Battle of Mons and the first VC of the War

 This weekend saw the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Mons. I was fortunate enough during the summer of 2012 to go on an in depth recce of not only Mons but also the route of the subsequent retreat. When people remember the Great War it tends to be 1916 onwards (with perhaps the exception of the battle of Loos). I found the recce to be fascinating as we covered such a large distance and such a varied set of engagements, from infantry battles to cavalry clashes to large engagements such as Le Cateau.

Plaque at Nimy Bridge (Authors Collection)

The plaque above is from the location just under Nimy Bridge where Lieutenant Dease and Private Godley won their Victoria Crosses. While these were the first of the war they would not be the last to be earned on the retreat that began after the Battle of Mons (only one day later Captain Grenfell would earn his during the action at Audregnies and Captain Bradbury would earn his during the engagement at Nery). 

Mons saw the much smaller BEF come into contact with the German 1st Army, that the BEF were able to put up a fight and extricate themselves shows the professionalism of the regulars and reservists. 

The grave of Lieutenant Dease at St Symphorien (Authors Collection)

Lieutenant Dease is buried at St Symphorien which is a remarkable Commonwealth War graves Cemetery. Behind German lines for the vast majority of the war, it is laid out in a very different manor. It also features the first and last BEF and Canadian casualties of the War. 

Private Godley survived the action at Mons, was taken prisoner and survived the war being present with his Victoria Cross by the King in 1919.

The ISIS Problem

Yesterday and today has seen a vast amount of media coverage devoted to the beheading of American Journalist James Foley and the alleged British element of ISIS. While this was indeed shocking is hardly a surprise. After all ISIS or IS has become renowned for their brutal methods and acts.
It is the message regarding nationality which is getting the air time and the talk of extremists returning home to carry out further outrages. While this is a natural concern and one that is very real, it remains to be seen if there will be a new direction from ISIS or if they will inspire more home grown elements. Certainly action by local elements against ISIS forces will keep ISIS focused on the Levant and while this might provide a training ground and actual experience of combat to extremists, it also means that they have to be seen to achieve success if they wish to maintain credibility.

The Royal United Services Institute have published a number of interesting articles related to ISIS and the the issues at hand over the last few days. Here is an article that I was reading earlier very concise and to the point but it is a point well made.

The use of US airpower will increase as a result of this murder and the ante has been upped. It is doubtful if you will see combat troops once again deployed on Iraqi soil but with US airpower bolstering Kurdish forces and hopefully Iraqi military forces ISIS might be pushed back and either destroyed as a credible threat/alternative (which ever way you view it, this would seem unlikely given the nature of the organisation) or diminished to the point where they present a threat but one that is managable by regional elements.

Micheal Gove goes "over the top"

First blog post of 2014 and after some thought it became obvious to me what the subject would be.

As many people will have seen Michael Gove entered the embattled conflict for the nature and purpose of the First World War Commemorations.

Michael Gove has managed to get quite a debate going on the cause of the conflict and who was to blame. The debate has been wide ranging and very interesting covering so many aspects of the final years and months leading up to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. Insults have been hurled and battle lines drawn leading to a feel of the Left vs the Right for the heart and soul of the commemorations.

Michael Gove took a swipe and the Blackadder Caricatures that are prevalent when it comes to general knowledge of the First World War and British involvement. This has drawn in not only Baldrick (Tony Robinson) himself but Boris Johnson and a host of academics. In many ways I agree with Michael Gove to a certain extent, although left wing propaganda is perhaps a tad harsh and antagonistic. I really enjoy Blackadder goes forth and have watched it many a time and chuckled at the same scenes time and again just like many other people. However, I remember Blackadder being used at school and also by a rather clueless college teacher as a teaching aide about the First World War. Yet the views that Blackadder presented were not challenged or expanded upon to give a rounded picture.

This is where the real danger lies for the public understanding British involvement in the First World War. Without knowledge from the teachers to point out and separate fact from fiction we will regress back down the tired path of Lions led by Donkeys and war poets being the voice of history.

