Even during my time in the military (79 to 03), the army still demonstrated a tendency towards social-status bias in identifying officer potential. Having served with both army and RAF, the RAF were less affected by this limitation in outlook. As for the Navy... law unto themselves.
Just to share that, me grandfather and maternal grandfather both were commissioned officers ( RIBA) and one served as Capt ( 1st Punjabi regiment ) and ADC to Sir William Birdwood at Simla house 1930. ( i still have in my possession. the Birdy's personal letters to me grandfather.
I saw a RU-vid video about British army officers a few months back set, I think, in the late 4O's and 5O's. It may have been Pathe but I can't find it now An officer was speaking about how superior public school officers were and was incredibly condescending towards the other ranks. Quite sickening...esp. as the officer himself was pretty unimpressive. I joined the TA in the 80's, quite deliberately as a private. I had a demanding day job and didn't want to chase a commission. However, I did well, got best recruit at basic training and my captain pushed me towards joining the Intelligence Corps based in Kings Heath as I was an accountant, and also specialised in IT and systems analysis. I was interviewed but both the Corp and I decided it wouldn't be a good fit. They though I was too working class with my Birmingham accent and they came across as pompous and pretty dim. 😂
Remember a lot of people born in privilege really think they somehow earned it and if you're not very bright you probably won't recognize your intellectual failings much less do something about them.
@@johnstevenson1709 I wouldn't call it 'arrogant', more 'ignorant', given the quantity and quality of recent work that has been published on the Great War.
Read some of the recent history. Gary Sheffield is good, as is Gordon Corrigan. The 'Lions Led by Donkeys' myth has been discredited by any serious historian - it simply doesn;t stack up. If the army was so badly led, how did it win (because - spoiler alert - it did!)? How did it develop its tactics and techniques to make best use of the emerging technology (wireless radios, aircraft, tanks, better artillery, better shells) to win? How did it coordinate the varying aspects of this war to develop a genuinely all-arms concept? That was achieved by those 'Donkeys', so here's the problem: if they were such donkeys, how did they achieve all that? Because, while there were lots of bright privates, corporals and sergeants in the army, that sort of development has to begin at the top - someone has to do the 'big hand, small map' stuff; someobody has to develop the techniques, the tactics and - importantly - the training; and those 'someones' are the leaders. So, if the leaders were so dim - if they were, indeed, 'donkeys' - how could all that have happened? How could we have won? Yes, some of the generals were not as bright as others - some were downright bloody awful. However, it's simply lazy to tar them all with the same brush...because, like I say, they won.
@@ianprice9563 You could argue that only happened due to the ability of the Allied powers to maintain the material advantage in a total war and the culling of the public school officer ranks and mass expansion of the British army that resulted in it taking on a lot more capable individuals, including rankers than it normally preferred to. The BEF still had some major operational and strategic failures in 1917 and 1918 when it was pretty good tactically.
