PhD 2007, Birkbeck College, University of London, "The British Infantry and Atrocities on the Western Front, 1914-1918".Supervisor: Prof Joanna BourkeExaminers: Prof Gary Sheffield
... The character and his catchphrase had origins in the co-writer's Jimmy Perry&#x2... more ... The character and his catchphrase had origins in the co-writer's Jimmy Perry's experiences of the Second World War and roots even further back. ... In those hastily dug trenches the fixed bayo-net was an encumbrance' (Dunn 1938: 85). ...
The trials of a handful of alleged German war criminals of the First World War at Leipzig in 1921... more The trials of a handful of alleged German war criminals of the First World War at Leipzig in 1921, if remembered at all, are generally dismissed as a debacle. There is no intrinsic reason to dismiss them. Like more recent war crimes tribunals, their limited attempts at truthful and just settlement were crippled by an impossible and poisonous political and diplomatic atmosphere, not least among the nations on the winning side.
The bayonet was widely fetishized in the British Army in the First World War era, both from above... more The bayonet was widely fetishized in the British Army in the First World War era, both from above and from below. A vibrant, rich and quickly transmitted culture grew around this, which had real effects on the battlefields of the war. Supreme confidence was placed in British masculinity, a masculinity that depended on the effective and brutal use of this weapon. Training frequently focused on it. Both this confidence and training focus were misplaced, as in fact the bayonet was not a particularly useful or effective weapon. The combination of this strong fetishization of the weapon and its ineffectiveness had a tendency to encourage atrocity and prisoner killing, in which some soldiers indulged keenly, as the main opponents on whom the bayonet could be used successfully were those who were unarmed or wounded.
Une Guerre Totale? La Belgique dans la Première Guerre mondiale. Nouvelles tendances de al recherche historique, 2005
“One has only to think what these Huns did to the Belgians and I say that when you catch one kill... more “One has only to think what these Huns did to the Belgians and I say that when you catch one kill him slowly but make sure you are doing away with him.” Soldier’s diary entry – 1st May 1915.
Using mainly contemporary primary sources written by British soldiers at the Western Front, this paper looks at British soldiers’ attitudes and actions towards Belgium, the Belgian people and Army. The soldiers who made up the British army had much contact with Belgian people – both with the large number of Belgian refugees who quickly arrived in Britain and with the civilian and military personnel present around the British lines at the Western Front. The variety of responses that occurred are surveyed. With civilians, responses varied to an extraordinary extent – from romance and marriage to rumours of soldiers killing Belgian peasants. With the Belgian Army, early eulogising of their plucky defence of their country against overwhelming force, created some disenchantment later in the war when the two armies were working alongside and taking over each other’s lines.
Two more general and common reactions, with consequences important for the culture of the British Army during the war, its morale and military actions, are looked at in more detail. The first is the strong emotional attachment felt by the soldiers to the towns they were defending – particularly Ypres. The second is the reaction to the very well publicised atrocities committed by the Germans during their invasion of Belgium. Soldier’s texts reveal that thoughts of these atrocities weighed heavy on their minds in the early years of the war and had a strong effect on their actions towards their opponents. Reference to such feelings are an important component in explaining how the killing of prisoners and other war crimes quickly became widespread on the Western Front.