BBC News featured a very interesting piece featuring Professor Gary Sheffield and a London based German TV presenter discussing the differences between British and German approaches to the First World War. Professor Sheffield came across very well and made a very good argument as to why we need to challenge perceptions of lions led by donkeys and why the First World War anniversary is such an important event to the British public.

The centenary represents a real chance to remember the sacrifices of all involved, regardless of blame for starting the war and also a chance to engage another generation of future historians. If by 2018 there is a better understanding of the First World War, how it was fought and why it was fought then I think it will have been worth all of the fuss. 

Marine A - Sergeant Blackman

 The identity of Marine A has now been revealed as Sergeant Alexander Blackman, this in itself has generated a lot of debate as to whether or not this was the right thing to do. Secondly Sgt Blackman has now been sentenced to Life with a minimum of ten years to be served. The debate about the naming and sentence has been very interesting to read and to see the support that Sgt Blackman actually has. As ever the debate spans the conventional media as well as social media. The debate seems to focus on the argument that as he was under a lot of pressure when he committed the act and events of the tour had taken its toll on Sgt Blackman. Added to this is the idea that unless you have experienced what Sgt Blackman had been through then you cannot judge him.

The other side of the coin points out the fallacy of that statement and the fact that in many ways it is not the man but the action that is being judged. There is also the recognition that indeed the Sgt was under a lot of pressure and had witnessed quite a bit on this tour of duty.  However as the video shows the Sgt was fully aware of the actions that he was taking and it was certainly not while under fire.

  

 One article highlights an interesting point about the camera footage and the pressures and strains that over ten years of operational deployments has put on the training in the armed forces. The article points out the over familiarisation between the Sergeant and the Privates via the use of the term “mate”. This may seem trivial at first but as the article points out the enlisted men should be referring to Sgt Blackman as Sergeant or “Sarge” at the very least. These terms may seem to be interchangeable and an unnecessary criticism but as the article points out the difference is at the heart of military discipline.   

 There is a growing call for his sentence to be halved or reduced due to mitigating circumstances. Indeed yesterday it was revealed that an appeal against Sgt Blackman’s conviction was to be launched.

For what it is worth I am on the fence when it comes to the sentence, I believe that it was right for Sgt Blackman to face trial and for justice to be seen to be fair. Perhaps the sentence is on the high side, but the appeal will certainly draw this out. The important thing from all of this is that it highlights how we (the British people) ask so much of our military and yet seem to provide the least possible. It is no surprise that a lot of care once former soldiers have left falls to charities such as Combat Stress, Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. This is where Sgt Blackman has so far been let down and here is where the argument relating to his mental wellbeing needs to be taken into account and to hopefully wake our government up to the fact that more care both before, during and after tours of duty needs to be in place. The army is certainly not full of soldiers one tour away from shooting POW’s, however there are a lot of serving and former serving soldiers that could do would support and advice. 

Casualty of War

Marine A is due to be sentenced and the resulting media blitz on this case will begin anew. On Monday the Telegraph website published an interesting article on the matter of combat in Afghanistan. Written by a journalist who has embedded with the Royal Marines a number of times, it is not surprising the view point that Chris Terrill takes. Indeed he writes with a knowledge that a lot of commentators do not have.

He finishes the article with “Soldiers are not automatons. They are flesh-and-blood human beings with frailties and vulnerabilities like all of us. They are ordinary people doing extraordinary things on our behalf; risking their lives in combat and having to make difficult and morally confusing judgments in the heat of battle. They don’t always get it right because, sometimes, the stakes are just too high for any one man to cope with.
I believe that if Marine A is a criminal of war, then he is also a casualty of war.”


This is the key point when it comes to sentencing, yes he has done wrong and justice has to be seen to be done, however it has to fit the crime and not be used as an example to other would be transgressors of the Geneva Convention. 

Prisoners of War on the Battlefield

Still image from Helmet Camera footage. Photo Source: Ministry Of Defence/PA

The trial of the three Royal Marines accused of executing a member of the Taliban has come to a close with two of them being acquitted and a third known as “Marine A” being found guilty. This has lead to an interesting debate involving a number of serving and former officers from various services relating to the sentence “Marine A” should receive. These range from a call for leniency through to no leniency and “Marine A” facing the full sentence possible as “murder is still murder”. This Article strikes a good balance in discussing such an emotive issue. 

