What do you think?
Rate this book
Mud, Blood and Poppycock
Mud, Blood and Poppycock [Paperback] Gordon Corrigan
441 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
74 people are currently reading
553 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
December 15, 2014
There is a great summary of the key points in this book, based on direct quotes, at the following: http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3_Corrig...
This lively book helps explode the claim that the British fought WW1 stupidly and demolishes a long list of related myths. It is worth recalling that the Germans, who overran France in the Franco Prussian War, were in fact fought to a standstill and held for some years, despite huge forces being applied, before being defeated totally. When the Americans arrived late in the day, they suffered horrific casualties through ignoring British and French advice. If there was a truly stupid army killing its own men through ignorance and pride, it was the Americans.
The war was not stupidly fought. Stopping, holding and then defeating a massive and very serious army such as that of the Germans was not something that would be accomplished easily. It was a hard fought and terrible war. It is just insulting the intelligence and sacrifices of our ancestors to under-rate the challenges and the achievements, even if one has no great admiration for the science of warfare.
Memories of this war are very different in other countries. The continental Europeans already understood that land warfare required huge casualties of necessity. The British were not tuned into that reality because of a very different military history, largely at sea or in relatively (by comparison) minor expeditions. British casualties were far smaller than those of the French, but had a huge political and social impact because of the practice of forming men into units and regiments based on their home towns or counties. This meant that entire communities could lose every single male in a major battle, although another community might have minor losses.
German memories were the product of many after the event political factors. Like those in Britain or America who claim the war was fought by fools, they never fully accepted the total defeat imposed on their enormous and proud armies by the allies. The reason the allies were able to impose such oppressive terms at the end of the war was precisely because the Germans had been totally defeated in battle. But the war was not fought on German territory, the German people were ideologically prepared for and celebrated warfare, so they did not have the subjective experience of being a defeated nation until after the armies had gone home, when they woke up to the consequences of their own extreme nationalism and militarism and did not like what they saw. Like a drunk with a hangover, they went looking for more strong drink.
This lively book helps explode the claim that the British fought WW1 stupidly and demolishes a long list of related myths. It is worth recalling that the Germans, who overran France in the Franco Prussian War, were in fact fought to a standstill and held for some years, despite huge forces being applied, before being defeated totally. When the Americans arrived late in the day, they suffered horrific casualties through ignoring British and French advice. If there was a truly stupid army killing its own men through ignorance and pride, it was the Americans.
The war was not stupidly fought. Stopping, holding and then defeating a massive and very serious army such as that of the Germans was not something that would be accomplished easily. It was a hard fought and terrible war. It is just insulting the intelligence and sacrifices of our ancestors to under-rate the challenges and the achievements, even if one has no great admiration for the science of warfare.
Memories of this war are very different in other countries. The continental Europeans already understood that land warfare required huge casualties of necessity. The British were not tuned into that reality because of a very different military history, largely at sea or in relatively (by comparison) minor expeditions. British casualties were far smaller than those of the French, but had a huge political and social impact because of the practice of forming men into units and regiments based on their home towns or counties. This meant that entire communities could lose every single male in a major battle, although another community might have minor losses.
German memories were the product of many after the event political factors. Like those in Britain or America who claim the war was fought by fools, they never fully accepted the total defeat imposed on their enormous and proud armies by the allies. The reason the allies were able to impose such oppressive terms at the end of the war was precisely because the Germans had been totally defeated in battle. But the war was not fought on German territory, the German people were ideologically prepared for and celebrated warfare, so they did not have the subjective experience of being a defeated nation until after the armies had gone home, when they woke up to the consequences of their own extreme nationalism and militarism and did not like what they saw. Like a drunk with a hangover, they went looking for more strong drink.
Read
September 27, 2015An irascible volume with a title and packaging that are more annoyingly forthright than its contents necessarily warrant (the cover boasts in a blurb that it will "change everything you thought you knew about the Great War", or something to that effect, alas). Still, this is probably the best single-volume introduction to the revisionist school currently on the market, and is presented with an unabashedly operational bias: Corrigan is tired of poems and movies and novels, and doesn't care who knows it. Even speaking as an English professor, I can't say I entirely blame him.
August 17, 2013
An evidence based look at the British myths about the First World War. Corrigan follows in Keegan's footsteps by looking at all the current evidence and using it to reinterpret the historical narrative and challenge received opinion. Excellent analysis that needs to be read by all.
August 2, 2014
A timely revisionist look at The Great War. Corrigan focuses on certain topics which engage the British public and analyses them closely. This should help to dispel various 'myths', although some are so ingrained it will take more than one book to change opinions. His approach allows the reader to select sections of interest. His approach, as a military historian and ex-army Officer, is very down to earth and knowledgeable.
I have just picked up the RadioTimes and note that tomorrow will present a number of TV programs featuring our "Lost Generation". We in Britain tend to disregard the losses of our allies and enemies. 8.4 % of UK men mobilized were killed during the war years 1914 and 1918, compared to 16.4 % of the French and 14.7 % Germans. In terms of percentage population killed, the UK numbers are 1.53%, France 3.7% and Germany 3.23%. Horrifying figures, I know, but hardly a whole generation. Corrigan regards the tendency to blame Britain's inter-war difficulties on the dearth of leaders due to The Great War as erroneous. France on the other hand had fought previous continental wars and had an aging population. She lost twice as many men which had a major impact on social attitudes and politics for decades which followed.
He analyses trench warfare and produces figures which show that generally speaking commonwealth soldiers spent between 7 to 10 days a month in the front line. The regular rest periods probably account for the fact that of all the combatants only the British and Commonwealth troops did not mutiny.
