• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team
  • HI folks the server that hosts the site completely died including the Hdd's and backups.
    Luckily i create an offsite backup once a week! this has now been restored so we have lost a few days posts.
    im still fixing things at the moment so bear with me and im still working on all images 90% are fine the others im working on now
    we are now using a backup solution

A recruitment parade in Corporation St

Thanks Colin just read the thread and think this is the usual conflict between Stitcher and Frothblower. Personally I couldn't understand Stitchers point but anyway it has no place on the thread.
 
All irrelevant posts have been removed for discussion by moderators. Please keep on topic.

Colin
 
Think Chris is upset

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Frothblower
Why was my post removed

Sent from my HTC Wildfire
Click to expand...


Chris, Following discussion with the moderating team, I removed all irrelevant posts from the thread, the original subject was relating to a recruiting parade in WW1, not modern history, which has now got out of hand with personal comments been made against another members.
I'm afraid that any post which cause concern to other members will be removed by the moderating team.
if you consider this decision to be wrong please contact Postie (Jim)

Colin
Click to expand...
 
Quite right Colin I sometimes wonder what people think we are here for!! This one could have got quite nasty!
 
Frankly, I have not seen any posts that are irrelevant on this thread. One sentiment was taken inncorrectly by some...but, in the aftermath of two world wars, it was a sentiment that was held by many to be valid. It did not reflect and does not, on the bravery of the men that faught...volunteers and conscripts and regulars. I think that in this day and age, what was happening in that picture would never occur and armies are made up of regular proffesional soldiers who are highly trained. Any war serious enough to require more than this would be over before a parade could be organised. No doubt there were Corporation Street type parades being held for the enemy also and most of them also would have never been close to a gun in their lives before. The sentiment in question merely pointed out that a very large proportion in parades on both sides...would never be seen again.
 
Well done Colin.
They all know the rules and they also know by now the kind of posts that are likely to cause conflict but it appears not to stop them making them.

Hi, just revisited thread and see that Rupert is putting his 2 pennuth in , now we have to watch it. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Rupert said:
Frankly, I have not seen any posts that are irrelevant on this thread. One sentiment was taken inncorrectly by some...but, in the aftermath of two world wars, it was a sentiment that was held by many to be valid. It did not reflect and does not, on the bravery of the men that faught...volunteers and conscripts and regulars. I think that in this day and age, what was happening in that picture would never occur and armies are made up of regular proffesional soldiers who are highly trained. Any war serious enough to require more than this would be over before a parade could be organised. No doubt there were Corporation Street type parades being held for the enemy also and most of them also would have never been close to a gun in their lives before. The sentiment in question merely pointed out that a very large proportion in parades on both sides...would never be seen again.
Click to expand...

I second that Rupert
 
All the best guys. Will be back in Midlands soon. I see Frothy has rejoined the debate.

Bernie

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk
 
There was nothing at all wrong with the thread, in fact it had all the possibilities of getting more interesting.
 
But look on the bright side it brought the 2 main protagonists together against us. Seriously though were they reading different posts to me?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk
 
"The sentiment in question merely pointed out that a very large proportion in parades on both sides...would never be seen again"

This is perpetuating the usual myths about the Great War.
To use approximate Birmingham figures......

About 8% were killed.
To use the accepted wounded multiplier of 1 killed = 3 wounded - adds another 24%

Total 32% and not all wounds destroyed lives.

This is not to under-estimate the impact of the War but with three years to go before the Centenary we have to be historically accurate.
 
If it was such a minor event then why make a big fuss about it? A recent television feature pointed out that a whole Newfoundland Regiment was wiped out in one event and some towns had none return. I must admit that the small number (percentage) killed in action is a supprise. From what is portrayed on film one would have thought the percentage would be higher. But then again, not all were in direct action...in harms way so to speak and forces supplying an army and doing every strategic thing to keep it in the field, no doubt require much manpower also.

Historical accuracy...(only what can be read and different sources have varying numbers)

British Army..........................................7,165,280

Killed in action....................................... 956,703

Shipped back sick..................................1,002,811

Wounded in action.................................2,272,998

Total army casualties.....4,232,512


Percentage casualties 59%. Percentage deaths 13% (of total force) Percentage deaths of battle engaged personel...unknown but suspect far higher than 13%.

