What did you do in the War Dad?

[Olham 164]

Maybe some people are like the French racing car driver in "Grand Prix".

When an interviewer asks him, if he doesn't feel any fear, when he thinks about

all the possible accidents and injuries, that might happen in a race, he asnwers her:

"I think I just have no phantasy. If I had the phantasy to imagine these things, I couldn't

drive a racing car."

 

When I read about how sick the smell of a battle scene can make you,

I knew that I had seen nothing yet.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Fighting tanks in films is often shown wrong, or gives at least a wrong impression.

German tanks would not have moved into a dangerous zone without Panzergrenadiere

around them. The tank crew has no good overview, and would be easy to kill by soldiers

with bazookas, if they were not shielded by soldiers.

You see that quite well in "Saving Private Ryan", how the tank commander would not

only lead his own crew, but also the Panzergrenadiere around the tank.

This impression is well renderd in the video games "T-34 vs Tiger" (Operation Bagration, 1944) and "Steel Fury" (T-34/76, Matilda Mk II and Pz IV Ausf F2 battling around Kharkov, 1942 - not played that one, actually, but same system). As a tank leader, you can se s**t around through your periscopic cupola, and even with open hatch, the countryside shakes too much for you to notice suspect details through binoculars when you drive above idle. And yet, you can see further away advancing into the large plains of Bielorussia than trapped in the middle of tiny Dutch gardens with hedgerows. The problem in that game is that you usually advance or defend with your flanks uncovered by infantry, at best by lighter armour (T-70, SdKfz or so); seeing pictures, the close support seems to be improved in "Steel Fury".

[33LIMA 972]

Well, Mike, I see it different - this is rather one of those "posed films" which don't pay respect

to the guys who fought there.

If it would have been so easy-peasy - "Stop your cooking and go out and shoot me a tank:" -

then the whole war would have been over in a year.

Those paratroopers in the Oosterbeek pocket stood against German paras and tanks.

If there were big tanks, it would have been SS. You couldn't do childsplay with the SS or the

Paras - they were well trained, very tough soldiers with very good equipment.

 

That Oosterbeek pocket scenario must have been part of what was later told in "One Bridge

Too Many". Those paratroopers held a bridge head with very few men, and for quite some time,

before they received any help. Many of them surely felt dispair some of the time; they were afraid

to be let alone; they went through many hours like that; and in the end - cause they resisted the

enemy AND their own fears and dispair - they won the battle.

But that was never as easy as the above scene. Killing a tank (which was always shielded by many

soldiers with MPs, handgranades etc.), was surely a task, that could make you sh*t in your pants.

Nothing you would quickly finish between two cups of tea.

 

Sorry, Mike - this isn't meant at all offensive - but such films make a joke of

those real tough achievements those men had to make in those rough days.

 

Textbook tank-infantry tactics, and what was achieved in practice, are two different things. For example, Michael Wittmann's action at Villers-Bocage, where his Tiger was knocked-out by 6pdr AT fire from a flank after driving into the village with no infantry support, or Paul Gaebner's SS panzeraufklaerungs abteilung's action on the Arnhem bridge itself. Or many a panzer attack in Normandy where the ferocious allied artillery fire stripped the panzergrenadiers away from the panzers; or the allied attacks where the 'motor rifle' units didn't keep up with tanks which then ran onto concealed Pak positions. At least the Panthers in the above film seem to be using 'fire and manouevre'.

 

As for for realism in SPR...high production values certainly, but a single rifle section taking out an alert, dug in MG42, and doing it with just one casualty (more like a job for an infantry platoon of 3 sections); US paras on D-Day fighting Waffen SS with Tiger tanks, when the worst they faced on the day - bad enough without moviemaker exaggeration- was average (or below average, non-infantry) Wehrmacht units and some re-cycled ex-French Army 1930s-vintage tanks; and the P51s then destroying said Tigers with laser-guided-bomb accuracy - high production values maybe, historical/military accuracy outside the uniforms, kit sound effects and yes the gore, don't think so.

Edited July 28, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Olham 164]

I did not mean to say, that SPR was a great war film - personally I preferred "Band of

Brothers"; but then I wasn't there to see, how correct everything was or not.

I have only pointed at two bits of the film SPR - the landing at the beach, which I think

showed such horror most realistic of all films made about this so far (and I didn't say:

showed it perfectly as it really was); and the interaction between the Tiger commander

and the shielding infantry men around the tank.