He places the Somme in context, and is kind to Haig, and less kind to Lloyd George.
Was this an unnecessary war? Corrigan argues not. It was unavoidable.
It is a readable book of interest to the general readership. My interest is personal. My grandfather fought in East Africa where he contracted malaria, then in Flanders where he was gassed.
I have just picked up the RadioTimes and note that tomorrow will present a number of TV programs featuring our "Lost Generation". We in Britain tend to disregard the losses of our allies and enemies. 8.4 % of UK men mobilized were killed during the war years 1914 and 1918, compared to 16.4 % of the French and 14.7 % Germans. In terms of percentage population killed, the UK numbers are 1.53%, France 3.7% and Germany 3.23%. Horrifying figures, I know, but hardly a whole generation. Corrigan regards the tendency to blame Britain's inter-war difficulties on the dearth of leaders due to The Great War as erroneous. France on the other hand had fought previous continental wars and had an aging population. She lost twice as many men which had a major impact on social attitudes and politics for decades which followed.
He analyses trench warfare and produces figures which show that generally speaking commonwealth soldiers spent between 7 to 10 days a month in the front line. The regular rest periods probably account for the fact that of all the combatants only the British and Commonwealth troops did not mutiny.
He places the Somme in context, and is kind to Haig, and less kind to Lloyd George.
Was this an unnecessary war? Corrigan argues not. It was unavoidable.
It is a readable book of interest to the general readership. My interest is personal. My grandfather fought in East Africa where he contracted malaria, then in Flanders where he was gassed.
March 25, 2023
Okay - I really like this book and when I first read it, I thought this was just the tonic for a generation that has misremembered the war as a whole. The KS3 and GCSE History curriculums in the UK tend towards a one-size-fits-all, generalised, easy-fit, unambiguous version of a deeply complex and tricky issue.
Corrigan uses statistics, first-hand accounts, and other primary sources to effectively assault the cosy view that the war was a futile endeavour, that it was a waste of lives, that it was a horrible experience for those who went through it, and that the bumbling, callous Generals were to blame. As a student of this particular war since the age of about seven, I considered this high time for a revision and some hard, difficult truths to be brought to the fore.
Corrigan delivers this in a readable and, mostly, approachable way. His target audience seems to be those who have a 'misguided' view of the war and so he logically and painstakingly sets out to challenge the orthodox view and leave the reader in no doubt that The Great War was much more than you might think.
However, on second reading, I am starting to find Corrigan's dismissal of certain key factor a little grating and patronising and as a result undermining some of his key edifices of argument.
For example, he is hugely dismissive of the war poets and writers (Sassoon, Owen, Blunden, Remarque, etc.) and I think this is because he can't bring himself to admit that these men were actually soldiers. Instead, he wants us to see them as exceptions: overly educated, privileged and temporary soldiers who could not ever really understand the mechanisms of the Army. He is happy to dismiss all of their writing as one-sided bunkum but also gets his facts wrong.
Corrigan is an historian but he is also an ex Army officer. He does not seem to give those who are not 'on his side' any time of day. For example, he criticises Basel Liddell Hart for having had a psychological breakdown after being badly wounded three times (he covers this by saying he couldn't have been blamed for this) but them again is suggesting that we should not trust him because he was probably a bit 'mad'. He goes on to say that Liddell Hart's inability to prove his courage on the battle field led to his strategies that critiqued the conduct of the war. Liddell Hart was an advocate of what we would see as modern warfare and saw intelligence and wit as being more crucial than bald courage. And he was spot on. But Corrigan dismisses this entirely as he wants to maintain the argument that the Generals had no other alternatives and were learning as they went. This is, at best, a half-truth but to the lay reader the point is wedged so firmly and convincingly that it goes without further inspection.
Corrigan does this a great deal to ensure that his (by the way valid arguments) hold water and remain logically unchallenged. Another example of Corrigan's - by today's standards - callous view of mental health is in his dealings with Sassoon. He wants us to entirely dismiss Sassoon's view of the war because "it was received badly by his regiment in France" but this is stated with no evidence and is undermined by the fact that Corrigan gets his facts wrong here. He states that Sassoon was egged on by "pacifists such as Bertrand Russell" which I think is true but the colloquial phrase 'egged on' is diatribe not evidenced argument and also suggests that Sassoon had no mind of his own. The next step is worse though: he again dismisses a legitimate primary source by stating that he was in a mental institution when he wrote his declaration. This is not a fact. He wrote the declaration and then was sent to Craiglockhart as a result; it was deemed better to suggest that he was suffering from shell-shock than to suggest it was written by a sane person. He was totally sane. His Doctor)Dr. Rivers) said as much.
What is missing from Corrigan's dismissal of Sassoon is that he was a well-respected officer. His men loved him. He led by example and did all that was asked of him as a leader and a soldier. He was awarded a Military Cross for conspicuous bravery and after his spell at Craiglockhart, returned to the front where he was wounded and was recovering when the war ended. His poems provide a valid interpretation of the war because he was not of the officer class and was not subject to their doctrines; he was Oxbridge educated and had a bright sparkling intelligence and wit. Why would that point of view be worthless to an historian (I would suggest that it's only worthless to them because it doesn't fit with their narrative)? Sassoon's poetry is anti-war insofar as it critiques the Generals and their running of the war but he is equally scathing about the general public who "had not sufficient imagination to empathise with the suffering of the troops". Sassoon witness the Battle of the Somme; I would like his view of it to be counted alongside the modern historians who were not there and cannot know.
