Above; Hat badge (centre) 

Lapel (collar) tabs (L & R)

Right; Shoulder Boards>>

Pickett's "charge" up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg should have proven the futility of marching in ordered ranks into massed rifle fire and artillery. General Buller proved the same thing in South Africa. Nobody learned and the reason is that as a class the Officers did not care about casualty lists, only winning or losing. The invention of the machine gun with the fire power of 200 rifles and the use of barbed wire set up to funnel advancing troops into killing grounds should have caused a  major rethink of tactics. It didn't,  even after the disaster of the Somme, where 90% of Britain's horrendous casualty lists were caused by machine guns.

Whole battalions were wiped out, to a man. Most of them never closed with the enemy, who sat reasonably comfortable behind barbed wire entanglements up to 80 metres deep, in concrete pillboxes or well constructed trenches with not much to worry about except artillery. And the British Generals used that, unsuccessfully, to try to cut the wire.

Of all the General's who were stupid, who didn't get their boots dirty while they ordered millions of men to their death in senseless slaughter the top prize has to go to the Butcher of the Somme, the architect of the slaughter of ANZAC's at 3rd Ypres, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.

Following a cursory education at home George opted for a naval career in 1877, serving with his older brother Albert as naval cadets and until the latter left to study at Trinity College in 1882. 

George remained in the navy as a professional officer until Albert's death in 1892. 

From this point onwards George assumed the role of the heir-apparent.

In 1893 he married Princess Mary of Teck, a great-granddaughter of George III. The couple had five children - four sons and a daughter.

With Queen Victoria's death on 22 January 1901 and Edward VII's accession to the throne, George became direct heir to the throne. George's tenure as monarch - 1910-36 - began in the midst of a constitutional crisis in Britain. The Liberal government, under Prime Minister Asquith and Chancellor of the Exchequer Lloyd George, were in dispute with the House of Lords, Parliament's upper chamber. The Conservative-dominated upper chamber had rejected Lloyd George's annual finance bill of 1909, a controversial budget which included several significant social welfare provisions.

Princess Mary of Teck (the Queen)

The government was deadlocked with the unelected Lords, and threatened to flood the upper chamber with specially created peers simply in order to force its finance bill through Parliament.

It was in this context that George V was faced with a difficult decision. 

Asquith and Lloyd George required the King's consent to create such a large number of new peers; naturally the Conservative opposition expected the monarch to refuse to break with convention in creating so many party political peers.

Eventually George agreed to Asquith's request to grant permission to create the new peers if necessary; at which point the Lords capitulated and passed Lloyd George's budget. 

As a consequence of the crisis however, the Parliament Act of 1911 was enacted which severely cut back the power of the Lords, including its right of veto of government bills.

 During the First World War King George - and his wife May (as Mary was known) - visited the Western Front on several occasions. During one such visit his horse rolled on top of him, breaking his pelvis, an injury that plagued him for the rest of his life.

In the midst of the war, in 1917, and sensitive of the Royal Family's German background, George changed the family name from the too-German sounding Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

HM The King reviews NZ Forces in the field.

That same year George controversially denied the Russian Tsar Nicholas II - George's cousin - and his family asylum in Britain following the Russian Revolution. The Tsar was subsequently arrested and murdered by the Bolsheviks. The depression of 1929-31 convinced George that a unity government was required in order for the nation to unite in combating the prevalent poverty of the time. To that end he persuaded the three major political parties to enter into a temporary government coalition, Labour, Liberal and the Conservatives.

During George's reign Britain's relationship with its colonies underwent a number of changes. Ireland was divided along religious lines in 1920 with the south becoming self-governing. 

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa demanded and received the right to self governance or changes to existing ties, which led to the creation in 1931 of the British Commonwealth of Nations. India gained a measure of self-governance in 1935.

George V was considered neither well-educated nor well-read, and nor was he a popular wit or raconteur. However he embodied diligence, service and duty. He sought to represent his subjects, rather than define government policy as had his predecessors Victoria and Edward.

George V died on 20 January 1936 - the year previous, 1935, saw his silver jubilee - after suffering a series of debilitating attacks of bronchitis. He was succeeded by his son, Edward VIII.

An older George V

He was later made an Earl. He was one of the most controversial military leaders ever and the debate rages to this day as to whether he was an idiot, promoted past his point of competency or just a man caught in circumstances beyond his control. He was called "The Butcher of the Somme" by the British and what the Australians called him after 3rd Ypres is not printable.

Of Cannan, it was said that his contribution was immense, his responsibility gigantic and his acknowledgement nil. His is a strange story.