I didn't mention this to get into a debate about detailed military operations - I just found

that some films - like the short "go and shoot me a tank" bit above, does not do the men

justice. May be a lack of humour - I confess, I don't have that sort of it.

[Flyby PC 23]

It isn't really a joke as in something funny Olham, it's not even intended to be particularly funny. It's all about the British being unflappable in the face of adversity. A little bit of humour lets you smile at your difficulties rather than weep.

 

One of the most famous examples of it happened at Waterloo in 1815.

 

Lord Uxbridge was sitting on his horse beside Wellington when a cannon ball shattered his leg. Despite what must have been complete agony and shock, the exchange between himself and Wellington was "By God, Sir, I've lost my leg", to which Wellington replied, "By God, Sir, So you have!".

 

There are lots of examples of it, as often as not sending it up. The funniest perhaps being Monty Pythons Black Knight getting his arms and legs hacked off, but holding his ground while insisting "Tis but a scratch".

 

Then there's Hugh Laurie in Blackadder asking permission for his top lip to wobble.

 

Carry on Up the Khyber - when they contitue to eat dinner while the residence is being shelled. In fact, if I remember right, they even go out after dinner to bag some of the enemy, just the same as that para bagging a tank.

 

Many Brits, especially those in authority and positions of leadership, openly aspire to be calm and collected in the most extreme crisis. It's called the stiff upper lip, and the irony is, is that having such an attitude, the attitude itself has often been the only reason why people have held their nerve when their every instinct was screaming at them to run away. It's more a statement of defiance tinged with humour rather than humour by itself, but reveals a disciplined state of mind. If one can hold his nerve, it inspires others to do the same. It's a state of mind which doesn't only hide someones fear, it goes further, and actually helps to calm it.

 

Another more subtle example of the similar attitude is seen in MGM's Battle of Britain film when Ralph Richardson, playing the Britih Embassador in Switzerland is threatened by Curd Jürgens. When the German embassador leaves, he says "It's unforgiveable. I lost my temper". He is in fact deeply worried, but professes to be more concerned by his manners, and the undignified loss of his unflappable and calm exterior.

 

That Para is just popping out to 'bag' a tank, as if it's the easiest thing in the world, just like some Toff might bag a couple of pheasants before breakfast.

 

Can I recommend some reading Olham? Read the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling.

 

 

'If' by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

 

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

 

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

 

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

 

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

Edited July 29, 2011 by Flyby PC

[33LIMA 972]

This impression is well renderd in the video games "T-34 vs Tiger" (Operation Bagration, 1944) and "Steel Fury" (T-34/76, Matilda Mk II and Pz IV Ausf F2 battling around Kharkov, 1942 - not played that one, actually, but same system). As a tank leader, you can se s**t around through your periscopic cupola, and even with open hatch, the countryside shakes too much for you to notice suspect details through binoculars when you drive above idle. And yet, you can see further away advancing into the large plains of Bielorussia than trapped in the middle of tiny Dutch gardens with hedgerows. The problem in that game is that you usually advance or defend with your flanks uncovered by infantry, at best by lighter armour (T-70, SdKfz or so); seeing pictures, the close support seems to be improved in "Steel Fury".

 

 

If you like T34-v-Tiger you will probably like SF42 a lot better. T-v-T has some nice features, not least the superb Tigers, but SF42 lets you command your tank platoon whereas in TvT you can try to co-operate with the other units but you have no way to interact with them, they just follow their own scripts. The sF 42 'ambience' is vastly superior, with MGs rattling, cannon fire barking, sharpnell clunking off your armour, and the air alive with shouting (ok you can hear more than you should and distance seems to make little difference but the overall effect is of being in a real battle). The visuals are also good, including tracers which richochet nicely. Highly recommended for anyone who hasn't got it already, tho you may have to trawl on eBay. Plus there's a mod which adds playable Tigers and other mods, details here:

 

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=178218

 

..and a KoenigsTiger

 

 

Looking forward to the same company's 'Blaze of War' with M60A3-vs-T62 and a range of interesting conflicts, including an Iranian Chieftain which will sooner or later be modded as playable:

 

[Olham 164]

That was a profound explanation of the British humour being used as a shield, as a sort of comfort, or as a remedy, Flyby.

Thanks a lot!

Yes, every nation may have their different ways to deal with things.

The Germans usually "shield" themselves with rules, regulations or traditions - well, maybe not the younger ones anymore.

The Japanese use extreme politeness and correct form of behaviour, and smiles, where they should be angry.