Furthermore, his attack of Owen as an anti-war poet is also misguided. Owen was not anti-war. He went to war because he felt duty bound to protect the language of Keats and Shakespeare. We might find this a little bit too Romantic but that's what he wrote. He also wrote that he could never be a pacifist and that in battle he felt like an angel. Hardly the comments of an anti-war poet. Owen's view however - and he did suffer shell-shock - was that people should know about the reality of war. He famously carried photos of corpses with him so that when he was asked about the war he could show them. None of his poems say that war is bad and should never happen but he does force us to confront the stinking,m putrid reality of warfare and he does take a legitimate pop at the propagandists and jingoists who convince young men that war is an adventure. Like Sassoon, he too returned to the front and took part in many actions in 1918 and the great British advance. However, he was killed after being cited for a Military Cross for conspicuous bravery. Hardly the actions of a wet, wussy pacifist as Corrigan would like us to believe.
He also dismisses far too easily Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That and Edmund Blunden's Undertones of War. But this is an error. Both texts are not explicitly anti-war (not that being anti-war is in itself a problem; war is horrible and I don't blame anyone who has experienced it as thinking it should never happen). The two texts recount experiences of the war from serving officers. Why should they be dismissed as legitimate sources?
This is where I get a little cross with Corrigan: he is happily willing to take a letter from a Tommy who says some nice things about his experience on the front and to use this as the antidote to the anti-war epithets of the poets and writers. Does he not realise the conditions under which letters were written? Has he not heard of Marxist critiques, has he not been made aware of the strictures on soldiers' letters home or even the simple humanity of a letter that is written to allay fears and doubts back home? If anything, it is these letters that Corrigan so widely pronounces as truth that might be the most fictional account of the war (or not but Corrigan does not wish to engage in this debate). Why is a letter from a private soldier of more significance in telling about attitudes towards the conduct of the war than a poem by an officer? I think we seem to be picking and choosing our evidence in a positivistic manner.
Not only that, but the uneasy blend - at times - between qualitative and quantitative evidence sometimes seems a bit dishonest. Corrigan takes a black-and-white approach to an argument that itself is black and white. Like the modern interpretations of the war as futile, Corrigan takes a similarly black-and-white view of his stats. He compares, for example, the sickness rates of the soldiers reporting for sick parade with those of WW2 and concludes that as they were statistically lower in WW1 than WW2 soldiers must be generally happier with their role. However, this does not take into account the variable here, nor the location of the war (the war in the far-east was more likely to attract illnesses than in Europe) but also the advances in medical care that meant that sickness that was treated with a 'just get on with it' could be treated properly 20 years later. Not only that, the Army of WW2 would prefer that its soldiers were 100% fit and had a very different attitude to what was considered "shirking" or "funk".
Despite everything that Corrigan argues, it is right and proper that advanced societies look with scepticism on war, authority and sacrifice. The war taught British society a valuable lesson and the poets and writers helped to deliver it. It's easy to blithely say that attitudes in 1914 to King and Country were better than they are now but actually the scale of poverty and unemployment was staggering in Britain. The way that Briatin used and abused its Empire has to be reconciled and addressed. The reality behind the argument that Generals had no other option than full frontal attacks has to be reviewed. The lions led by donkeys IS a myth (it was never said but invented by Alan Clark) but that's not the same thing as saying that any critique of generals is invalid. Yep, some of the generals were amazing tacticians (these were Australian and Canadian for the most part). Yes the Somme was necessary and was technically a victory but the attack - while arguable forced on the British - was bungled in places because of the stodgy class divide where those in charge could never entertain the notion of giving authority to others not from their class. This is where the temporary gentleman tag comes from (officers promoted from the ranks). Yes, young officers statistically had more chances of being killed than other ranks but this is also owing to very core values of the public school system (an idea that we might categorise as being a from of radicalisation today) where young men are raised on the notion of sacrifice, good and evil etc. The men who witnessed the war saw this up close and personal and have a right to have their voices heard.
In summary, it's a very worthwhile and readable text. But I would take it with a trenchful of salt as it's about as one-sided as a Tory defending corruption.
Corrigan uses statistics, first-hand accounts, and other primary sources to effectively assault the cosy view that the war was a futile endeavour, that it was a waste of lives, that it was a horrible experience for those who went through it, and that the bumbling, callous Generals were to blame. As a student of this particular war since the age of about seven, I considered this high time for a revision and some hard, difficult truths to be brought to the fore.
Corrigan delivers this in a readable and, mostly, approachable way. His target audience seems to be those who have a 'misguided' view of the war and so he logically and painstakingly sets out to challenge the orthodox view and leave the reader in no doubt that The Great War was much more than you might think.
However, on second reading, I am starting to find Corrigan's dismissal of certain key factor a little grating and patronising and as a result undermining some of his key edifices of argument.
For example, he is hugely dismissive of the war poets and writers (Sassoon, Owen, Blunden, Remarque, etc.) and I think this is because he can't bring himself to admit that these men were actually soldiers. Instead, he wants us to see them as exceptions: overly educated, privileged and temporary soldiers who could not ever really understand the mechanisms of the Army. He is happy to dismiss all of their writing as one-sided bunkum but also gets his facts wrong.
Corrigan is an historian but he is also an ex Army officer. He does not seem to give those who are not 'on his side' any time of day. For example, he criticises Basel Liddell Hart for having had a psychological breakdown after being badly wounded three times (he covers this by saying he couldn't have been blamed for this) but them again is suggesting that we should not trust him because he was probably a bit 'mad'. He goes on to say that Liddell Hart's inability to prove his courage on the battle field led to his strategies that critiqued the conduct of the war. Liddell Hart was an advocate of what we would see as modern warfare and saw intelligence and wit as being more crucial than bald courage. And he was spot on. But Corrigan dismisses this entirely as he wants to maintain the argument that the Generals had no other alternatives and were learning as they went. This is, at best, a half-truth but to the lay reader the point is wedged so firmly and convincingly that it goes without further inspection.