Corporal Jones’ stock epithet would not have sounded out of place in the British trenches of the ... more Corporal Jones’ stock epithet would not have sounded out of place in the British trenches of the First World War. Indeed, compared with many contemporary soldiers’ texts, his love of ‘cold steel’ is positively anaemic. A private in the 22nd London (“Queen’s”) Regiment describes the immediate preparations for an attack on 7th November 1917: “Fix bayonets!” yells the colonel. And the shining things leap from the scabbards and flash in the light as they click on the standards. They seem alive and joyous; they turn us into fiends, thirsty for slaughter. As this indicates, trench fighters had great faith in the power of bayonets and tended to love both reading and writing lavish and detailed description of them in action against their opponents’ bodies. This could even develop sensual tones, one soldier writing in a letter, “Oh! The bloody gorgeousness of feeling your bayonet go into soft yielding flesh”. One of the most clear messages of such texts, when bayonets went to their work of eviscerating and emasculating the enemy, is the reinforcement made to their wielders’ masculinity. Thoughts of Germans greatly fearing bayonets comforted British soldiers, reassuring them of their supremacy as soldiers and men. Vivid fetishisation of the bayonet among the rank-and-file was supported by their officers, all the way up to the highest echelons of the General Staff. Bayonet training was seen as a fundamental component of turning civilians into soldiers and in inculcating a correct martial attitude. Astonishingly, the standard wartime training manual baldly states: “Bayonet fighting produces lust for blood.” Fetishisation is an apt description. Reports after the war confirmed how poor a weapon the bayonet actually was - “one of the most futile instruments imaginable” (British Small Arms Report 1924). The technical deficiencies of the bayonet as a combat weapon forced soldiers to use it in a brutal manner; ‘neck or nothing’ was a popular phrase. Bayonet fetishisation, while having benefits to the morale and spirit of British troops, was to also have negative consequences for them during the war. The wholesale subscription to the notion of the force of an infantry bayonet charge contributed to an enduring overestimation of the offensive power of infantrymen throughout the war. Moreover, it encouraged a culture of atrocity and aided a situation in which the killing of prisoners or potential prisoners was tolerated and even celebrated.
... The character and his catchphrase had origins in the co-writer's Jimmy Perry&#x2... more ... The character and his catchphrase had origins in the co-writer's Jimmy Perry's experiences of the Second World War and roots even further back. ... In those hastily dug trenches the fixed bayo-net was an encumbrance' (Dunn 1938: 85). ...
The trials of a handful of alleged German war criminals of the First World War at Leipzig in 1921... more The trials of a handful of alleged German war criminals of the First World War at Leipzig in 1921, if remembered at all, are generally dismissed as a debacle. There is no intrinsic reason to dismiss them. Like more recent war crimes tribunals, their limited attempts at truthful and just settlement were crippled by an impossible and poisonous political and diplomatic atmosphere, not least among the nations on the winning side.
The bayonet was widely fetishized in the British Army in the First World War era, both from above... more The bayonet was widely fetishized in the British Army in the First World War era, both from above and from below. A vibrant, rich and quickly transmitted culture grew around this, which had real effects on the battlefields of the war. Supreme confidence was placed in British masculinity, a masculinity that depended on the effective and brutal use of this weapon. Training frequently focused on it. Both this confidence and training focus were misplaced, as in fact the bayonet was not a particularly useful or effective weapon. The combination of this strong fetishization of the weapon and its ineffectiveness had a tendency to encourage atrocity and prisoner killing, in which some soldiers indulged keenly, as the main opponents on whom the bayonet could be used successfully were those who were unarmed or wounded.
Une Guerre Totale? La Belgique dans la Première Guerre mondiale. Nouvelles tendances de al recherche historique, 2005
“One has only to think what these Huns did to the Belgians and I say that when you catch one kill... more “One has only to think what these Huns did to the Belgians and I say that when you catch one kill him slowly but make sure you are doing away with him.” Soldier’s diary entry – 1st May 1915.
Using mainly contemporary primary sources written by British soldiers at the Western Front, this paper looks at British soldiers’ attitudes and actions towards Belgium, the Belgian people and Army. The soldiers who made up the British army had much contact with Belgian people – both with the large number of Belgian refugees who quickly arrived in Britain and with the civilian and military personnel present around the British lines at the Western Front. The variety of responses that occurred are surveyed. With civilians, responses varied to an extraordinary extent – from romance and marriage to rumours of soldiers killing Belgian peasants. With the Belgian Army, early eulogising of their plucky defence of their country against overwhelming force, created some disenchantment later in the war when the two armies were working alongside and taking over each other’s lines.
Two more general and common reactions, with consequences important for the culture of the British Army during the war, its morale and military actions, are looked at in more detail. The first is the strong emotional attachment felt by the soldiers to the towns they were defending – particularly Ypres. The second is the reaction to the very well publicised atrocities committed by the Germans during their invasion of Belgium. Soldier’s texts reveal that thoughts of these atrocities weighed heavy on their minds in the early years of the war and had a strong effect on their actions towards their opponents. Reference to such feelings are an important component in explaining how the killing of prisoners and other war crimes quickly became widespread on the Western Front.