 

There was a kind of research recently, which showed, that the Germans are regarded in many countries as too openly direct

in talks, whilst the Austrians were covering things up more in polite or creamy half-truths or set phrases, and the British did

often seem to say something different than they really meant or felt. While the British and the Austrians regarded the German

behaviour as brusque, too head-on and almost intrusive, the interviewed Germans found the Austrians to be liars or at least

twisty often; and the British to be indifferent and careless.

We had this funny behaviour-thing some time ago here already. It still makes me wonder - seems that despite much more

travelling and even the internet, the various nations have still kept their own characters and identities.

Which I think is great, as long as we can still understand each other.

Cheers to that between two nations, which both can brew some good beers!

[33LIMA 972]

That was a profound explanation of the British humour being used as a shield, as a sort of comfort, or as a remedy, Flyby.

Thanks a lot!

Yes, every nation may have their different ways to deal with things.

The Germans usually "shield" themselves with rules, regulations or traditions - well, maybe not the younger ones anymore.

The Japanese use extreme politeness and correct form of behaviour, and smiles, where they should be angry.

 

There was a kind of research recently, which showed, that the Germans are regarded in many countries as too openly direct

in talks, whilst the Austrians were covering things up more in polite or creamy half-truths or set phrases, and the British did

often seem to say something different than they really meant or felt. While the British and the Austrians regarded the German

behaviour as brusque, too head-on and almost intrusive, the interviewed Germans found the Austrians to be liars or at least

twisty often; and the British to be indifferent and careless.

We had this funny behaviour-thing some time ago here already. It still makes me wonder - seems that despite much more

travelling and even the internet, the various nations have still kept their own characters and identities.

Which I think is great, as long as we can still understand each other.

Cheers to that between two nations, which both can brew some good beers!

 

The classic example of the Great British Military Understatement is often said to be during the Battle of the Imjin in Korea, where a British commander is reported to have told his American HQ that 'Things are a bit sticky' or some similar phrase. Had the recipient been a British officer, this message would have indicated the situation was extremely serious, but in the circumstances the US one took it to mean things weren't too bad.

[Olham 164]

Yeah, that's very British understatement, indeed! A bit sticky...

[Flyby PC 23]

That incident in Korea is reportedly true, but there's something odd about it. To me it seems odd that such a fundamental misunderstanding at such a critical time and in such difficult circumstances would hinge on one expression in one single and such very brief communication. In the face of such a massive Chinese onslaught, there would have been contact reports, situation reports, intelligence, calls for air support, artillery support, ammunition, reinforcements and the usual plethora of frantic military communications. To me this one incident has all the hallmarks of someone being made the scapegoat for wider failures. You don't base your defence strategy on one-off casual remarks. The press might think you do, but in my experience it just doesn't work like that. 'Command' would want to know numbers, strengths, composition of opposing forces, etc, - all the information HQ would need to assess the strategic significance of the attack - Is it a feint or diversionary attack or the real thing? Being 'a bit sticky' means absolutely nothing, there is no objective information on which to base any decision. It may well have been said, and drawn publicity like the "Nuts" remarks at Bastogne, but I just cannot see it being so pivotal to the outcome of the battle. If it was, then it speaks volumes about a dangerously weak command structure, and I just don't think that is credible. The Battle of Imjin is actually a prime example of British nerve and backbone holding the line against truly extraordinary odds while covering an orderly retreat of UN forces back to a prepared line of defence which successfully held the Chinese. If the British had crumbled, the UN forces were in deep, deep trouble, with two US divisions likely to be outflanked and the South Korean capital of Soeul almost certainly falling to the Chinese.

 

But even if it is true, it is only once incident, in fact THE only incident I can recall where British reserve has served to their disadvantage. This British unflappability and reserve typically manifests itself as extraordinary stoicism and resilience. It is often ridiculed as eccentricity, but that is missing the point.

 

 

I've thougt of another example too - In the film A Bridge too far, when the Germans approach the beleaugered Paratroops holding the bride to discuss terms of surrender.Major Harry Carlyle: We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else? ...

 

I think the quote might not be true, but one officer did take an umbrella into battle because he could never remember passwords and reckoned the umbrella would identify him as British. And before you laugh, this was Major Allison Digby Tatham-Warter DSO. He was captured at the Bridge at Arnhem, but subsequently escaped from the Germans and contacted the resistence, and organised the escape of dozens of other Paratroops caught behind the lines. He also didn't have much faith in the British radios, so did in fact introduce bugles to his troops for communication, and this featured briefly in the film too. Mad? Maybe a little. But to lift a Wiki quote - "Whilst searching for spare ammunition for his squad, signalman George Lawson saw Tatham-Warter, "the coolest chap I ever saw, walking about with his red beret, with one arm in a sling, with his umbrella hooked over it and his right hand holding a revolver, directing operations." When Lawson explained what he was doing, Tatham-Warter said "Hurry up and get back to your post, soldier; there are snipers about".

