Remembering the Landings at Anzac on Anzac Day

The Beach at Anzac, Frank Crozier

"Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen,
but his country's cause." Homer

The Landing

On 25 April 1915, some 16,000 Australians and New Zealanders, together
with British, French, and Indian troops, landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. 

"2 men to every oar we rowed like ---- for the shore"   Private John Adams

“Boats missed their bearings in dark inclined about 2 [miles, or just over
3 kilometers] to [the] North getting us under the very difficult country there.”
General William Birdwood

"It was a great fight while we were getting out of the boats and a good many got shot but a bayonet charge soon shifted the Turks and things got pretty lively. Towards 12 noon they were knocking us over pretty often and I stopped a bullet in my pocket book after it had been through my arm."   
Private John Croft,

Anzac by George Lambert

"Confronting the fugitives [retreating Turkish Soldiers], I shouted to them, 'What is the matter? Why are you running away?'. . . 'They come, they come sir, the enemy'. . . 'You cannot run away from the enemy,' I shouted. 'We have no ammunition, they said.'  'If you have no ammunition you still have your bayonets." 
 Lt. Colonel Mustafa Kemal

The Fallen of That First Day

Three of the Fallen

Pvt. Stirling Barnett (Aus), Pvt. Thomas Ellefsen (Aus),  Lt. Harold Allen (NZ)

Stirling Barnett

Barnett went ashore at ANZAC with Lieutenant Balfe of A Company, 6th Battalion. He advanced with a group of men from Shrapnel Gully until they were forced to take cover from Turkish machine gun fire. Barnett was among those killed at this time. His brother served in the AIF for three years but died of illness before returning to Australia.

Thomas Ellefsen

A 25-year-old farm laborer before joining the 7th Battalion, Ellefsen was reported missing on the first day of the landing. Only hours before going ashore he had written a letter to his father. "He stated that they had just received word … to be ready to land anytime." That would be the last word he received from his son.

Harold Allen

Son of a family that had immigrated from Liverpool, England, 2nd Lieutenant Allen of the Auckland Infantry Battalion was only 21 when he was killed during the fighting around Plugge's Plateau.  His body was later found, identified, and buried in the Baby 700 Cemetery,

Shrapnel Gully Cemetery
On 25 April 1915, approximately 2,000 Australian and
New Zealand (ANZAC) soldiers were killed or wounded. 
Included are 650 Australian Deaths and 147 New Zealanders.

Remembrance 

First Anzac Day

Brisbane, Australia, 25 April 1916

Memorabilia

Before the Yanks Arrived: The St. Mihiel Salient Was a Major Battlefield in 1915

French Trench Bois Brulé, St. Mihiel Sector, 1915

By Terrence Finnegan 

The town of St. Mihiel on the Meuse River fell to the Germans on 24 September 1914, the beginning of a four-year occupation. American commentary four years later assessing the front line stated, "The German possession of St-Mihiel cuts both canal and railroad at that place and greatly embarrasses the French transportation system." The consequences of this German attack at St. Mihiel were serious. It placed the main rail, road, and canal supplying Verdun in enemy hands and brought the main lines of communication into Verdun within range of German guns. Verdun was supplied by a single railway the Petit Meusin, a narrow gauge line running from Bar-le-Duc. The danger presented by such conditions became evident when the battle of Verdun started in February 1916. Verdun was effectively neutralized as a base from which the French could conduct sustained and meaningful offensive operations in the region. To France, the German occupation of St. Mihiel became a visible and lasting hernie (hernia).

Early Development of the St. Mihiel Salient
9 September 1914

Minor skirmishes became the norm for the most part. A French attack against St. Baussant on 12 December met with catastrophic losses, including several hundred prisoners taken by German forces. In December 1914 General Joffre placed the 32e corps d'armée at the disposal of General Sarrail. The simultaneous advance of the Germans on the heights of the Meuse and in the Argonne alerted Joffre to place more effective fighting units at the Woëvre. He personally considered the 32e corps d'armée to be one of the best

The new year saw General Joffre focusing on St. Mihiel. He issued a series of instructions on 21 January, ordering an attack against General der Infanterie von Strantz's detachment presently holding St. Mihiel on the east bank of the Meuse. The following months did not achieve the goal Joffre sought. On 18 March he informed General Dubail that he wanted IVe d'armée to undertake the operation to reduce the St. Mihiel salient as soon as possible, employing all means at his disposal in this attack. General Dubail had four corps d'armée and a corps de cavalerie to work with. GQG [French General Headquarters] planned an offensive for 5 April on the southern Woëvre plain to relieve Verdun. 

