his own mind up.


Cheers-salesie.

[GRUMPY]

I was not trying to force you out of the debate, David - just pointing out that my own response to what I saw as your patronising tone in your penultimate post may well be not to your liking, nor the mods - and for the sake of clarity, I will point out that I have never reported anyone to the mods ever, I much prefer to do my own "fighting" (and have been punished with jankers on two occasions, as well as had more than a few shots fired across my bows, without whinging-on about it).

You do make some good points in your posts - but I won't beg you to stay as others have, as I would never patronise you by attempting to change your mind, because you're a grown man quite capable of making his own mind up.


Cheers-salesie.

The aggressive continuous sub-text of your offerings is noted. Nobody else around here seems to want to do any 'fighting', just to exchange views, many of which I find extremely well informed and well written.
Please take this as a shot across your bows. Do feel free to have a whinge, but I won't be on this thread to hear it.

[Siege Gunner]

I am puzzled by the fact that Salesie appears to have seized 'the high ground' and is now endeavouring to 'call the shots' in a discussion about a book that he has not read, which is based on sources he has not studied, in a language that he does not understand.

[salesie]

The aggressive continuous sub-text of your offerings is noted. Nobody else around here seems to want to do any 'fighting', just to exchange views, many of which I find extremely well informed and well written.
Please take this as a shot across your bows. Do feel free to have a whinge, but I won't be on this thread to hear it.

Ah, the voice of self-righteous indignation, which prefers to sit heckling on the sidelines like Waldorf and Statler rather than make any meaningful contribution to the debate.


Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

I am puzzled by the fact that Salesie appears to have seized 'the high ground' and is now endeavouring to 'call the shots' in a discussion about a book that he has not read, which is based on sources he has not studied, in a language that he does not understand.

On the face of it, Mick, a fair point - but only if I am actually trying to call the shots instead of being a strong advocate for a certain point of view; please don't mistake strong advocacy for arrogance.

And, are you seriously suggesting that anyone who can't read German should not be allowed to comment on the English translations of German texts and the conclusions drawn thereof - seriously suggesting that if such texts originate from a different language then they shouldn't be challenged?


Cheers-salesie.

[Alan Curragh]

Rest assured that the Moderating team are watching this, and taking note of the tone of the comments. Sadly we have jobs to do so can't drop everything to police threads like this - packed full of insight, but with an undertone of aggression and confrontation. I neither want to close this thread, or bin it.

A final reminder of an excerpt from the rules -

Respect for your fellow member
You will not incite or be aggressive in tone.
You will respect the right of others to express their opinion.
You will not post irrelevant text designed to disrupt discussion.

Thank you

Alan

[truthergw]

I have to say, Salesie that a lot of your posts are attacking other forumites or defending your attacks and so on. What I have described elsewhere as a meta discussion. One that centres on how the discussion is being held, rather than the topic of this thread which is Zuber's book. Have a look at your posts and see how many actually comment on the book. Like you, I welcome robust criticism but I expect the criticism to be informed by some knowledge of the matter under discussion. Read the book. Let's have your opinions then we can have a good old to and fro about it.

[David Filsell]

Rest assured that the Moderating team are watching this, and taking note of the tone of the comments. Sadly we have jobs to do so can't drop everything to police threads like this - packed full of insight, but with an undertone of aggression and confrontation. I neither want to close this thread, or bin it.

A final reminder of an excerpt from the rules -

Respect for your fellow member
You will not incite or be aggressive in tone.
You will respect the right of others to express their opinion.
You will not post irrelevant text designed to disrupt discussion.

Thank you

Alan

[David Filsell]

Team
Thanks for the support - direct and on the thread. It was appreciated, and one mailing from NC excuses a lot of the flack. But I am out of here. Just don't need it. Back to a friendlier troll free site. I have written my review for Stand To! That's it. Finito.
regards
David

[David Filsell]

Apologies but I would just add that the posting above mine was NOT repeat NOT sent by me (I find it worrying that this has happened). Or have I missed something

[salesie]

I have to say, Salesie that a lot of your posts are attacking other forumites or defending your attacks and so on. What I have described elsewhere as a meta discussion. One that centres on how the discussion is being held, rather than the topic of this thread which is Zuber's book. Have a look at your posts and see how many actually comment on the book. Like you, I welcome robust criticism but I expect the criticism to be informed by some knowledge of the matter under discussion. Read the book. Let's have your opinions then we can have a good old to and fro about it.

Now that is fair comment, Tom.