Corrigan does this a great deal to ensure that his (by the way valid arguments) hold water and remain logically unchallenged. Another example of Corrigan's - by today's standards - callous view of mental health is in his dealings with Sassoon. He wants us to entirely dismiss Sassoon's view of the war because "it was received badly by his regiment in France" but this is stated with no evidence and is undermined by the fact that Corrigan gets his facts wrong here. He states that Sassoon was egged on by "pacifists such as Bertrand Russell" which I think is true but the colloquial phrase 'egged on' is diatribe not evidenced argument and also suggests that Sassoon had no mind of his own. The next step is worse though: he again dismisses a legitimate primary source by stating that he was in a mental institution when he wrote his declaration. This is not a fact. He wrote the declaration and then was sent to Craiglockhart as a result; it was deemed better to suggest that he was suffering from shell-shock than to suggest it was written by a sane person. He was totally sane. His Doctor)Dr. Rivers) said as much.
What is missing from Corrigan's dismissal of Sassoon is that he was a well-respected officer. His men loved him. He led by example and did all that was asked of him as a leader and a soldier. He was awarded a Military Cross for conspicuous bravery and after his spell at Craiglockhart, returned to the front where he was wounded and was recovering when the war ended. His poems provide a valid interpretation of the war because he was not of the officer class and was not subject to their doctrines; he was Oxbridge educated and had a bright sparkling intelligence and wit. Why would that point of view be worthless to an historian (I would suggest that it's only worthless to them because it doesn't fit with their narrative)? Sassoon's poetry is anti-war insofar as it critiques the Generals and their running of the war but he is equally scathing about the general public who "had not sufficient imagination to empathise with the suffering of the troops". Sassoon witness the Battle of the Somme; I would like his view of it to be counted alongside the modern historians who were not there and cannot know.
Furthermore, his attack of Owen as an anti-war poet is also misguided. Owen was not anti-war. He went to war because he felt duty bound to protect the language of Keats and Shakespeare. We might find this a little bit too Romantic but that's what he wrote. He also wrote that he could never be a pacifist and that in battle he felt like an angel. Hardly the comments of an anti-war poet. Owen's view however - and he did suffer shell-shock - was that people should know about the reality of war. He famously carried photos of corpses with him so that when he was asked about the war he could show them. None of his poems say that war is bad and should never happen but he does force us to confront the stinking,m putrid reality of warfare and he does take a legitimate pop at the propagandists and jingoists who convince young men that war is an adventure. Like Sassoon, he too returned to the front and took part in many actions in 1918 and the great British advance. However, he was killed after being cited for a Military Cross for conspicuous bravery. Hardly the actions of a wet, wussy pacifist as Corrigan would like us to believe.
He also dismisses far too easily Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That and Edmund Blunden's Undertones of War. But this is an error. Both texts are not explicitly anti-war (not that being anti-war is in itself a problem; war is horrible and I don't blame anyone who has experienced it as thinking it should never happen). The two texts recount experiences of the war from serving officers. Why should they be dismissed as legitimate sources?
This is where I get a little cross with Corrigan: he is happily willing to take a letter from a Tommy who says some nice things about his experience on the front and to use this as the antidote to the anti-war epithets of the poets and writers. Does he not realise the conditions under which letters were written? Has he not heard of Marxist critiques, has he not been made aware of the strictures on soldiers' letters home or even the simple humanity of a letter that is written to allay fears and doubts back home? If anything, it is these letters that Corrigan so widely pronounces as truth that might be the most fictional account of the war (or not but Corrigan does not wish to engage in this debate). Why is a letter from a private soldier of more significance in telling about attitudes towards the conduct of the war than a poem by an officer? I think we seem to be picking and choosing our evidence in a positivistic manner.
Not only that, but the uneasy blend - at times - between qualitative and quantitative evidence sometimes seems a bit dishonest. Corrigan takes a black-and-white approach to an argument that itself is black and white. Like the modern interpretations of the war as futile, Corrigan takes a similarly black-and-white view of his stats. He compares, for example, the sickness rates of the soldiers reporting for sick parade with those of WW2 and concludes that as they were statistically lower in WW1 than WW2 soldiers must be generally happier with their role. However, this does not take into account the variable here, nor the location of the war (the war in the far-east was more likely to attract illnesses than in Europe) but also the advances in medical care that meant that sickness that was treated with a 'just get on with it' could be treated properly 20 years later. Not only that, the Army of WW2 would prefer that its soldiers were 100% fit and had a very different attitude to what was considered "shirking" or "funk".
Despite everything that Corrigan argues, it is right and proper that advanced societies look with scepticism on war, authority and sacrifice. The war taught British society a valuable lesson and the poets and writers helped to deliver it. It's easy to blithely say that attitudes in 1914 to King and Country were better than they are now but actually the scale of poverty and unemployment was staggering in Britain. The way that Briatin used and abused its Empire has to be reconciled and addressed. The reality behind the argument that Generals had no other option than full frontal attacks has to be reviewed. The lions led by donkeys IS a myth (it was never said but invented by Alan Clark) but that's not the same thing as saying that any critique of generals is invalid. Yep, some of the generals were amazing tacticians (these were Australian and Canadian for the most part). Yes the Somme was necessary and was technically a victory but the attack - while arguable forced on the British - was bungled in places because of the stodgy class divide where those in charge could never entertain the notion of giving authority to others not from their class. This is where the temporary gentleman tag comes from (officers promoted from the ranks). Yes, young officers statistically had more chances of being killed than other ranks but this is also owing to very core values of the public school system (an idea that we might categorise as being a from of radicalisation today) where young men are raised on the notion of sacrifice, good and evil etc. The men who witnessed the war saw this up close and personal and have a right to have their voices heard.
