If Ordered, I couldn't............. (2 Viewers)

[trooper]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

 

[Rob]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

Superb post.

Rob

 

[Cardigan600]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totally different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casualties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

Yo trooper, how true mate. I was taking a light hearted look at the Light Brigade. But being an ex Hussar and thinking back to my young days as a Trooper we were reckless and never gave it a thought that at anytime we could be sent to war and die, after all thats what I was trained for, dying was not an option we were the best trained Army on the planet invincible. But it all came down to the Forces GOLDEN RULE.
"ALWAYS OBEY THE LAST ORDER"
Bernard.

 

[UKReb]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

Written like a true trooper: a most excellent and erudite post. I salute you sir!

Reb

 

[jazzeum]

Fantastic post Trooper. We often make the mistake of interpreting history through the prism of today's standards.

 

[lancer]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

This post hits it on the head. I would argue, though, that the surety
and security that the Victorian and Edwardian ages instilled for a male in the military was all blown to pieces by the First World War. After WW1, no one was left unaware of what warfare was or could do to the human mind and body. There was no where to hide from truth anymore, what with such widespread service, casualties, and news coverage. WW1 was the watershed. The breaking point was reached and passed in France in 1917. After the mutinies, the French Army was on eggshells. The officers could never take their men for granted again. The French Army (a large part of it, anyway) had reached the "I won't do that" point. No nation involved wanted to do WW1 again (or could afford to) or put such a burden on their Armies that another breaking point might be reached. I just believe that the "glorious" war was buried on the western front and that no illusions remained. War had always been horrible for the people involved and WW1 involved everyone, on a massive scale. Nothing has been the same since. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

During the run up to Normandy, the Americans claimed that what had happened to Great Britain in WW I made them resistant until the very end to invading France and that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming. It's a point still hotly debated.

 

[Spitfrnd]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totally different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casualties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwords but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

Well mate, certainly there is some truth in what you say but I think Al's post is rather closer to the mark. I would say that stupid orders, like "the charge", were well appreciated by those serving at the time and no less criticized by those that had to implement them than by subsequent civilians in the comfort of their studies. In fact, the majority of criticism of the failures of those in command was initiated by their brothers in arms. I think it is also quite true that as we have gotten smarter, the standards expected of command decisions have become more rigorous. There is no doubt that the better educated average male with many more options for gainful employment than serving in the military does not have the same degree of blind commitment to the mindless charge than the poor rascals of earlier days who frequently had no education and often few prospects. No doubt as well that the earlier traditions of blind acceptance of the orders of "superiors" was much a factor as well. Then of course, there is the difference of age, since there are many things a 16 to 20 year old would do without much thought that older wiser men might pause at. However, there have always been mutinies and many occurances of entire units of soldiers just fading away in the midst of battle. Certainly the Napoleonic age has many examples of that. As to unheard of defiance of poorly considered orders, there were many variations on these and the examples Al notes, before and after WWI and more recently, let us not forget "fragging".

 

[trooper]

War had always been horrible for the people involved and WW1 involved everyone, on a massive scale. Nothing has been the same since. -- Al

The military always learn from the past, but one thing has never changed, the political view. After every war in history they have rushed to cut back on the services slashing them to the bone to divert their cost to some other project. Equipment is always provided by the lowest bidder not by what is best for purpose, regiments amalgamated to make it easier to reduce the number of personel by disbanding battalions, specialised kit only purchased when needed not kept in stock. And when they have made an international mess they expect the army to rise to the occasion and sort it out for them. It is a great pity that they do not study history instead of trying to erase it.

 

[Currahee Chris]

The military always learn from the past, but one thing has never changed, the political view. After every war in history they have rushed to cut back on the services slashing them to the bone to divert their cost to some other project. Equipment is always provided by the lowest bidder not by what is best for purpose, regiments amalgamated to make it easier to reduce the number of personel by disbanding battalions, specialised kit only purchased when needed not kept in stock. And when they have made an international mess they expect the army to rise to the occasion and sort it out for them. It is a great pity that they do not study history instead of trying to erase it.

Wonderful posts as always sir.

I think some posts on here may have missed my point, perhaps I am wrong though. I am not looking to knock the service of any WW1 troopers- just assessing where my strengths lie and where, after having served 11 years myself, I would pause and say "maybe there is another option". In contrast, I salute the heroism of those guys who went over the top and did their duty.