 

Edited July 30, 2011 by Flyby PC

[Flyby PC 23]

US President Truman's Distinguished Unit Citation for the Gloucestershire Regiment at Imjin :-

 

 

HEADQUARTERSEIGHTH UNITED STATES ARMY KOREA (EUSAK)Office of the Commanding GeneralKPO 301GENERAL ORDERSNUMBER 2868 May 1951BATTLE HONOURS – CITATION OF UNITSBATTLE HONOURS – By direction of the President, under the provisions of Executive Order 9396(Sec 1, WD Bul. 22.1943), superseding Executive Order 9075 (Sec.III, WD Bul.II, 1942) and pursuant in authority in AR 260-15, the following units are cited as public evidence of deserved honor and distinction. The citation reads as follows:-The 1ST BATTALION GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT, BRITISH ARMY and TROOP C, 170TH INDEPENDENT MORTAR BATTERY, ROYAL ARTILLERY, attached, are cited for exceptionally outstanding performance of duty and extraordinary heroism in action against the armed enemy near Solma-ri, Korea on the 23rd, 24th and 25th of April, 1951. The 1st BATTALION and TROOP C were defending a very critical sector of the battle front during a determined attack by the enemy. The defending units were overwhelmingly outnumbered. The 83rd Chinese Communist Army drove the full force of its savage assault at the positions held by the 1st BATTALION, GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT and attached unit. The route of supply ran Southeast from the battalion between two hills. The hills dominated the surrounding terrain northwest to the Imjin River. Enemy pressure built up on the battalion front during the day 23 April. On 24 April the weight of the attack had driven the right flank of the battalion back. The pressure grew heavier and heavier and the battalion and attached unit were forced into a perimeter defence on Hill 235. During the night, heavy enemy forces had by-passed the staunch defenders and closed all avenues of escape. The courageous soldiers of the battalion and attached unit were holding the critical route selected by the enemy for one column of the general offensive designed to encircle and destroy 1st Corps. These gallant soldiers would not retreat. As they were compressed tighter and tighter in their perimeter defence, they called for close-in air strikes to assist in holding firm. Completely surrounded by tremendous numbers, these indomitable, resolute, and tenacious soldiers fought back with unsurpassed fortitude and courage. As ammunition ran low and the advancing hordes moved closer and closer, these splendid soldiers fought back viciously to prevent the enemy from overrunning the position and moving rapidly to the south. Their heroic stand provided the critically needed time to regroup other 1st Corps units and block the southern advance of the enemy. Time and again efforts were made to reach the battalion, but the enemy strength blocked each effort. Without thought of defeat or surrender, this heroic force demonstrated superb battlefield courage and discipline. Every yard of ground they surrendered was covered with enemy dead until the last gallant soldier of the fighting battalion was over-powered by the final surge of the enemy masses. The 1st BATTALION, GLOUCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT and TROOP C, 170th INDEPENDENT MORTAR BATTERY displayed such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing their mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions as to set them apart and above other units participating in the same battle. Their sustained brilliance in battle, their resoluteness, and extraordinary heroism are in keeping with the finest traditions of the renowned military forces of the British Commonwealth, and reflect unsurpassed credit on these courageous soldiers and their homeland.BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL VAN FLEET.OFFICIALLEVEN C ALLENMajor General US Army.Chief of Staff.L. W. STANLEY.Colonel AGC.Adjutant General.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

'Command' would want to know numbers, strengths, composition of opposing forces, etc, - all the information HQ would need to assess the strategic significance of the attack - Is it a feint or diversionary attack or the real thing?

Even such reports could be made in a humourous understatement way that saves a bloody day. This anecdote concerns an American lieutenant trapped into a house surrounded by lots of German Panzers during the Battle of the Bulge (I don't remember at the moment the precise name and place, I'll search for if asked). The lieutenant seemed a bit nervous to the colonel on the radio, who asked in a quiet tone how many tanks there were, and how far away. Then the lieutenant replied in an equally quiet tone: "Well sir, if I walk upstairs, climb on the window, and piss down the street, I can spray at least six of them..."