In summary, it's a very worthwhile and readable text. But I would take it with a trenchful of salt as it's about as one-sided as a Tory defending corruption.
May 8, 2020
The book is broken down in to various chapters each one containing a myth about the first World War: It was unnecessary; there was needless slaughter; every man was knee deep in mud, blinded by gas and left shell shocked. The start of each chapter delivers the crux of this myth, sometimes quite shockingly so:
“America entered the War at the last minute, contributed nothing, and became the only power to make money out of it.”
Corrigan then spends the rest of the chapter illustrating why the statement is incorrect and in this, he doesn’t hold back either. Mud Blood is comprehensive, (it almost reads like a law book when detailing the ‘Kangaroo Courts’). Thorough descriptions about divisions, rations and guns were all interesting and written so they were not too difficult to wrap your head around. Yet the book is clearly written by a man from the Army…who is English. As a result, a slightly more unbiased opinion would have been welcomed occasionally. At times Corrigan made the Western Front sound almost jolly!
“saving shot and shell, the Western Front was a remarkably healthy place to be throughout the war.”
Without doubt Mud Blood is illuminating. I hadn’t realised the true extent of the British involvement in the war, nor the Americans. I was one of the majority who thought the war was all tunnels, mud and gas attacks. It highlighted key men that I was unaware of – Haig for one and without reading any further into his actions in World War Two, Petain. My goodness what happened to him!
It was also full of fascinating little titbits – Did you know London Buses were present on the Western Front? And anyone who has ever watched Only Connect can appreciate how the words “D1, Creme de Menthe and Dinnaken” are screaming out for a connecting round!
It took me a long time to read it – two weeks as opposed to my usual 2 books a week turnaround but I’m going to put that down to lockdown more than Corrigan. It was a worthwhile read but at times you may have to be English to pallet it.
“America entered the War at the last minute, contributed nothing, and became the only power to make money out of it.”
Corrigan then spends the rest of the chapter illustrating why the statement is incorrect and in this, he doesn’t hold back either. Mud Blood is comprehensive, (it almost reads like a law book when detailing the ‘Kangaroo Courts’). Thorough descriptions about divisions, rations and guns were all interesting and written so they were not too difficult to wrap your head around. Yet the book is clearly written by a man from the Army…who is English. As a result, a slightly more unbiased opinion would have been welcomed occasionally. At times Corrigan made the Western Front sound almost jolly!
“saving shot and shell, the Western Front was a remarkably healthy place to be throughout the war.”
Without doubt Mud Blood is illuminating. I hadn’t realised the true extent of the British involvement in the war, nor the Americans. I was one of the majority who thought the war was all tunnels, mud and gas attacks. It highlighted key men that I was unaware of – Haig for one and without reading any further into his actions in World War Two, Petain. My goodness what happened to him!
It was also full of fascinating little titbits – Did you know London Buses were present on the Western Front? And anyone who has ever watched Only Connect can appreciate how the words “D1, Creme de Menthe and Dinnaken” are screaming out for a connecting round!
It took me a long time to read it – two weeks as opposed to my usual 2 books a week turnaround but I’m going to put that down to lockdown more than Corrigan. It was a worthwhile read but at times you may have to be English to pallet it.
January 16, 2019
Revisionist history of World War I, focusing on British military operations on the Western Front.
It's not a chronological history of the war either. Each chapter is dedicated to a particular myth about the war (the war was pointless, the trenches were miserable, the generals were incompetent, the men were herded like sheep into slaughter in wave attacks, etc.). I'm not sure I buy some of the arguments he makes, but he backs them up with a mass of statistical and anecdotal evidence. Overall, this book is a useful rebuttal to the wrongheaded narratives about the war that have formed the conventional wisdom about it.
It's not a chronological history of the war either. Each chapter is dedicated to a particular myth about the war (the war was pointless, the trenches were miserable, the generals were incompetent, the men were herded like sheep into slaughter in wave attacks, etc.). I'm not sure I buy some of the arguments he makes, but he backs them up with a mass of statistical and anecdotal evidence. Overall, this book is a useful rebuttal to the wrongheaded narratives about the war that have formed the conventional wisdom about it.
November 5, 2018
A really interesting read. I thought I was quite well informed on Ww1 facts but this book takes it to another level. It will take a lot to overturn the ideas and opinions I have of the 1st World War following school studies and the many books I've read over the years. But this book has made me think at least and I can now see Ww1 from an entirely different perspective. 4/5 because its maybe a bit too statistics heavy. Some of it went over my head.
July 22, 2020
A revisionist history of WWI. Engaging author; he makes you re-think events and circumstances about WWI. However, there is little attention given the Middle East theatre, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq. Nonetheless, Corrigan makes his views about Palestine clear. This book will be handy for students and scholars of the military history on the Western Front 1914-1918; he raises many questions worth contemplating.
April 8, 2020
Highly recommended and very readable account of World War One, which takes care to debunk some of the myths that have arisen over the years. Very interesting breakdowns, and definitely changed my way of thinking in some cases.
May 22, 2020
Very readable and extremely informative. It completely reversed my understanding of the conduct of WW1. Haig is back on his pedestal!
November 5, 2019
Mr Corrigan never fails to deliver on his promise even with this rather big one - or maybe that was the publisher's blurb on the back cover.
Nevertheless, this book would suit fans of the Great War or those just embarking on trying to understand this often puzzling conflict. However, I would caution GCSE students as this exposition sets out to straighten the record as far as perceptions persist regarding established knowledge and therefore were there a question to be answered maybe the curriculum version should be posted and not something learned here. It is down to the reader to choose from their own readings and teachings but personally I found just about all of the exposition here convincing and I have read a lot.