How Generals got along and how they operated.

Today, when the strategies and tactics of generals and the dealings of politicians are usually the substance of partisan debate, what still fascinates is the part played in the Great War by ordinary civilians hurriedly transformed into soldiers and plunged into a struggle which they barely understood. It is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend how they withstood the traumas, fatigue, filth, terror, and boredom so resolutely for so long.

This is not to say that the generals who led them had a much clearer idea of how, initially, to wage and, finally, to win a war which was unlike anything they knew and was far beyond their experience.

In 1914 no British general had any experience whatsoever in the handling of large armies. Indeed Britain, when compared with the major Continental Powers, had never had a large army. Such soldiers as there were had been used exclusively to patrol and control the trouble spots of the Empire.

Promotion came with length of service and, consequently, officers tended to be restricted in outlook, unreceptive to new techniques, and wary of novelty and innovation. Moreover, senior commanders were often at least middle aged, and frequently in ill health. When he led the BEF to France Sir John French was 62. He had recently suffered a severe heart attack and had been ordered by his doctors to take life as easily as possible. Murray, who was French's Chief of Staff, collapsed early on at the Battle of Le Cateau, and never really recovered. Grierson, who went out to command the II Corps, had a fondness for good food and a dislike of physical activity. He died on the way to France at the age of 55. However, not all were like this, and Haig - the other Corps Commander was, at 53, exceptionally fit and in very good health.

Relationships amongst the generals themselves was often not good, and one or two examples should be enough to give a feeling for the atmosphere which prevailed. Haig told Charteris (his future chief intelligence officer) that he, Haig, considered French not only to be "quite unfit for high command in time of crisis", but also obstinate and unable to accept advice. He also thought Henry Wilson to be much more a politician than a soldier - and to Haig a politician was little better than a crook. The infantry man Smith-Dorrien took command of the II Corps after Grierson's death. Until his controversial dismissal after the German attack on Ypres in 1915, Smith-Dorrien was regarded with suspicion by French, the cavalry man.

To most British generals the cavalry was the paramount branch of the army. Ignoring, or unaware of, the indications presented by the Boer War and Russo/Japanese War that gallant, dashing horsemen were no match for bullets, they convinced themselves that it was this section of the army which would finally exploit a break-through and bring decisive victory. Given the deadly fire of machine guns, the concentration of artillery, and the chaotic state of the land which the explosions of shells left, the cavalry proved completely ineffective. Not only were they generally ineffective, but the upkeep of so many of these, often unused, soldiers behind the lines and, for example, the supply of forage alone took up many valuable resources which would have been better used elsewhere.

By 1914 Britain was, like Germany, a wealthy nation with many powerful industries easily capable of mass-producing weapons of mass destruction. During the War tanks, gas, hand grenades, trench mortars, flame throwers, and aeroplanes came into common use, and sometimes, together or separately, brought about decisive tactical results. Other, more established weapons such as machine guns and artillery pieces, were manufactured in vast quantities.

But the British army, as well, it must be said, as most of our enemies and allies, took up many of these only reluctantly. Encouraged by French élan, the generals felt that the rifle and bayonet were the true infantryman's weapons. It was considered that few troops could withstand the high rate of a British professional soldier's rifle fire and the subsequent charge made with the cold, sharp steel. In the event bayonets, being too awkward, were seldom used in man-to-man trench combat. More favoured were knobkerries, nail-studded maces, and hand grenades - all of which were more effective in the close confines of trenches.

What was not realised, at first, was that a few, well-entrenched machine guns could slow down and quickly halt an attack made by very much superior numbers. It was only later in the War, when the deadly potential of this weapon was realised, that British battalions were equipped with anything like an adequate supply of both light and heavy machine guns.

In the early stages both hand grenades and trench mortars were in short supply. Soldiers sometimes made their own, with results which were, not infrequently, more hazardous to the dispatchers than to the intended victims.

In Britain before the War one or two prophets foresaw the murderous potential of machine guns. What was needed, they thought, to counteract this menace was some form of armoured and mobile land ship. From this farsightedness the tank was born. The birth was difficult for few generals believed that such an instrument of war was necessary. It was only with great tenacity of purpose that its protagonists managed to get the first few created. However, by 1916 some were ready and commanders then realised that these awesome machines offered some form of hope in overcoming the carnage which had been produced by the stalemate of trench warfare. Those who had nurtured this new attacking arm had clear views on how it should be used. But, greatly to their disappointment and apprehension for its success, their opinions went unheeded and were discounted for the sake of expediency.

© Karl W. Murray, 1996

.

Email