[shredward 12]

My Dad was a paratrooper - with 1 Canadian Parachute Battalion. He jumped across the Rhine, and then they made their way across Germany to meet up with the Russians, or hold them at bay, depending on your point of view. He stayed in the Army after the war - in fact, was still serving when he died, just after returning from the Suez. As he died relatively young, age 50, he like many of his brothers in arms, had not yet got sufficient distance to be able to talk about the war. The only thing he ever told me about was a couple of escapades while still in Blighty, one of them being hitching a ride as a gunner in a B-17 over Germany after getting tanked up with the Yanks in a pub one night. Ennyhoots, he was and is my hero.

Cheers,

shredward

[Flyby PC 23]

..... hitching a ride as a gunner in a B-17 over Germany after getting tanked up with the Yanks in a pub one night.

 

He's my hero too Shredward.

 

What a cracking story. Can you imagine the chuckles back in Barracks?

 

"Where's private Shredward?"

"He's err, gone off to Germany with the US Air Force Sir. Be back later this evening he said".

"He's WHAT????"

"He's Fkn Airborne Sir! Ex Coelis!"

 

I mean that light heartedly, in the right way. I actually know one or two genuine war heros, and believe it or not I did know a genuine war criminal until he died a few years ago, and you'd be amazed how similar a "fast forward" outlook on life they all had. They were all very quiet spoken and reserved, but when you looked them in the eye there was a steely glint of something special looking back at you.

 

With regards to being war criminal, don't judge too quickly, he was a very brave man and a fine soldier. He was burying a comrade killed in Korea when Chinese POW's walked past. One of them spat on his mates body, and waved his copy of the geneva convention as if to gloat how untouchable he was. Sadly for him, he wasn't. Sadly for my mates father, it seems if you stick a bayonette into a prisoner of war and kill him, it's technically a war crime.

[Olham 164]

Great stuff, Shredward. And never mind he didn't talk about the things they did.

The paras often go through the toughest sh*t, and what they have to do there,

is nothing they would like to tell a civilian, who's never been in the same sh*t

I guess. And not to their own family.

[Flyby PC 23]

Finding out about my old man prompted me to ask a bit more. Turns out my maternal Grandfather was in the Gordon Highlanders 1922 to 1929, leaving as a colour sergeant. No pics, but I have his pocket watch, presented to him on leaving after 7 years service by the Sergeants Mess.

 

Though never a combatant as such to my knowledge, he joined the Dover Patrol in WW1 at 16, and remained there throughout the war, keeping the channel free of mines etc. There was a story about being bombed or shelled, but we don't really know. He had a really fierce tember in his later years, and that was put down to being bombed during the war, but that might just be a story told to stop his quick temper scaring the kids lol. To be honest I'd never even heard of the Dover Patrol, but there were apparently some 2000 men killed during WW1 as they tried to keep the Channel free from mines and subs.

 

He didn't fight in WW2 either, because he was a joiner to trade, and while I don't think that was a protected trade, he was busy building barracks for troops, and making dummy weapons, trees look like guns etc.

 

Later on, and just before the NHS was set up, he had just set up his own joinery workshop and sawmill as his own business. He had an accident with one of the saws, and cut off 3 and half fingers. He'd no insurance, and that was that. When I was a toddler, I used to suck my finger as a lot of kids do, and when he caught me, he'd jank my finger out my gob then wave these stumps at me saying that's what would happen if I didn't stop sucking my finger. Scared the !**%! out me because my index finger was already shorter than my middle finger. AAAARRGGHH! It's TRUE!!! .....Old git. (I don't actually remember him having a bad temper, but I'd only be 3 or 4 when he died).

 

Looks like that's 2 service records I need to dig out...

Edited August 10, 2011 by Flyby PC

[Flyby PC 23]

Just an update:

 

This picture isn't the DC-1. It is a DC-2. The DC-1 has six windows, the DC-2 has 7. Count them, you count six. However, if you look closely behind the man sitting on the wing, you can just about see the ghost of a square shape which can only be the 7th window.

 

To quote from an expert-

 

"The letter behind the "AG" doesn't seem to be an "N" - the slope of the letter looks more like an "A", and indeed, EC-AGA was a Douglas DC-2, which paid a visit to Malta on 20 November 1938, while taking Republican officials to Ankara in Turkey, for the funeral of Kemal Atatürk".

 

Job done. Mystery solved.