He writes well but sometimes I did find it a bit laborious. This could be the tiny font in the paperback but I was also reading the Kindle version. Both suffer from the usual need for maps sometimes... there are such here but I did not find them much help. It is not that kind of book for the most part though but the sections on battles I did find myself skimming to get to the points he raises... The context is vital of course but maybe not so much description of the battles with who did what with what and whom as too often prose can slow to the turgid in Great War books... linear text is IMHO not the best way for comprehension of the incomprehensible...
I would have liked a summary of key points at the back of each chapter too please... In fact there is room for a condensed version of this book addressing each of the key points with just a paragraph or two with illustrations. After all, this is as some might say "proselytizing" if that is the right word. There is a lot of that about in Great War circles... like the war itself you are in one camp or the other, "westerner" or "easterner" Haig or Lloyd George etc etc.... and of course Mr Corrigan is an army man so we know where he stands. This also applies to FM Haig of course... I am still unable to make firm conclusions about this man... Mr C justifies the method several times but it comes down to "who else was available who could have done any better?" I am not sold on this seeing it as an excuse. They are men of their time but it is a thin line between mental illness and "sacrifice for God and Country" especially when it is not you doing the dying personally and it was France's hinterland our lads were trying to boot their lads out of.... a century on while I find it draws me in book after book (as do other wars) it still maddens me, this book just made it worse so I suppose Mr C has delivered on his promise.
On the last note one has to ponder just whether it will really make any difference such is the indifference of the majority to events so long ago....
Nevertheless, this book would suit fans of the Great War or those just embarking on trying to understand this often puzzling conflict. However, I would caution GCSE students as this exposition sets out to straighten the record as far as perceptions persist regarding established knowledge and therefore were there a question to be answered maybe the curriculum version should be posted and not something learned here. It is down to the reader to choose from their own readings and teachings but personally I found just about all of the exposition here convincing and I have read a lot.
He writes well but sometimes I did find it a bit laborious. This could be the tiny font in the paperback but I was also reading the Kindle version. Both suffer from the usual need for maps sometimes... there are such here but I did not find them much help. It is not that kind of book for the most part though but the sections on battles I did find myself skimming to get to the points he raises... The context is vital of course but maybe not so much description of the battles with who did what with what and whom as too often prose can slow to the turgid in Great War books... linear text is IMHO not the best way for comprehension of the incomprehensible...
I would have liked a summary of key points at the back of each chapter too please... In fact there is room for a condensed version of this book addressing each of the key points with just a paragraph or two with illustrations. After all, this is as some might say "proselytizing" if that is the right word. There is a lot of that about in Great War circles... like the war itself you are in one camp or the other, "westerner" or "easterner" Haig or Lloyd George etc etc.... and of course Mr Corrigan is an army man so we know where he stands. This also applies to FM Haig of course... I am still unable to make firm conclusions about this man... Mr C justifies the method several times but it comes down to "who else was available who could have done any better?" I am not sold on this seeing it as an excuse. They are men of their time but it is a thin line between mental illness and "sacrifice for God and Country" especially when it is not you doing the dying personally and it was France's hinterland our lads were trying to boot their lads out of.... a century on while I find it draws me in book after book (as do other wars) it still maddens me, this book just made it worse so I suppose Mr C has delivered on his promise.
On the last note one has to ponder just whether it will really make any difference such is the indifference of the majority to events so long ago....
June 11, 2021
"The Great War is an episode in our history, not an emotional experience." - Gordon Corrigan
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better encapsulation of the thesis of "Blood, Mud, and Poppycock," than the foregoing epigram, borrowed from the epilogue of the book in question. The modern and postmodern view of the Great War is that it was a charnel house, a senseless conflict in which honorable men were sent to their slaughter by porcine generals content to sit behind the lines in castles drinking brandy and chatting fireside.
Everything from the Stanley Kubrick film "Paths of Glory" to John Ellis's "Eye Deep in Hell" presents this view of things. It's not that this view is entirely inaccurate, but it is probably more relevant to the French or the German experiences of the Great War and bears much less saliency when talking about the Tommies.
Chapter by Chapter, Mr. Corrigan makes his case that much of what we think we know about the Great War is due to great dramatic treatments of the conflict, and the therapeutic (perhaps feminized) culture in which we all marinate. It has a lot less to do with the facts of the war as it was fought on the front lines and waged by generals who were much closer to the action than we many times suspect. Corrigan uses strong, spare prose when elucidating his point, and though there are endnotes and the book is longish for a revisionist history, it's rarely long-winded or less than engaging. The author is a former soldier, and it's always a welcome intrusion when his hard disposition and sometimes salty nature break through the the scholarly façade.
Everyone from the layman to the hardcore historian who reads "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock," is bound to encounter some facts or tidbits about the First World War which they hadn't heretofore encountered. And of course some of Corrigan's theories or conclusions may rankle, but that's his prerogative, almost his duty as a revisionist historian. Nevertheless, those with a very rosy image of Prime Minister David Lloyd George may want to sit this one out. Recommended, with photos.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better encapsulation of the thesis of "Blood, Mud, and Poppycock," than the foregoing epigram, borrowed from the epilogue of the book in question. The modern and postmodern view of the Great War is that it was a charnel house, a senseless conflict in which honorable men were sent to their slaughter by porcine generals content to sit behind the lines in castles drinking brandy and chatting fireside.
Everything from the Stanley Kubrick film "Paths of Glory" to John Ellis's "Eye Deep in Hell" presents this view of things. It's not that this view is entirely inaccurate, but it is probably more relevant to the French or the German experiences of the Great War and bears much less saliency when talking about the Tommies.