Percentage casualties (at least one Newfoundland Town....again only one TV feature) 100%

Nobody won much and the return match was worse.

Come to think of it; why not have aniversaries for Trafalgar or Waterloo. At least we won something there that lasted for a hundred years anyway.
 
Actually, we do have anniversaries for Trafalgar - not the whole country, but the Nelson Society do (i have been to one of their dinners at the Council House) and I also suspect the Waterloo society or whatever they are called do have their own. It's not totally forgotten. The Nelson Society do have something each year, finishing in St Martin's Church.
 
I suppose that statements of overall percentages covering those who did not return fail to reflect the losses incurred by particular groups - e.g those parading at the very beginning of the conflict like the men in the image at the start of this thread, all of whom had four years of war to survive; or men in units from particular towns or areas who had the misfortune to find themselves in the worst of the battles; or those in infantry battalions rather than in supporting functions; or front-line RFC/RAF aircrew; etc., etc. As we all know the losses in percentage or any other terms for these groups were appalling and are one of the reasons why our overall feeling is that the Great War was one of unmitigated suffering and grief.

Chris
 
Sorry - back to stats.

1. No Newfoundland 'Regiment' was wiped out in one event. At Beaumont Hamel 1.7.16 there were 91% casualties - probably the second highest of the day - but 'casualties' include wounded. None surviving from a Newfoundland town - highly unlikely.

2. British Army total of 7,165,280 includes all the Empire including the large contingent from the Indian Army

3. The killed in action figure includes deaths from illness/disease. Also a total British Empire figure.

4. The wounded in action include men wounded twice counted twice etc. Many of the wounded became returnees after recovery - 64%. 18% returned to non-front line duties and 8% were discharged as invalids. When 82% of wounded are taken out the 'realistic' casualty rate becomes 19% i.e. about 1 in 5 of the Empire Army were killed or permanently out of the firing line.

5. We will never know the death-rate amongst those who served at the front.
 
This thread is getting somewhat out of control. Quoting casualty figures ad infinitum isn't proving anything really and there is a bit more of an edge to the posts in some cases....read snarky in my opinion.
 
ChrisM has a very good point and how many came back from that particular 1914 perade may not be known but I personally doubt that it was 92 percent. Anyway, if this debate is due to my statement 'a very large proportion would never be seen again' then ok I surrender. I don't know the exact proportion....but would anyone think that 92% would be the number of returnees in any condition. I don't think so. Thats hardly a hardship at all.
91% casualties in a battle is a wipe-out by any measure I think. How many men would that represent in a single event. How many more casualties would be required to impress. % wounded is only a statistic and the fact of being wounded at all should not be made light of as if it does not count for much. It hurts and futures are changed.
 
I am puzzled that folk do not see that this is not the place to debate the morality or whatever based upon why the post was made originally. I feel that the rights and wrongs may justifiably be argued elsewhere but not sure that this forum (even the Banter area) is such a place given the emotions that seem to be being stirred.
 
Bernie, as we have found in the past when "hot topics" like this crop up on the forum, people tend to get carried away with their posts. Then it always looks as though there is some oneupmanship coming into play. I have no idea what can be proved by this thread as it is now. You are right thie forum is not the place for this type of discussion.
 
I think all these percentages and academic mathematical deliberations are interesting, but it is the actual impact on these society's which is important, whole villages in the Highlands of Scotland decimated of males, women destined never to marry because there wasn't any one to marry, whole family's which lost all their male siblings, the utter deprivation of losing fathers, brothers whole area's in industrial towns, the end result was a whole generation decimated.
paul
 
Post 29 is also in the business of perpetuating myths about the Great War. I do not know enough about the Scottish Highlands to comment but precise examples would help. If there wasn't anyone to marry how do you explain that if you take any large CWGC sample and look at wives in 'Additional Information' large numbers had remarried by the early 1920s?

"whole area's in industrial towns" - this is probably true in the areas of 'Pals'battalions recruited in 1914 but that is more a reflection of how the New Army was recruited than the overall death-rate pattern across the country. And it did not apply to every industrial town.