My sabbatical from the toils of earning a living will be over very shortly, and thus the time that I have to frequent this forum will be greatly curtailed. But I'll be back - or should that be, Ich werde mich zuruck sein!  


Cheers-salesie.

[Gibbo]

Does Zuber actually criticise the performance of the British Army at Mons, or just the interpretation of the battle by British historians? The last phrase of the blurb on the book from his own website suggests that he has a high opinion of the BEF. The following is copied from his website:


The Mons Myth (The History Press, February 2010)



Historians have maintained for nearly a century that at Mons and Le Cateau the British infantry delivered stinging blows to the German Army. The Germans, they said, massively outnumbered the British, but attacked in solid blocks and were mown down in rows by British rifle fire, which was so rapid that the Germans took it to be machine-gun fire. Even though the British were driven from their positions, the Germans suffered severe casualties.

Making unprecedented use of both German and British sources, The Mons Myth shows that the British were not outnumbered, that the British seriously overrated the effectiveness of rifle fire, and that the German casualties were far fewer than the British thought.

In reality, Mons and Le Cateau demonstrated the combat power of the German army in the combined-arms attack, with the German infantry effectively supported by artillery and cavalry, even against an opponent as formidable as the professional British Army.

[PJA]

In fact, if CWGC records are even remotely accurate (and thanks due to the late Jack Horsfall, who went through all the possible registers) there were relatively few British kia at Le Cateau (I have not got the figures with me); indeed I am suspicious of definite casualty figures for Mons and even more so for Le Cateau, given the anarchic conditions and the separation of units.

Nigel, If you, or any other forumite, has info from CWGC or from SDGW, supplemented with ODGW, regarding British fatalities on August 26th, and on the 23rd - in fact for the entire Mons campaign - I would be ever so grateful to see it.  My impression is that there were about 1,600 casualites on August 23rd, 2,500 on the 24th, and a staggering 7,812 on the 26th. That still leaves a balance of over three thousand for the rest of the fighting, which implies an average of several hundred each and every day apart from the three big fights. I note from your research that the figure for Le Cateau is highly suspect.  Furthermore, the proportion of the British casualties that were actually killed was relatively low, for the simple reason that such a preponderance of the casualties were prisoners. Zuber's estimates of German losses - 2,000 at Mons, 2,400 at Frameries (Sp?) and 2,900 at Le Cateau - seem astonishingly low at first glance...but if we allow that virtually all these were killed or wounded, then the disparity is less glaring - indeed, in terms of actual killed and wounded, they might well have considerably exceeded the British losses. It would help me a great deal if I could garner some info. about the number of deaths that were sustained by the BEF on these various days.

Phil

[truthergw]

Nigel, If you, or any other forumite, has info from CWGC or from SDGW, supplemented with ODGW, regarding British fatalities on August 26th, and on the 23rd - in fact for the entire Mons campaign - I would be ever so grateful to see it.  My impression is that there were about 1,600 casualites on August 23rd, 2,500 on the 24th, and a staggering 7,812 on the 26th. That still leaves a balance of over three thousand for the rest of the fighting, which implies an average of several hundred each and every day apart from the three big fights. I note from your research that the figure for Le Cateau is highly suspect.  Furthermore, the proportion of the British casualties that were actually killed was relatively low, for the simple reason that such a preponderance of the casualties were prisoners. Zuber's estimates of German losses - 2,000 at Mons, 2,400 at Frameries (Sp?) and 2,900 at Le Cateau - seem astonishingly low at first glance...but if we allow that virtually all these were killed or wounded, then the disparity is less glaring - indeed, in terms of actual killed and wounded, they might well have considerably exceeded the British losses. It would help me a great deal if I could garner some info. about the number of deaths that were sustained by the BEF on these various days.

Phil

The Official History Vol. 1, states that on the 5th September there were 20,000 men missing from the original number but that many subsequently rejoined. The official returns showed a little over 15,000 dead, wounded and missing.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Sorry, yet another aside from the main topic...

I (and others) have tried really hard in this last week to keep this thread going as it is of great value. A lot of time has been taken to moderate and contact people off forum. Once again we have to intervene and one person has 'walked' as a result of unecessary provocation.

None of us want to take action against individuals who deliberately disrupt the harmony of the forum and the quality of threads such as this. However when private and public requests / warnings are not heeded what choice do we have?

Therefore a member will be suspended for a period of time.

[GRUMPY]

good for the Mods, say I.

[PJA]

The Official History Vol. 1, states that on the 5th September there were 20,000 men missing from the original number but that many subsequently rejoined. The official returns showed a little over 15,000 dead, wounded and missing.