Chapter by Chapter, Mr. Corrigan makes his case that much of what we think we know about the Great War is due to great dramatic treatments of the conflict, and the therapeutic (perhaps feminized) culture in which we all marinate. It has a lot less to do with the facts of the war as it was fought on the front lines and waged by generals who were much closer to the action than we many times suspect. Corrigan uses strong, spare prose when elucidating his point, and though there are endnotes and the book is longish for a revisionist history, it's rarely long-winded or less than engaging. The author is a former soldier, and it's always a welcome intrusion when his hard disposition and sometimes salty nature break through the the scholarly façade.
Everyone from the layman to the hardcore historian who reads "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock," is bound to encounter some facts or tidbits about the First World War which they hadn't heretofore encountered. And of course some of Corrigan's theories or conclusions may rankle, but that's his prerogative, almost his duty as a revisionist historian. Nevertheless, those with a very rosy image of Prime Minister David Lloyd George may want to sit this one out. Recommended, with photos.
June 29, 2025
Mud, blood and perspective…
This is a book that puts pretty much all of the negative postscript of the Great War’s legacy in its proper context. I have learned much from this book and its content, together with the author’s no nonsense writing style puts me right on many of the Great War’s controversial topics. I do disagree with the author’s attitude towards those unfortunate ‘shot at dawn’ soldiers, in that he feels that there should not be a memorial to them at the National Memorial Arboretum. There is no such thing as a coward in war as the author very well knows, in no matter what, or for whenever the war was fought. No one knows how they will react in combat when the moment of truth arrives. I know they were the rules of the day and we must, as far as possible allow for that in the final analysis, but I think it was sad and a black stain on our political and military ancestry that technological advances toward killing could be made, but attitudes towards showing compassion towards those who could not stand the pressures of combat did not advance anywhere near as speedily. Other than that a very good read that has put me right on quite a few things, certainly of how, why and the manner of this country’s approach to learning in the aftermath of the Great War. 5 stars.
This is a book that puts pretty much all of the negative postscript of the Great War’s legacy in its proper context. I have learned much from this book and its content, together with the author’s no nonsense writing style puts me right on many of the Great War’s controversial topics. I do disagree with the author’s attitude towards those unfortunate ‘shot at dawn’ soldiers, in that he feels that there should not be a memorial to them at the National Memorial Arboretum. There is no such thing as a coward in war as the author very well knows, in no matter what, or for whenever the war was fought. No one knows how they will react in combat when the moment of truth arrives. I know they were the rules of the day and we must, as far as possible allow for that in the final analysis, but I think it was sad and a black stain on our political and military ancestry that technological advances toward killing could be made, but attitudes towards showing compassion towards those who could not stand the pressures of combat did not advance anywhere near as speedily. Other than that a very good read that has put me right on quite a few things, certainly of how, why and the manner of this country’s approach to learning in the aftermath of the Great War. 5 stars.
December 18, 2024
Shows the advantages of having a military officer-turned historian analysing warfare over an author looking primarily at human aspects. Only now, after more than a century, is it possible to write a dispassionate history of events, testing the claims of self-serving politicians, class warriors, colonial republicans and other vested interests. Corrigan dissects specific myths about World War I and puts them into their proper context – as the actions of men whose job it was to win a war, rather than of politicians who had declared war but didn't want casualties. The Allies won the war for good reason, and the generals who won it (and far from being remote from the fighting some 200 of them were killed, wounded or captured during WWI) were afterwards unfairly vilified by those whose interests lay in removing the spotlight from their own actions, or bending the narrative to their own ends. Haig fought three enemies, Hindenburg, Ludendorf and Lloyd George, and the latter was almost more deadly than the German pair. Excellent book.
October 14, 2024
Well worth the read.
After reading Todman’s books on WW2, I read his revision of WW1, an interesting read. Searching through my bookcase to find books for the charity shop I found this and decided to bring it to the top of the pile.
Written 20 years by a military man turned historian he has strong views which are well argued. He explains the difficulties of moving from a small volunteer army to a large, eventually conscripted, army and the difficulties associated with that. What surprised me was the differences between volunteer armies and conscripted armies treat the troops and how the continuation of the good practice in the British and Empire troops avoided the mutinies that the French suffered in particular.
Moves along at a decent pace, dense in places with the occasional but of humour, an easier read than expected.
His final chapter gives a good summing up of the last century and a bit, and generally stands the test of time.
After reading Todman’s books on WW2, I read his revision of WW1, an interesting read. Searching through my bookcase to find books for the charity shop I found this and decided to bring it to the top of the pile.
Written 20 years by a military man turned historian he has strong views which are well argued. He explains the difficulties of moving from a small volunteer army to a large, eventually conscripted, army and the difficulties associated with that. What surprised me was the differences between volunteer armies and conscripted armies treat the troops and how the continuation of the good practice in the British and Empire troops avoided the mutinies that the French suffered in particular.
Moves along at a decent pace, dense in places with the occasional but of humour, an easier read than expected.
His final chapter gives a good summing up of the last century and a bit, and generally stands the test of time.
September 30, 2021
This is a readable, well researched and sometimes entertaining account of the Allied campaigns on the Western Front in the First World War. Gordon Corrigan bases his work on several key assumptions or 'received opinions' (such as the British offensives at the Somme and Third Ypres were needless slaughters, the cavalry was useless, the Americans contributed little) and examines them in great detail to offer more balanced assessments.
The result is a set of powerful arguments which provoke the reader to delve further and consider the conflict in a more nuanced fashion.
