What the British lacked in 1918 were good staff officers...some of them were really appalling. We know about Charteris or Kiggell, who went up to Passchendaele for the first time, and burst out, in tears, "Good God, did we really send men to fight in that?" His companion said, "It's much worse further up."

There was the other staff officer who said, hearing the evening shellfire start, "Must get back to my chateau...or the bloody servant won't have chilled the wine properly!" That really impressed the squaddies of the First Sussex, I'm sure.

The British problem with officers in WW2 is a tough one. Some British commanders ran into appalling disasters: Percival, Cunningham, and Ritchie being three that come to mind. Bucknall did not cut the mustard with 30 Corps in Normandy. Others drew flak for not being dashing enough, which is understandable, given that Britain couuld not withstand heavy casualties.

I guess I'm being overly harsh on these guys. Dempsey, McCreery, Horrocks, Slim, Barber, Graham, Thomas, Adair, Roberts, Rees, Tuker, Messervy, O'Connor, Montgomery, Crocker, Barker, those are some of my favorite generals.

Just rambling again, I guess.

To follow up from yesterday, I did some more reading up on Billie Nevill & his
'Kingston-Upon-Thames pals, and it seems that the footballs were for the 4
platoons in his ('D') company. As regards why, it may be significant that he had
been a schoolmaster, reared on still powerful concepts of 'sportsmanlike'
behaviour at the time. It seems that a board was fabricated, announcing the
East Surreys v Bavarians (the German unit opposite) European Cup Final
Tie, "no rules apply", subsequently amended to announce a 2-0 win.

Mike

To start off about Gough, he was the grandson of an Irish adventurer who made his
way up to General in the first half of the Nineteenth century. The culmination of
his career was the two Sikh wars of the 1840s, where controversial tactics
nearly ended his career in disgrace. What little I know of his son is that also
a cavalryman, he served throughout the Indian mutiny.

The world war 1 (grandson) Gough had acquired some notoriety of his own in early 1914, in what was known as the Curragh Mutiny in Ireland.
I'm out of time now, but I'll say more about that tomorrow, as it has some
bearing on his ultimate disgrace in 1918.

Mike

Interestingly Percival (the Lt Gen who surrendered at Singapore) won a Military Cross on July 1st 1916.


I'm aware that Gough may have annoyed people by refusing to use force to impose Home Rule at Curragh......do you think that his superiors held a grudge and were merely waiting for him to make a mistake so they could sack him?

Percival was a brave soldier, a competent staff officer, and conducted himself honorably and well during and after Japanese captivity. He was head of the Far Eastern Ex-POW Association (Member No. 1), and worked for their benefits.

I regard him as an example of the "Peter Principle." In commanding Malaya, he hit the limits of his incompetence. He didn't build entrenchments on the north side of Singapore Island, he didn't do serious jungle training, he didn't even hand out anti-tank instructional leaflets. He just let the Japanese hustle his forces down the peninsula and surrender in 88 days, even though he still held the numerical advantage.

He also had buck teeth and a bird-like look, which denied him the superficial qualities of leadership that are often important in wars. Patton had his "war face," Monty his beret and cocky manner, Ike his broad grin, MacArthur his firm jaw. Percival had Bugs Bunny's teeth and Droopy Dog's demeanor.

Not so much superiors as rivals, from what I can make out, not least Sir Henry
Wilson, who of all people should have been expected to sympathise.

To explain, the 'Mutiny' at the Curragh, which was a British Army military base near Dublin, actually amounted to a round robin signed by Gough & other
officers, to the effect that in the event of civil war breaking out in the near
future, there would be a refusal to march on the Ulster protestants,
who had formed a private army to counter what they saw as the threat of
Home Rule.

What scandal occured at the time, was more along the lines of Gough committing
a breach of etiquette; ever since the time of Cromwell, the British Army &
particularly its officers, were NOT supposed to meddle in politics, not publicly
anyway.

One of the odder phenomenoms of the Great War (and given the thousands
of people out on the streets at the start, actually cheering what would be their
collective self-destruction, Billie Nevill's gesture doesn't seem at all out of
place), was that a form of Home Rule comprimise had actually been worked out,
namely that a form of dominion status (like Canada & Australia) would be awarded
to Ireland, postponed to the end of hostilities. In a memorable scene,
the leaders of the Unionist & Nationalist parties in the House of Commons,
agreed to set aside their differences and encourage all their followers to
enlist.

To get back to Gough, proof as it were, that he was not in disgrace,
is indicated by the fact that he was appointed to the command of the
Fifth Army, its symbol being that of a red fox. What was to gain this
army a bad reputation however, was the composition of its Staff,
which was that in charge of the Passchendaele Offensive from July-
November 1917, and then held responsible for the March Retreat.

At least that was the excuse, but politics comes into it, actually aimed
more at Haig.

To be continued....

Mike

Just time for a quick note, with ref. to Percival: having a terrible tropical
uniform with baggy shorts & oversize pith helmet didn't help.

He didn't do too well in south east Ireland during the Troubles, either.

Mike