Warfare is never clear cut and the taking of prisoners is always a very dangerous time for all parties involved. There is always the worry that perhaps the enemy combatant is not sincere in their surrender, that perhaps at the first opportunity will seek to harm his captors when there attention is elsewhere. 

This case however is one of the more clear cut ones as the enemy combatant in this case was severely wounded and posed no direct threat to the Marines involved. Indeed it seems that this was carried out with malice and with revenge for the casualties suffered by the Marines unit and the displaying of body parts as trophies. 

While it has to be remembered that the serving soldiers are under a huge pressure and strain, this does not give them a free card in how they behave. It was an exceptionally foolish thing to do and one that brings the British armed forces and the wider forces that are part of ISAF into disrepute. 

Many soldiers,sailors and airmen serve as part of ISAF and this incident involves a very minor percentage, let us hope that it remains this way and cases of this nature will still shock us when they do occur. 

11 November 2013

Another year and another remembrance Sunday full of debate relating to the wearing of the Poppy, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, foreign policy and the ugly spectre of burning poppies. Each year the debates tend to run along the same lines. Next year will be very interesting with the anniversary of the Great War and the draw down of all forces from Afghanistan. I expect there will be a lot more commentary about what the poppy symbolises, the 'lost generation' and hopefully a lot less relating to Britains foreign policy of the last 12 years.

As we approach the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War the annual Poppy Appeal has become a broader battleground. Parties from both sides of the fence and those with no real interest the political aspects of wearing a poppy have become increasingly vocal.
Last week the national media was full of commentary attacking each view on why the commentator would or would not be wearing a poppy. I think that debate on wearing a poppy is healthy and not something you should stifle even if I disagree with some reasons for not wearing one. The fact that we have a choice to wear a poppy and the fact that we are allowed to decide a reason for wearing one should say a lot about our society. For myself I wear a poppy in remembrance and to support the work of the Royal British Legion. This is especially important given the increase in take up of it’s services over the last ten years due to increased military activity in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a very good article that I read on the website of the Wallstreet Journal. While I knew a little about the Cenotaph and how it was originally meant to only be temporary, the article filled a gap in my knowledge and gave me a better understanding regarding its design and construction.
The article can be found here.


I would also like to advertise a friend’s writing blog as he has written a very short story based on the morning of the 1st of July 1916. He is a budding author so if historical fiction is something that interests you please check it out.

Lessons From The Last War

I have been reading an article (Lessons From The Last War - Predicting The Next War) today regarding nation’s that have prepared for future wars based on the previous war. One of the examples used in the article was the approach of both Germany and France in the lead up to the campaign in 1940. The article argued that while both nations went down very different paths, both could be said to have taken lessons from the last war.

In the case of France it prepared to fight the next war by the standards of the last war and was tied in to a firepower based doctrine for attacking. 

The Germans on the other hand took the lessons from the last war to show that a mobile approach to warfare was needed and that the what was needed was a concentration of armour to force a break through and push for the enemy rear and center of communications etc.

The part of the article that got me thinking however was how the author showed that actually both lessons from the last war were applicable to the war in question. While the German approach worked in part due to the lack of adequate anti-tank weaponry in appropriate proportions, as the war progressed and the anti-tank density increased the French lessons became more applicable to the conduct of the war especially when it came to breaking the determined German defensive positions in Normandy.

The second example used for the article is the lessons from the 1967 ‘Six Day War’ between the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Egypt and their application during the war in 1973. Once again the article points out how the lessons were learned and then applied in each case.  The example is concluded that while the IDF suffered significant casualties especially to its tank formations, it still emerged victorious. The author also points out that had the IDF taken a different route as various commentators suggested the casualties might have been greater and Egyptian gains more permanent due to the loss of mobility. Israel drew an important lesson from the 1973 war and that was that the IDF was too small for the wars it was having to fight.