Corrigan uses anecdote and personal comment to great effect, As a result, he has given us an important contribution to the historiography of the war. This book is highly recommended.
The result is a set of powerful arguments which provoke the reader to delve further and consider the conflict in a more nuanced fashion.
Corrigan uses anecdote and personal comment to great effect, As a result, he has given us an important contribution to the historiography of the war. This book is highly recommended.
September 30, 2025
Probably the best nonfiction history book I've ever read. A fantastic account of ww1, primarily from the British perspective: hugely impressive for its mix of being argumentative, persuading, comprehensive and engaging. The analysis is the best element to the book, while it sometimes gets a bit bogged down by narrative accounts of certain periods or recollection of stats. I'm very probably nitpicking though. Also a shame that the book ends by focusing on the USA rather than the British experience in 1918 - I'd have loved to hear Corrigan's analysis on how good the British army was in this stage of the war more extensively, especially as he'd seemed to talk this up earlier in the book (Britain being the only country capable of going on the offensive etc - why?)
Anyway, brilliant
Anyway, brilliant
July 13, 2025
A provocative book, authored by a man who is quite comfortable in slaying the odd sacred cow. This is an unapologetic defence of the military leaders who took the British Army to victory in 1918. It’s also a stinging criticism of the politicians who made the job of winning that much more difficult. Incredibly well researched, it successfully challenges many of the myths about the Great War, that have emerged in recent years. Highly recommended.
February 21, 2022
An interesting, some might say, alternative view of the Great War. The author is an ex soldier so has an insight into the thinking the combatants may have had. He makes good use of statistics and puts the numbers into the context of the second war well. What comes through is the way the politicians of the time tried to interfere with the military leaders and to undermine their planning.
March 26, 2023
Corrigan is an ex-soldier with a trenchant style in yet another debunking of the many myths enveloping the Great War. It is an easy read especially for those who enjoy a little polemic in the stylke of Terraine. The insights of a practioner in th art of war are, of course, valuable. You do not have to agree with everyting he writes to make this book an enjoyable read.
July 28, 2017
Opinionated but interesting account of the First World War from a soldier's point of view blowing away many of the myths that still exist. Gordon Corrigan is a military historian and former officer who has great knowledge of army matters.
May 15, 2023
A persuasive argument that those fighting WWI weren’t the caricatured ninnies we see in popular presentations. Anything that helps us understand why people weren’t simply stubbornly old-fashioned or stupid is well-worth a read.
December 26, 2018
An engrossing read that demolishes almost every idea you had about the war on the Western Front from 1914-18.
April 18, 2022
A thorough demolition of the myths that have accumulated around the First World War. A first class, engaging read.
November 3, 2022
Some ok arguments, but I found the idea that the soldiers having a good experience in the war, seems a bit far fetched
September 19, 2025
DNF - 2 stars as I imagine it might be okay if WW1 is your thing - not for me
March 21, 2017
I am no great authority on the first world war but I have read a few books but this is the first revisionist book I have read. It is very informative and Corrigan's writing style is easy going and modern. I also liked the way each chapter covers a different subject and I like the ideas of setting this out like evidence in a legal court. However, it only covers one side of the argument (Corrigan only covers his arguments). Overall this is informative, easy to read and very interesting.
January 17, 2023
One of my bugbears as both an avid student of military history and a history teacher, is how some areas of the subject are deliberately misrepresented. To hear most people on the Great War, it was a four year, 24 hours a day hell hole along a 400 rat infested miles front where soldiers rotted for years yards from no man's land being constantly bombarded by shells and gas as uncaring officers, bereft of any humanity, and far from the fighting made endless appalling and heartless decisions . That if only they could have just stopped, realised the futility of it all and beaten their swords into ploughshares.
For a start, if one side had even contemplated this the other would have smashed through to victory. That's why it was a deadlock in many places. Also if had been fought at that intensity the world's economy as it was then would have been unable to produce the necessary ammunition, supplies etc. And more people would have died in that four year period than have ever lived.
Read this fascinating account to find out how there were lively and quiet sectors, officers were in the vast majority of cases deeply affected by their mens' plight, so that troops were continually rotated and re-energised. In fact that old line "Lions led by Donkeys" is as untrue as that other old staple from our school days Dulce et Decorum est...
For a start, if one side had even contemplated this the other would have smashed through to victory. That's why it was a deadlock in many places. Also if had been fought at that intensity the world's economy as it was then would have been unable to produce the necessary ammunition, supplies etc. And more people would have died in that four year period than have ever lived.
Read this fascinating account to find out how there were lively and quiet sectors, officers were in the vast majority of cases deeply affected by their mens' plight, so that troops were continually rotated and re-energised. In fact that old line "Lions led by Donkeys" is as untrue as that other old staple from our school days Dulce et Decorum est...
January 7, 2015
If, like me, your views on the Great War stem mainly from Blackadder Goes Forth then this is a book you should read. The common perception is of Lions led by Donkeys, four years in sat in your dug out without respite, poor rations and a generation fed to the grinder for little or no gain due to the blockheadedness of the generals. The author takes common myths and provides an argument against each one in a way that has changed my opinion of the conduct of the war.
The book covers soldier welfare; why certain tactics were used at different points in the War; relations between politicians and professional soldiers; the need for Britain's involvment in the war; military discipline; American contribution; The Somme and the Third Ypres Offensive amongst others.
The only part I would have to disagree with is with the chapter about the soldiers shot at dawn. Even then he does give evidence that would suggest that the top brass would shoot a man at the drop of a hat (a small percentage of soldiers sentenced to death were actually executed). My main opposition is his statement that it is a national disgrace that there is a monument to the people who died in front of a firing squad than the German bullets.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews