Originally Posted by Micawber

It's all news to me as well, though a lot of things are these days.

The book was published in 1999, so pre dates that website, but it looks like he's rounded up the Etaples soldiers disgruntlement with conditions with the striking labour units, and shooting of same, in Boulogne at roughly the same
Time to make it a bloody few days.

Still over-egging it a bit if you ask me.

The book is a great read which I thoroughly recommend, but oooh he does hate the British establishment and in some parts that gets in the way of his history telling.

I believe that he's very critical of the ruling classes, whether you want to construe that as hate is another matter. Chris Harman was one of the finest folks I ever had the pleasure to meet as a member of the SWP. However, on the sad occasion of his death in 2009, I posted a thread that was not well-received at all:

RIP Chris Harman

MsG

Originally Posted by Kalle_M

I believe that he's very critical of the ruling classes, whether you want to construe that as hate is another matter. Chris Harman was one of the finest folks I ever had the pleasure to meet as a member of the SWP. However, on the sad occasion of his death in 2009, I posted a thread that was not well-received at all:

RIP Chris Harman

MsG

If he truly represented Etaples as others have claimed, he's no loss as an historian and even less a loss as a human being. Part of the reason the sacrifices of 14-18 are so little understood and less appreciated is because the evil twins of Nazism and Socialism twisted the history for their own purposes. Harman's view of Etaples rates right alongside the dolchstoßlegende and was probably generated for the same purpose of political advantage. The proponents of one should be treated with the same contempt as the proponents of the other.

SWP you say. Who did he leave his fortune to?

Bugsy - I've found Harman a great read, he writes at exactly the same speed as I can take it in, with a style that makes me think he'd havebeen a fascinating bloke to go for a beer or a dinner with.

But right from the start I've been wondering if he was playing things entirely straight down the middle and when it comes to the British establishment he doesn't which is a shame.

It's a bit like reading a newspaper, you jog along untill every now and then they write about an incident you know about and they get it all wrong. It makes you think very hard about how accurate the vast majority of stuff is that they report about which you know nothing.

He has written at length about the development of Europe without mentioning Nelson by name or The Battle of the Nile or Trafalgar, and in conspicuously not even naming the Peninsular war he describes that bit of history 'eventually they were driven out by remnants of the Spanish Army with British support' which is bloody perverse.

I'm not saying he should have the same jingoistic view of these things as most of us, but they did exist and they were important and no to even mention them in half a sentence is a failing.

He also sees the Victorian introduction of schools as a plot by capitalists simply to trach the poor 'obedience and timekeeping'.

When he settles down and sticks to the Fall of Rome, the French Revolution and the American Civil War he's excellent, but his prejudice seems to overwhelm him sometimes.

On the origins of WW1 he says Britain declared war on Germany 'using the movement of German troops through Belgium as an excuse'.

I reckon that's a bit bloody wide of the mark as well.

Etaples was a shit hole, this is what Siegfried Sassoon thought of it and it's training staff,

The base canaries:

If I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
Reading the Roll of Honour. ‘Poor young chap,’
I’d say—‘I used to know his father well;
Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’
And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.

Originally Posted by Micawber

Bugsy - I've found Harman a great read, he writes at exactly the same speed as I can take it in, with a style that makes me think he'd havebeen a fascinating bloke to go for a beer or a dinner with.

But right from the start I've been wondering if he was playing things entirely straight down the middle and when it comes to the British establishment he doesn't which is a shame.

It's a bit like reading a newspaper, you jog along untill every now and then they write about an incident you know about and they get it all wrong. It makes you think very hard about how accurate the vast majority of stuff is that they report about which you know nothing.

He has written at length about the development of Europe without mentioning Nelson by name or The Battle of the Nile or Trafalgar, and in conspicuously not even naming the Peninsular war he describes that bit of history 'eventually they were driven out by remnants of the Spanish Army with British support' which is bloody perverse.

I'm not saying he should have the same jingoistic view of these things as most of us, but they did exist and they were important and no to even mention them in half a sentence is a failing.

He also sees the Victorian introduction of schools as a plot by capitalists simply to trach the poor 'obedience and timekeeping'.

When he settles down and sticks to the Fall of Rome, the French Revolution and the American Civil War he's excellent, but his prejudice seems to overwhelm him sometimes.

On the origins of WW1 he says Britain declared war on Germany 'using the movement of German troops through Belgium as an excuse'.

I reckon that's a bit bloody wide of the mark as well.

I spent an evening or two with Chris Harman and he's a fascinating fella with an incredible range of knowledge. I must say that even though I explained why I joined the British Army, he could never quite understand it and he loathed the military in any form - which I thought was a bit close-minded - but does explain his rather dismissive attitude to the whole complex; a complex I believe you can only fully understand if you've been a part of it. So yes, I agree with you that his treatment of military affairs left a lot to be desired.

Funnily enough, he also visited the GDR on a number of occasions and was appalled at the regime there, denouncing it as the worst example of State Capitalism in the Eastern Bloc. On that point we also had to agree to disagree, since my stay there was much longer than his and, in spite of the real shortcomings of the system, I had the opportunity to see how it benefited most of the population.

I was shocked at his sudden and unexpected death and I believe he did much to clarify the genuine ideology of Socialism in the minds of many folks.

Mit sozialistischem Gruß

I'm not a historian or political specialist, just an interested mug punter.

I've read the World Turned Upsidedown, the Making of the English Working Class and Brian Manning's Aristocrats, Plebians and Revolution in England.

I've found them really thought provoking and I sort of 'trust' them enough to base a bit of reasoning on their contents, but having now detected a touch of biased smoke and mirrors in Harman I'm going off him.

Shame, because he writes better than all the others.

Just my view.

Originally Posted by wm1965

Alternatively, how did they keep 100,000 quiet?

AMMM wasn't around to do a blog about it. And her son the Mills Bomb.

It's not only the passage of time that can distort. Contemporary versions can too.

A couple of months ago I was checking out some details of the Rhyl mutiny and came across this account in
The Times, of Friday, Mar 07, 1919, published a few days after the incident.

RIOT IN CANADIAN CAMP

12 KILLED AND MANY INJURED

V.C. TRAMPLED TO DEATH

A serious disturbance by Canadian soldiers occurred at Kinmel Military Camp, Rhyl, on Tuesday and Wednesday, as the result of which 12 lives were lost, including that of a major of New Brunswick who had gained the V.C., and about 20 others. In addition damage, which is estimated at £50,000, was done to the camp.....

A V.C. losing his life in ignominious circumstances, having survived the war?... Strange that here was a story not widely known as you would expect it to be.

Not surprising though that it wasn't more widely known, there was no VC winner killed, there was one fatality (possibly more) but where the rumour of the major's death came from, I've no idea.

I saw no retraction in subsequent accounts as I recall; subsequent accounts just didn't mention it again.

Once the fighting was over and the armistice declared there must have been a general feeling among the troops that it was time to go home and bin the khaki, although of course there was a massive clearing up to do and an army of occupation was needed to keep Fritz in order until he had signed a peace treaty. One result, exacerbated by their not receiving the British Army's pay rise (because the BWIR was recruited and paid by the Colonial Office, not the War Office) was the British West Indies Regiment mutiny at Taranto. See my dit at To War with the Westies - ARRSEpedia. It may also not escape notice that while their British officers and NCOs could hardly be denied home leave where practicable, the WI troops had no such outlet.

As to Kalle, well, ARRSE is a broad church, even delusional socialist lunatics are welcome.