The author concludes the article by making the point that lessons can be learned from past wars but doctrine should not be fixed on these lessons as it is very likely that others have also studied previous wars and drew their own lessons. The author does warn not too be too flexible as the jack of all trades is the master of none. The closing point is one that is applicable to most walks of life; preparation, training, research into past wars and studying the theories will lead to success. 

I can recommend The Journal of Military Operations as not only is it free to access but it also contains good articles written with present day operations in mind. 

Syria and Social Media

Over the last few weeks the ongoing conflict in Syria combined with the use of chemical weapons has been at the forefront of the news. The talk of western intervention has also generated a lot of lot of interest in the media (both mainstream media and smaller media outlets). The reporting has varied massively both on the actual subject at hand and in quality.
One thing that has stuck out in all of this however is how engaging the conflict in Syria has become. Almost daily there are posts appearing in my Facebook feed where friends have either linked an article or given their own opinions on the conflict and any intervention that may occur.
The commentary is a refreshing change from the usual everyday goings on that normally fills my Facebook feed. I have also noticed that virtually every post about Syria is getting a number of responses and debates are taking place, normally leading to further posts by those participating.
The like the journalism on the conflict, these social media posts vary in quality and offer a wide range of views. The most interesting ones tend to be related to US intervention in the conflict with a good number of commentators suggesting that this will be a repeat of Iraq and that Syria doesn't have chemical weapons (or tries to draw comparisons with the Israeli use of White Phosphorus). I find these interesting and normally have to point out that it is not a secret that the Syrian regime has chemical weapons and that the actual question lies in who used them.

While I don't agree with every post that I read relating to the Syrian conflict, I view the coverage on social media as a good thing and further more think that this type of engagement is what is needed for people to actually understand the conflict rather than just relying on their chosen news outlet.

Syria and the use of Chemical Weapons

With the shocking evidence of the use of chemical weapons and the finger being firmly pointed in the direction of the Assad regime, this article from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) offers a solution to the problem of finding out who is the culprit.

Eyes over Syria: Using Drones to Monitor Atrocities

While the article that I have linked from the RUSI website provides a solution for monitoring the conflict within Syria in a very realistic way, it does not solve 100% who was to blame for the latest atrocity.
It must be said that it is highly likely that the regime is too blame for this and action does need to be taken to prevent further lines in the conflict being crossed. However should this atrocity be the basis for Western intervention in Syria?
My own personal opinion is that intervention should be the absolute last resort and ideally should come from a regional state actor. The west can however play its part by imposing embargoes and ensuring that other UN member states adhere to these (such as Russia and China). This however is unlikely as Assad still has friends who can lessen the effects or stop them all togther when it comes to the US and UK.
This is why the use of UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) can prove to be such a game changer. It will appease Assad's friends in Russia and China, even if it doesn't appease them it will be hard for them to block a UN resolution that does not risk lives and offers impartial surveillance that is available 24/7.
It will give a good indication of what is going on in the country and perhaps lead both sides to the peace table in the long run when both sides realise that they will be held accountable.

Drones

 

Source: AFP/Getty Images

I read an interesting but brief article on the use of UAVs this evening. The central part of the article concerned the ability of UAVs to do away with the risks to service personal and questioned whether this is preferred over deploying boots on the ground.

UAVs conduct a lot of reconnaissance missions that would otherwise involve risking either pilots or troops conducting ground reconnaissance. They also allow the ability to strike with out fear of injury to any service personnel.  

However the article does point out that there are people with issues regarding the use of drones for “targeted assassination” and the killing of US citizens by US forces without trial etc. I think this is an area where perhaps UAVs will always have a problem regarding justification. The fact that they allow targets to be killed/destroyed from a distance and with relative ease will always be unsettling, however is this really any different to a guided missile being used from a jet or launched from a naval vessel?

One thing is for certain however and that is they have had an impact in Afghanistan and their use is set to continue for the foreseeable future no matter how loud the dissenting voices get. If given the simple choice of deploying boots on the ground in a risky operation or using a UAV politicians will always choose the latter. 

Here is a link to the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9855577/Drones-are-gruesome-but-would-we-prefer-boots-on-the-ground.html

Shot at Dawn

Currently I am reading an interesting book on the subject of executions during the First World War by authority of the British Army Act.