Corporal Jones’ stock epithet would not have sounded out of place in the British trenches of the ... more Corporal Jones’ stock epithet would not have sounded out of place in the British trenches of the First World War. Indeed, compared with many contemporary soldiers’ texts, his love of ‘cold steel’ is positively anaemic. A private in the 22nd London (“Queen’s”) Regiment describes the immediate preparations for an attack on 7th November 1917: “Fix bayonets!” yells the colonel. And the shining things leap from the scabbards and flash in the light as they click on the standards. They seem alive and joyous; they turn us into fiends, thirsty for slaughter. As this indicates, trench fighters had great faith in the power of bayonets and tended to love both reading and writing lavish and detailed description of them in action against their opponents’ bodies. This could even develop sensual tones, one soldier writing in a letter, “Oh! The bloody gorgeousness of feeling your bayonet go into soft yielding flesh”. One of the most clear messages of such texts, when bayonets went to their work of eviscerating and emasculating the enemy, is the reinforcement made to their wielders’ masculinity. Thoughts of Germans greatly fearing bayonets comforted British soldiers, reassuring them of their supremacy as soldiers and men. Vivid fetishisation of the bayonet among the rank-and-file was supported by their officers, all the way up to the highest echelons of the General Staff. Bayonet training was seen as a fundamental component of turning civilians into soldiers and in inculcating a correct martial attitude. Astonishingly, the standard wartime training manual baldly states: “Bayonet fighting produces lust for blood.” Fetishisation is an apt description. Reports after the war confirmed how poor a weapon the bayonet actually was - “one of the most futile instruments imaginable” (British Small Arms Report 1924). The technical deficiencies of the bayonet as a combat weapon forced soldiers to use it in a brutal manner; ‘neck or nothing’ was a popular phrase. Bayonet fetishisation, while having benefits to the morale and spirit of British troops, was to also have negative consequences for them during the war. The wholesale subscription to the notion of the force of an infantry bayonet charge contributed to an enduring overestimation of the offensive power of infantrymen throughout the war. Moreover, it encouraged a culture of atrocity and aided a situation in which the killing of prisoners or potential prisoners was tolerated and even celebrated.
Uploads
Papers by P D Hodges
Using mainly contemporary primary sources written by British soldiers at the Western Front, this paper looks at British soldiers’ attitudes and actions towards Belgium, the Belgian people and Army. The soldiers who made up the British army had much contact with Belgian people – both with the large number of Belgian refugees who quickly arrived in Britain and with the civilian and military personnel present around the British lines at the Western Front. The variety of responses that occurred are surveyed. With civilians, responses varied to an extraordinary extent – from romance and marriage to rumours of soldiers killing Belgian peasants. With the Belgian Army, early eulogising of their plucky defence of their country against overwhelming force, created some disenchantment later in the war when the two armies were working alongside and taking over each other’s lines.
Two more general and common reactions, with consequences important for the culture of the British Army during the war, its morale and military actions, are looked at in more detail. The first is the strong emotional attachment felt by the soldiers to the towns they were defending – particularly Ypres. The second is the reaction to the very well publicised atrocities committed by the Germans during their invasion of Belgium. Soldier’s texts reveal that thoughts of these atrocities weighed heavy on their minds in the early years of the war and had a strong effect on their actions towards their opponents. Reference to such feelings are an important component in explaining how the killing of prisoners and other war crimes quickly became widespread on the Western Front.
Talks by P D Hodges
“Fix bayonets!” yells the colonel. And the shining things leap from the scabbards and flash in the light as they click on the standards. They seem alive and joyous; they turn us into fiends, thirsty for slaughter.
As this indicates, trench fighters had great faith in the power of bayonets and tended to love both reading and writing lavish and detailed description of them in action against their opponents’ bodies. This could even develop sensual tones, one soldier writing in a letter, “Oh! The bloody gorgeousness of feeling your bayonet go into soft yielding flesh”. One of the most clear messages of such texts, when bayonets went to their work of eviscerating and emasculating the enemy, is the reinforcement made to their wielders’ masculinity.