Kindest regards,
CC

 

[redhugh]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

During World War One friends and neighbours form the same area would join up at the same time and be in the same unit.With the exteme poverty and malnourishment in Britain at the time among the working classes the soldiers that joined up were better fed and nourished even on the front!. However they certainly weren't so stupid to see that they wouldn't be mown down.In one incident a young lieutenant showed his superiors maps of the german gun emplacements infront of them and had figured out that there was noway they would survive the attack upon going over. The superiors accepted his logic and told him to go ahead anyway, he led the charge and the unit and he were massacared.
The alternative to refusing an order was the firing squad.
Not unlike the NKVD units that discouraged any russian soldiers turning heel on their suicidal charges in stalingrad!

 

[Cornwallis]

Be part of a forlorn hope, I think I'd rather chance my luck on the battlefield than storming a breach!

 

[Combat]

After watching Das Boot, it's hard to figure how they got anyone to join the U-boat force. I read somewhere that a military unit approaches the breaking point when they reach around 10% casualties. The U-boat force lost around 75% mostly all KIA. They would have also died under about the most horrible circumstances imaginable at the bottom of the Atlantic.

 

[Rob]

When regarding history with the benefit of hindsight it must be remembered that the men of the past, especially the Victorian male, had a totaly different mindset to that of today. "Duty" was a major factor in most lives, hammered home from school, church and army. Plus the regimental system with it's family atmosphere, history and traditions made the men loath to let down their mates. We now know what happened when the whistles blew and they went over the top, or the bugles sounded and they started trotting down the valley but they were convinced they would succeed.
Today we think in a different manner. Since the end of WW2 we have been subjected to a barrage of information as to why this and that action was almost criminal in it's execution because civilian casuaties were incurred, how the leadership was inept, what should have been done etc etc. Much of this has been generated by "Fireside Fusiliers" who have never worn uniform let alone heard a shot fired in anger. Mistakes will always be made and will be seen as such afterwards but I venture to say that a serving soldier saying I can't do that when given a legitimate order is virtually unheard of.

What was the saying about the Pals Battalions on the Somme in WW1, 'Two years in the making,twenty minutes in the destroying'.When you go to the Sheffield memorial Park on the Somme and stand in the Pals jumping off trench looking towards their objective that day,the town of Serre may as well be a hundred miles away.Despite nearly a century of nature softening the contours of the landscape and man adding his input,it is still easy to see why it was always going to be a slaughter that day.

As trooper said in those long gone days young men had honour,loyalty and a strong sense of comradeship.I can think of no better example of this bond than VC winner William McFadzean.On the 1st of July 1916 his Royal Irish Rifles (Thiepval Wood)were preparing to attack along with the rest of the British Army that day.As a box of grenades was being opened for distribution they slipped from the side of the Trench and fell to the floor,knocking out two grenade pins.Being a bomber himself he instantly realized the danger and threw himself on top of the box to smother the explosion and save his comrades.He was killed instantly with only one other soldier being wounded.He was just 20 years of age.

Rob

 

[hsm]

Thanks Trooper! To the Regiment!

 

[tdubel]

Great posts on here. Having never served, I take my real viewpoints through the eyes of my 90 year old Grandfather who served in the Pacific and would have been part of the Invasion of Japan had not Truman dropped the 2 big bombs that ended the War.

Couple of quick opinions I have gathered from my talks with my Grandfather:

1. Civilian casualties while horrible form the A bombs were a necessary reality. If we don't do that, countless more GI's lost and a prolonged war. The Japanese leadership/Military at the time would not quit.

2. Patton- some criticize him as a glory hound, as getting a number of people killed unnecessary. My opinoin, NO. It was a necessary evil and tactic at the time. That is what the plan was, overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers and pound them into submission.

As my Grandfather says, that war was not fought in front of tv cameras, political correctness and armchair generals that we have today.

2 Questions to ponder, not necessarily answer or opine on that my Grandfather loves to ask me:

1. If we used tactical nukes in Afghanistan, do you think we would be in the same position we are in today?

2. If we ground barraged Iraq with a proportionate number of troops (like WW2 Europe), do you think we would be in the same position today?