This is previously a subject that I have not had a great deal of interest in. It has so far made for an interesting reading and provided me with some food for thought for further research. It is also going to be a very useful aid for further writing on the First World War and for tours to the various First World War cemeteries that contain graves of these men.

So far the book presents a fair account of the crimes and subsequent trials of the men sentenced to be shot. When discussing this subject with people the old stereotype of shell shocked soldiers being sentenced to death by officers who have never set foot in the trenches rears its ugly head. For me this is where the book excels in its detail, it offers a fair bit of information on the individual trials where this was available at the time it was written as well as the general procedures that were followed during the different types of Court Martial and confirmation of the sentence.

There will be more detail to follow regarding this book once I have had a chance to finish reading it and write a more detailed review of it.

The book is J. Putkowski & J. Sykes, Shot At Dawn: Executions In World War One By Authority of the British Army Act.

The Great War

Recently there has been an increase in articles in the national press relating to the Great War. With just under two years left until the centenary of the outbreak of war this is understandable. The build up is going to result in an renewed interest and hopefully a desire to understand the battles of the Great War past the tired and worn stereotype of lions led by donkeys.

There are already a number of authors who hold this revisionist view and their number is growing especially among academic circles. I believe this will lead to a far better understanding of the British “Tommie” of 1914-18, what motivated him, what he was equipped with, how he was trained and importantly how he was commanded and controlled once in battle.

Mons and the subsequent retreat will be the first battle to be commemorated by the British. This was an important milestone for the British as it marked the first time in nearly a century that they had placed an army in north west Europe. It was also the first time that the BEF created by Lord Haldane would see action.  

The battles of Mons and Le Cateau followed by the rearguard actions as the BEF retreated would see the BEF tested to its limits both at an individual and command level. It provides an interesting contrast to the image of mud and trenches and was one of the last times in the war that the artillery would be deployed in the traditional sense and firing over open sights at the enemy.

Some books I would recommend are:

Richard Holmes – Riding the Retreat. This book is as much a battlefield tour as it is a history of the opening actions and retreat. Filled with plenty of great accounts and told in the usual highly readable style of Richard Holmes.

John Terraine – Mons: The Retreat to Victory. Again another book by a respected author and one that I admittedly haven’t read in a few years but was a very good account of the actions.

This months Military History Monthly has an interesting article on Mons as well.

Photo source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6461635/Poppy-Appeal-pinning-down-poppy-etiquette.html

Kabul 2012

April saw the deadly attacks on Kabul from within the city. These attacks were significant as it showed not only the vulnerability of the city but also the ability of the reinvigorated Taliban to strike where they please.

While the attacks may not have caused an enormous amount of physical damage, the attacks were a spectacular PR victory for the Taliban. The PR success was then made all the greater by President Karzai declaring it a failure on the part of NATO intelligence, once more showing Karzai to be playing at political point scoring.

It is true that this was a failure on the part of NATO to prevent these attacks, however it must be remembered that Afghan forces should also be able to detect and stop such attacks occurring as it is not long until the NATO forces that Karzai likes to criticize so much withdraw from the country.

While people may like to make comparisons with the American involvement in Vietnam, the Taleban are unlikely to achieve a military victory over the coalition forces. Once the coalition forces have withdrawn from the country and there are only “advisors” left then it might be a different matter. This is where American involvement may become a little closer to the Vietnam comparison and the Taliban will no doubt be prepared to bleed American and Afghan forces until the final American forces depart from the country. If the Taliban are then able to take on and defeat Afghan government forces then it will add a further perceived “cut and run” laurel to the American reputation.

That is not to say that it is inevitable that the Taliban will emerge as the victors. There are many factors that could prevent that including some of the powerful tribal forces of various warlods switching sides once the foreign forces have left.

It will be interesting over the coming weeks to see if there are further “spectacular” attacks carried out and claimed by the Taliban. It will also be interesting to see the long term implications on the drawdown of forces and the timetable for the exit. 

Photo source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/apr/15/kabul-attacks-live-updates