Thanks, Tom, I knew that already.  What I need is a total for deaths as opposed to casualties.  From what little info I possess, it appears that well below ten per cent of those fifteen thousand casualties were posted as killed in action. More than sixty per cent were posted as missing, of whom the vast majority were PoWs.  A significant number of the missing, though, would have been killed, and there were also additional men who died of wounds.  I would hazard a guess and suggest that three thousand killed/died of wounds might have been near the mark for the entire campaign; this implies that somewhere around three or four hundred might be attributed to the battle of August 23rd. and maybe in the order of fifteen hundred for Le Cateau on August 26th, although I recollect Nigel's reference to a much lower figure in one of the books. I need clarification, and hope for help here.

Edit : Tom, my apologies - the opening line of my post appears rather ungracious !  It's not meant to be.

Phil

[PPCLI]

Phil,

You should be able to do some relatively straightforward analysis using Geoff's 1914-21 Search Engine. For example, searching under 23/08/1914 returns 290 deaths; 26/08/1914 returns 886 deaths. Of course, not every single one will be Mons/Le Cateau related, but with a bit of work you should be able to get some reliable figures.

Best wishes,

Stuart

[truthergw]

No problem, it wasn't taken to be. The whole retreat was a staff disaster, much of it unavoidable. I doubt if there are any 100% reliable figures available. One danger, I would like to point out. Sir John French, in his post war memoir vastly inflated the casualties suffered by Smith-Dorrien's II Corps. He also gave a very misleading description of the whole Le Cateau affair. A reasonable description of Mons and after is to be found in George Cassar's " The Tragedy of Sir John French". This is the only biography I have read where the biographer says he ended the book with a worse opinion of the subject than when he started. Not exempt from quoting standard cliches which have now had more than a little doubt cast on them, it is a good picture of the man and the service he gave. Sir John did not do himself justice in the war but I personally would welcome a new biography by one of our contemporary researchers. I still look with some disbelief at the dedication to Sir John's memoir of the war. It is to Lloyd George, a man who could not find words bad enough for the Boer War where Sir John made his reputation and had even less appreciation of the generals who fought it and the Great war which followed.

[joerookery]

I would like to ask a series of questions about Zuber’s sources. I do not have the book yet as it will not be available in the USA until April.  This is something that David said before his unfortunate departure.

That said Zuber's first chapter is probably the best overview of of what he accepts as (generally?) followed German doctrine I have seen. Was it followed? Often I suspect not. It never works that way - the trained officers and splendid ncos get wounded killed. Then it starts to fall apart. (plans never survive contact with enemy). Overall the analysis of the German military formations is valuable too. But is the doctrine - if more detailed in Germany (and if it truly generally accepted and emplyed) actually very different from that of the British.

While I have already cast questions about the operational and strategic levels it seems to me that the author is generally accepted as having portrayed the tactical doctrine of the Imperial German side correctly. While he has definitely stirred the pot I wonder if in this new book he actually uses some of the references at the tactical level that I would think essential. In particular the presentation of British tactics and lessons learned by Lt. Col. v. Lindenau.

Kriegsministerium. Exerzir-Reglement für die Infanterie 1889. Berlin: E.S. Mittler, 1889.

Kriegsministerium.  Exerzier-Reglement für die Infanterie D.V.E. Nr. 130,. Berlin: E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1906.

Lindenau, Oberstleutnant. "Was lehrt uns der Burenkrieg für unseren Infanterieangriff?" Beiheft zum Militär-Wochenblatt Heft 3, 1902: 1-174.

Did he use any more modern German language secondary sources? Such as:
Storz, Deiter. Kriegsbild und Rüstung vor 1914. Herford et. Al. : E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1992.

It is pretty obvious from photographic evidence of the 1913 maneuvers
that not much changed in all units between  the 1889  doctrine and the start of the war. Does he discuss the use of 1889 doctrine versus the 1906 doctrine?  Does he discuss the differences in theory between the writings of  the traditionalists v. Boguslawski and v. Scherff  and the reformer General-Lieutenant v. Schlichting?

I don’t know as I do not have the book. However, before I accept his interpretation of generally followed German doctrine I would like to know which lens he looked through or are we just rushing out to congratulate an author who addressed the subject in English.

1889 attack:


1906 attack


1913 Maneuver.

[Chris_Baker]

What a pity that a largely erudite, well informed and interesting thread has been infected by behaviours shown above. Well done, Mods.