[Hauksbee 103]

Lord Uxbridge was sitting on his horse beside Wellington when a cannon ball shattered his leg. Despite what must have been complete agony and shock, the exchange between himself and Wellington was "By God, Sir, I've lost my leg", to which Wellington replied, "By God, Sir, So you have!".

That comment of Wellington's is often cited to argue that he was cold and unfeeling. What is almost never mentioned is that Uxbridge was married to Wellington's sister, and he was not only unfaithful, he was flagrantly unfaithful. All of English 'society' knew about it. So it's my surmise that Wellington's comment could be taken to mean, "Don't look for sympathy from me. Tell someone who gives a damn."

[Olham 164]

Damn - and I had thought it was a typical example of British understatement.

[Bullethead 12]

That comment of Wellington's is often cited to argue that he was cold and unfeeling. What is almost never mentioned is that Uxbridge was married to Wellington's sister, and he was not only unfaithful, he was flagrantly unfaithful. All of English 'society' knew about it. So it's my surmise that Wellington's comment could be taken to mean, "Don't look for sympathy from me. Tell someone who gives a damn."

 

I rather thought that in that day and age, marital fidelity was much the exception as opposed to the rule. Everybody had mistresses and lovers and there was no shame about it. Marriages were just for political/financial convenience and to have legitimate children to inherit the acquired swag. As such, nobody expected there to be any love between spouses, nor did anybody expect spouses to stay faithful in loveless marriages. This was the height of the Age of Reason, before the curse of Victorianism set in.

[Hauksbee 103]

I rather thought that in that day and age, marital fidelity was much the exception as opposed to the rule. Everybody had mistresses and lovers and there was no shame about it.

Well, yes and no. Among the wealthy and well-born, the taking of a mistress was fairly common but the affair was to be conducted with great discretion. Mrs Patrick Campbell (who was having a torrid affair with George Bernard Shaw) once commented "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses?" When 'society' gathered at the great country estates for long weekend parties, the hostess had to show great skill in assigning rooms so that people having affairs were not given rooms so close together as to arouse comment, nor so far apart that they might have to spend too much time in transit in the halls and be noticed doing so. When King Edward VII (Victoria's son) was on his deathbed, his wife, Alexandra, summoned Edward's mistress, Mrs.Alice Keppel and allowed them a private hour or two to say goodbye. All very civilized. But Uxbridge's affairs were not discreet. It wasn't simply a matter of having 'an affair', it would be better to say that he was a womanizer. His incessant affairs were well known, talked about, and caused Wellington's sister much shame. So when Uxbridge lost his leg from the knee down, Wellington was hardly moved.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Hauksbee

[Hauksbee 103]

Damn - and I had thought it was a typical example of British understatement.

All things considered, I'd say it was.

[Bullethead 12]

Well, yes and no. Among the wealthy and well-born, the taking of a mistress was fairly common but the affair was to be conducted with great discretion.

 

But what of Nelson, for example?

[Hauksbee 103]

But what of Nelson, for example?

The "Nelson Affair" was a public scandal of the first water. While Nelson provided for his wife's upkeep, he ignored her to the point of not even calling on her when he returned from sea. When Nelson was recalled to London from Naples, he and Emma, and her husband Sir William Hamilton traveled by the longest route possible. Arriving in England the three set up housekeeping together. The Admiralty posted Nelson to sea again, in part to keep him away from Emma. It didn't work. In short, Nelson and Emma got away with it because Nelson was the most brilliant naval tactician they had against Boneparte. After his death, Emma was ignored by the society that had lionized them both. Ever the spendthrift, she died in poverty.

[RamblingSid 3]

Thanks all, some moving stories here.

 

I'm a coward, I find it almost impossible to understand the scale of the sacrifice in ww1 and ww2 (both sides).

 

My grandfather was an NCO in the RFC very early on. He actually transfered out - family legend has it that after a couple of flips he decided that the trenches would be safer ! I probably wouldn't be here if he had stayed in the RFC.

 

After the RFC he seems to have had a varied military career. My mother has a photo of him as a DR, I'll have a look and see if I can see any unit info. He had something to do with MGs so maybe the Machine Gun Regiment, but not sure on this. He definitely was in the Tank Corps later on.

 

He served 1914-18, started out as a private, finished as a Capt. Unusual I think in the British Army at that time (he attended no Public School), a testament to the scale of casualties.

 

In ww2 he was a Major running part of Woolwich Arsenal and was then posted to the wilds of Scotland doing god knows what.

 

I must do some research to see what the old boy got up to, but I reckon he was bloody lucky.

 

Cheers