Thoughts of Germans greatly fearing bayonets comforted British soldiers, reassuring them of their supremacy as soldiers and men. Vivid fetishisation of the bayonet among the rank-and-file was supported by their officers, all the way up to the highest echelons of the General Staff. Bayonet training was seen as a fundamental component of turning civilians into soldiers and in inculcating a correct martial attitude. Astonishingly, the standard wartime training manual baldly states: “Bayonet fighting produces lust for blood.”
Fetishisation is an apt description. Reports after the war confirmed how poor a weapon the bayonet actually was - “one of the most futile instruments imaginable” (British Small Arms Report 1924). The technical deficiencies of the bayonet as a combat weapon forced soldiers to use it in a brutal manner; ‘neck or nothing’ was a popular phrase. Bayonet fetishisation, while having benefits to the morale and spirit of British troops, was to also have negative consequences for them during the war. The wholesale subscription to the notion of the force of an infantry bayonet charge contributed to an enduring overestimation of the offensive power of infantrymen throughout the war. Moreover, it encouraged a culture of atrocity and aided a situation in which the killing of prisoners or potential prisoners was tolerated and even celebrated.
Using mainly contemporary primary sources written by British soldiers at the Western Front, this paper looks at British soldiers’ attitudes and actions towards Belgium, the Belgian people and Army. The soldiers who made up the British army had much contact with Belgian people – both with the large number of Belgian refugees who quickly arrived in Britain and with the civilian and military personnel present around the British lines at the Western Front. The variety of responses that occurred are surveyed. With civilians, responses varied to an extraordinary extent – from romance and marriage to rumours of soldiers killing Belgian peasants. With the Belgian Army, early eulogising of their plucky defence of their country against overwhelming force, created some disenchantment later in the war when the two armies were working alongside and taking over each other’s lines.
Two more general and common reactions, with consequences important for the culture of the British Army during the war, its morale and military actions, are looked at in more detail. The first is the strong emotional attachment felt by the soldiers to the towns they were defending – particularly Ypres. The second is the reaction to the very well publicised atrocities committed by the Germans during their invasion of Belgium. Soldier’s texts reveal that thoughts of these atrocities weighed heavy on their minds in the early years of the war and had a strong effect on their actions towards their opponents. Reference to such feelings are an important component in explaining how the killing of prisoners and other war crimes quickly became widespread on the Western Front.
“Fix bayonets!” yells the colonel. And the shining things leap from the scabbards and flash in the light as they click on the standards. They seem alive and joyous; they turn us into fiends, thirsty for slaughter.
As this indicates, trench fighters had great faith in the power of bayonets and tended to love both reading and writing lavish and detailed description of them in action against their opponents’ bodies. This could even develop sensual tones, one soldier writing in a letter, “Oh! The bloody gorgeousness of feeling your bayonet go into soft yielding flesh”. One of the most clear messages of such texts, when bayonets went to their work of eviscerating and emasculating the enemy, is the reinforcement made to their wielders’ masculinity.
Thoughts of Germans greatly fearing bayonets comforted British soldiers, reassuring them of their supremacy as soldiers and men. Vivid fetishisation of the bayonet among the rank-and-file was supported by their officers, all the way up to the highest echelons of the General Staff. Bayonet training was seen as a fundamental component of turning civilians into soldiers and in inculcating a correct martial attitude. Astonishingly, the standard wartime training manual baldly states: “Bayonet fighting produces lust for blood.”
Fetishisation is an apt description. Reports after the war confirmed how poor a weapon the bayonet actually was - “one of the most futile instruments imaginable” (British Small Arms Report 1924). The technical deficiencies of the bayonet as a combat weapon forced soldiers to use it in a brutal manner; ‘neck or nothing’ was a popular phrase. Bayonet fetishisation, while having benefits to the morale and spirit of British troops, was to also have negative consequences for them during the war. The wholesale subscription to the notion of the force of an infantry bayonet charge contributed to an enduring overestimation of the offensive power of infantrymen throughout the war. Moreover, it encouraged a culture of atrocity and aided a situation in which the killing of prisoners or potential prisoners was tolerated and even celebrated.