"the end result was a whole generation decimated" - this is back to Great War mythology. Between the 1911 and 1921 census returns the male population of the UK went up. Taking males aged 15-34 in 1911 86% of them were still there to be counted in 1921. And the lost 14% includes emigrants pre-war and non-war deaths including end of war/post war flu epidemic and an unhealthy population.

As one Great War historian has concluded...
"Had conscription and direction and control of manpower been introduced in 1914 - which for very good reasons it could not have been - and had the British infantry been structured in a different way then death and disablement would have been spread much more evenly across the nation, and any one locality's perception of the toll would have been less shocking than it was. The British nation had never been so involved in a war before, and never had it suffered as it did between 1914 and 1918, but its sufferings were less by far than those of the other combatants. Britain did not lose a generation to the war" (Gordon Corrigan, 2003)

 
Make a list of the top 5 to watch I'm sure we all have pretty similar names and when they decide to get going there's no stopping them, I also think my actions in removing some posts may have encouraged them.
It's all ego and being the alpha male.

Colin
 
I understand your sentiments, as a Historical academic essay, but quite frankly to remove the humanity from perhaps the greatest disaster in early 20 th century civilised history, and reduce the human element to a mathematical equation, somehow demeans the great loss's, and individual pain involved. Because what ever you say or think most people, historians included would class WW1 as a disaster of unparralled enormity.
paul
 
There have been some interesting facts and firmly held (and expressed) opinions emerging within this thread, relating to what happened and to the varying perceptions held by individuals of that dreadful phase in our history. I think however that all the points to be made have now been made, that no one is going to change their views, and that it is now time to revert to the original topic, which was a wonderful picture posted by TOPSYTURVY of a recruitment parade in a Birmingham street. There seems to be a lot of potential discussion within it without diverting into broader areas of debate.

Is there really no further information forthcoming regarding that parade in particular, or similar ones at that time? How was it organised? And by whom? Identification of uniforms? Where exactly in Corporation Street? When exactly was it? What was the outcome? Was it repeated?

Chris
 
If people make inaccurate statements about the Great War based on myths then they have to be challenged. Of course the Great War was a 'disaster of unparalled enormity' but, in agreeing with that, does not get historians very far. It is far more important to understand why that scale of death and how contemporaries would have viewed it at that time. Those with some understanding of the history know that we have come a long way since 'Oh What a Lovely War', Black Adder. Monocled Mutineer, Owen and Sassoon etc.

One modern historian has summarised that view as follows. If you find yourself agreeing with any of it then you are not in touch with serious(and academic) historical writing over the past 25 years....

“The war was depicted as a tragedy and a disaster. In 1914 the nations of Europe had stumbled into a struggle that no one really wanted, sparked off by a murder in the Balkans that had little relevance to Britain. In response to their country’s call to arms, a generation of eager young Britons joined up to fight a war they didn’t understand. They marched off to France and Flanders, leaving behind an idyllic Edwardian age that would never be recaptured. Once there, they fell under the command of a group of incompetent commanders, asinine aristocrats obsessed with cavalry. Safely ensconced miles behind the lines, these generals were unable to grasp the realities of the new style of warfare they were facing. Their men were stuck, for four years, in the most appalling conditions , living in trenches scraped into the ground, surrounded by mud, rats and decaying corpses. Time and again they were thrown forward in ill-conceived assaults that achieved nothing. They were destroyed almost to a man; those who survived going over the top were crippled, went mad or were shot by their own side for desertion. The war finally ended because of German disintegration and the arrival of the Americans. The pitiful survivors who returned to Britain were silenced by the trauma of their experiences – only the words of a tiny band of warrior poets could communicate the truth of what they had been through. Their sacrifices had accomplished nothing. They came home to unemployment and destitution. Worse still, twenty years later another war, spawned from the legacy of the first, ravaged the world again”.
 
Re Post 32 all you have to do is look at Terry Carter's book on the 'Birmingham Pals' or Brazier and Sandford on 'Birmingham and the Great War' published just after the war.
 
Alan,

I have made my point as a Moderator and a Forum member. It is your prerogative to accede to it or to ignore it.

I shall merely repeat: this thread should now get back to its original, specific topic.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top