Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Relationships between officers and men in world war 1

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by emmieslou (U11204374) on Friday, 7th March 2008

  hi, i was just wondering whether anyone new about the relationships between officers and men in world war 1. It would be really helpful if you did.
  
  thanx
  
  xxxx

  Link to this forum: Relationships between officers and men in world war 1

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 8th March 2008

  e-l
  
  I presume this a school assignment? You didn't say which Army, but a view on the British Army follows:
  
  In general, relations were good - if they hadn't been, the Army wouldn't have been effective.
  
  Officers in the pre-war army were upper or middle class and their soldiers largely drawn from the working class. The wartime volunteers initially came from the same sort of backgrounds (although many middle-class recruits initially refused commissions).
  
  Relationships between officers and men depended on mutual respect, not simple deference or officers just telling men what to do under threat of punishment. To earn respect, an officer had to show he cared for his men's welfare and would support genuine grievances, while treating all fairly. He also had to take the same risks (in fact, junior officers had to take more, and had twice the casualty rate as their men). Soldiers had to do their own duties competently and not let their mates down.
  
  It was an interesting experience for many officers and men because it was the first time in their lives that they had spent prolonged periods of time with men from other backgrounds. Many officer's memoirs comment about how much they learned from their soldiers, and how much they respected them. Soldiers accounts say similar things.
  
  Relationships became more difficult when conscription was introduced, as most conscripts did not want to be in the Army at all (unlike the previous volunteers). But by then, company and battalion officers were more experienced. By and large, relations remained good.
  
  Of course, there were bad officers who lost the respect of their men, and bad soldiers who were a disciplinary problem (and soldiers who were not bad, just difficult, but still a problem).
  
  Despite what writers like Mr Morpurgo would have you believe, the British Army in 1914-18 was not in a continuous state of class war with itself - it it had been, it would not have been able to fight the enemy!

  Link to this forum: Relationships between officers and men in world war 1

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Amphion (U3338999) on Monday, 17th March 2008

  To a certain extent, I would say that the British Armed Services during that period, probably reflected Civilian life. Probably not as many strikes, but a good soldier knew his place within the scheme of things, and did his duty for King, Country, the Aristocratic elite, the merchants and mechanics, the boot boys, and those who didn't know they had been born yet!

  Link to this forum: Relationships between officers and men in world war 1

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 18th March 2008

  Thats got me musing on the relationship between officers and men in the Australian Army at the time....We never had conscription during WW1 (despite Billy Hughes being desperate for it; we would not support it) so those that were there had volunteered for it...hmmm.

  Link to this forum: Relationships between officers and men in world war 1

  Report message4

Back to top