I know my post is skewed with my opinion or viewpoint, but I tend to try and look at all sides. Anyhow, back to try and hit the original point of the post, we may not always agree in hindsight with what happened at the time and there are "Countless Mistakes" made in every war, but I surmise at the time it was happening, it was reality, not a decades/centuries long analysis called hindsight which labels those actions as mistakes, derliction, etc.!

IMO

TD

 

[Scott]

never mind

 

[trooper]

Well mate, certainly there is some truth in what you say but I think Al's post is rather closer to the mark. I would say that stupid orders, like "the charge", were well appreciated by those serving at the time and no less criticized by those that had to implement them than by subsequent civilians in the comfort of their studies. In fact, the majority of criticism of the failures of those in command was initiated by their brothers in arms. I think it is also quite true that as we have gotten smarter, the standards expected of command decisions have become more rigorous. There is no doubt that the better educated average male with many more options for gainful employment than serving in the military does not have the same degree of blind commitment to the mindless charge than the poor rascals of earlier days who frequently had no education and often few prospects. No doubt as well that the earlier traditions of blind acceptance of the orders of "superiors" was much a factor as well. Then of course, there is the difference of age, since there are many things a 16 to 20 year old would do without much thought that older wiser men might pause at. However, there have always been mutinies and many occurances of entire units of soldiers just fading away in the midst of battle. Certainly the Napoleonic age has many examples of that. As to unheard of defiance of poorly considered orders, there were many variations on these and the examples Al notes, before and after WWI and more recently, let us not forget "fragging".

I agree with much of what you say, however it should be pointed out that the criticism occurs post event. The orders, however stupid, were obeyed, largely I think because there was no time to brood over what might occur. I refer of course to those orders given on the spot and not to those occuring in long term planning. An interesting point is the Battle of Balaklava. There were three major actions here and each one contradicted all the accepted rules of war, in other words were the result of "stupid" orders. The Thin Red Streak of the 93rd received a cavalry charge in line instead of forming square, the Heavy Brigade charged a numerically superior enemy uphill, and the Light Brigade charged artillery unsupported by infantry or artillery. Two commanders hailed as heroes, one denigrated as a stupid fool. Strictly speaking all three should have been condemned although in Cardigan's defence it should be pointed out that he did query the order before obeying it. It goes to show that if a "stupid" order results in success it is no longer stupid. And until it is obeyed no one knows.

 

[Scott]

If you were in ranks in those three units you might think that you were doomed but where are you going to run to? It's safer in the ranks of the Heavy Brigade, and the Highlanders than to run plus the men in the ranks might believe that they are all that's keeping the Russians from the port of Balaclava. The men in the Light Brigade might think that they are really exposed and are being watched. Unit pride, ignorance...all factors.

I read a pretty good book on Pickett's Charge from 1980 by George R. Stewart, though newer works might disagree. Some men survived the Charge by just playing dead early on and rejoining the retreat of with the repulsed troops.

William Faulkner in Intruder in the Dust wrote...

"For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is stll time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armstead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose and all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago...."

But it's a kid's imagination.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree with much of what you say, however it should be pointed out that the criticism occurs post event. The orders, however stupid, were obeyed, largely I think because there was no time to brood over what might occur. I refer of course to those orders given on the spot and not to those occuring in long term planning. An interesting point is the Battle of Balaklava. There were three major actions here and each one contradicted all the accepted rules of war, in other words were the result of "stupid" orders. The Thin Red Streak of the 93rd received a cavalry charge in line instead of forming square, the Heavy Brigade charged a numerically superior enemy uphill, and the Light Brigade charged artillery unsupported by infantry or artillery. Two commanders hailed as heroes, one denigrated as a stupid fool. Strictly speaking all three should have been condemned although in Cardigan's defence it should be pointed out that he did query the order before obeying it. It goes to show that if a "stupid" order results in success it is no longer stupid. And until it is obeyed no one knows.

Indeed there are close calls and sometimes bravado overwhelms the disadvantages of stupidity. While it is true that any outcome is in doubt until the event is played out, some orders are much more clearly wrong than others. For your examples I would suggest that the Thin Red Line and Heavy Brigade choices were ill advised but not without successful precident whereas the Light Brigade charge was known to have no possible successful outcome. I think Cardigan knew that all too well. Of course I must agree that sometimes there is no time to consider the alternatives but when there is ......