The plan comprised two simultaneous attacks on either arm of the salient, one in the direction of Verdun to La-Chaussée and the other centered on Toul-Thiaucourt. On 30 March the French 73e division d'infanterie attacked along the Moselle River capturing over 500 metres of enemy trenches west of Bois-le-Prêtre in the Quart-en-Réserve. The 1re corps d'armée and 2e corps d'armée, which were to operate east of Verdun and against the northern arm of the St. Mihiel salient, were moving up the line with the intent of establishing themselves within assaulting distance, where they were to remain until the artillery bombardment commenced. The 31e corps d'armée established itself at several points only 100 meters from the edge of Bois de Mort-Mare (Death Pond).

German Trench in the Eastern Part of the Sector

Other offensive thrusts were made in early April. But things bogged down. Surprise was essential but the most difficult element to bring about. Orders were issued for absolute secrecy but, in spite of this, it was disconcerting to Maréchal Joffre how rapidly news spread. He discovered to his chagrin that the date and location of the attack was becoming common knowledge in Paris. With the advantage of surprise lost, the Germans responded by beefing up their forces.

[Also] Unfortunately for the French, the April weather turned to rain. At first sight, it seemed to Maréchal Joffre that the weather supported the French thanks to the lack of effective German aerial reconnaissance. The Woëvre became a quagmire and the trenches within flooded. The artillery found it difficult to take up position, observation of fire was almost impossible, and the shells buried themselves in the spongy ground. A feeling of uneasiness spread to both troops and staffs. Joffre thought a postponement prudent but French soldiers could not be kept for long in the misery that came with flooded trenches. General Dubail gave the order for the attack to commence. French forces bogged down and German artillery annihilated those stuck in the clay. For four days, half of the existing stock of French heavy guns attempted to cut the wire obstacles in front of the French infantry.

French Observation Post, Eparges Spur

In an attempt to salvage the failing offensive, General Dubail ordered his armée to change its tactics of intense assault to "methodical progression." The new directive did not include the old advantage of surprise. The result of the campaign was disastrous. From 26 March to 30 April 1915, the French lost 65,200 officers and men. In comparison, German losses suffered in the same period throughout the entire Western Front were slightly over 80,000 officers and men. Dubail's failed offensive was the last major operation in the south Woëvre front. Fighting continued through June 1915, but the St. Mihiel hernia remained. Henceforth, names like Seicheprey and Bois-Brulé indicated minor skirmishes until the Americans occupied the south Woëvre front in February 1918.

Source: A Delicate Affair on the Western Front: America Learns How to Fight a Modern War in the Woëvre Trenches by  Terrence Finnegan 

Don't Blame World War One for the Sexual Revolution (Guest Opinion Piece)

Editor's Note:  As usual, I don't necessarily endorse the ideas expressed herein, but I do find them interesting. MH

A 1916 Flapper!

Peter Frost

The First World War casts a dark shadow over the 20th century. It shattered the relative peace that had reigned since the Napoleonic Wars, killing some nine million combatants and seven million civilians. It is also blamed for causing the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the postwar decline of traditional morality—the flapper era, and the rise of fascism. In short, if WWI had never happened, the world would today be very different … and perhaps much better.

[Recently], I argued against the first charge of this indictment. Russia was already pre-revolutionary in 1914; the war merely helped the process along.  . . [Now], I will turn to the second charge: the First World War paved the way for a decline of traditional sexual morality that is still ongoing. As historian James R. McGovern pointed out, this charge suffers from two defects:

– In its earlier stages at least, the change in morality seems to have been stronger in the United States, which had entered WWI halfway through and would escape its ravages.

– The United States was already experiencing this change before the war.

McGovern argued for an alternate view of history: the new morality was “much more the result of earlier intrinsic social changes than either the sudden, supposedly traumatic experiences of the war or unique developments in the Twenties”:

Even a casual exploration of the popular literature of the Progressive era reveals that Americans then described and understood themselves to be undergoing significant changes in morals. “Sex o’clock in America” struck in 1913, about the same time as “The Repeal of Reticence.” One contemporary writer saw Americans as liberated from the strictures of “Victorianism,” now an epithet deserving criticism, and exulted, “Heaven defend us from a return to the prudery of the Victorian regime!” (McGovern, 1968)

Bustling New York City, 1903

Yes, this sexual revolution was facilitated by single women moving to the city and taking the jobs of enlisted men who had gone overseas. But a similar influx was already under way before the war:

A significant deterioration of external controls over morality had occurred before 1920. One of the consequences of working and living conditions in the cities, especially as these affected women, was that Americans of the period 1900-1920 had experienced a vast dissolution of moral authority, which formerly had centered in the family and the small community. The traditional “straight and narrow” could not serve the choices and opportunities of city life. As against primary controls and contacts based on face-to-face association where the norms of family, church, and small community, usually reinforcing each other, could be internalized, the city made for a type of “individualization” through its distant, casual, specialized, and transient clusters of secondary associations. The individual came to determine his own behavioral norms. (McGovern, 1968)

It wasn’t just urban life that weakened traditional moral authority. Some inventions, like the car and the telephone, were likewise helping young people to evade parental and community surveillance. Before the war, advice columnist Dorothy Dix had dubbed the car the “devil’s wagon” and observed that “the average father does not know, by name or sight, the young man who visits his daughter and who takes her out to places of amusement.” Meanwhile, moving pictures were breaking the silence on sex and showing forms of sexual expression that had previously been poorly known among teenagers and even many adults:

According to one critic the “sex drama” using “plain, blunt language” had become “a commonplace” of the theater after 1910 and gave the “tender passion rather the worst for it in recent years.” Vice films packed them in every night, especially after the smashing success of Traffic in Souls, which reportedly grossed $450,000. (McGovern, 1968)

As a result, the youth subculture diverged more and more from the adult subculture, as a female college student confessed to her diary just before the First World War:

We were healthy animals and we were demanding our right to spring’s awakening. […] I played square with the men. I always told them I was not out to pin them down to marriage, but that this intimacy was pleasant and I wanted it as much as they did. We indulged in sex talk, birth control…. We thought too much about it. (McGovern, 1968)

Female College Students, 1910

Women’s dress reflected this evolution, exposing arms and legs and becoming deeply cut in front and back. In 1915, an American editor declared: “At no time and place under Christianity […] certainly never before in America, has woman’s form been so freely displayed in society and on the street” (McGovern, 1968).

American men were going through parallel changes:

Between 1910 and 1930, Victorian definitions of manliness declined in favor of recognizably modern forms of manliness that developed as a concomitant of the heterosocial youth culture. The key to understanding the change in the cultural ideal of masculinity in these years is the shift from a culture of “character,” in which men were expected to be good Christian Gentlemen and in which the keywords to describe manhood were “morals, manners, integrity, duty, work,” to a culture of personality, in which men were expected to cultivate the “performing self.” The culture of personality placed greater sexual demands and expectations on men. (White, 1993, 180)

This shift in values could be seen in the popularity of muscle magazines like Physical Culture and in the growing concern among young men over flaws in their sexual attractiveness: blackheads, off-white teeth, dandruff, and bad breath (White, 1993, 22-23).

Conclusion:

The sexual revolution wasn’t caused by the First World War. It was a culmination of trends that had begun earlier, circa 1910, specifically the growing ability of young men and women to evade external controls over morality, partly by using new channels for communication and culture-creation and partly by opening up new spaces for private interaction.

It’s questionable whether WWI played any role in this process. The notion that it did is largely due to our use of wars as a way to divide up the passage of time. We speak readily of the “postwar era” and the “interwar years,” not to mention “wartime.” This is understandable because both world wars marked the beginning and end of many regimes and even some countries. Unfortunately, by using these events as convenient bookends for periods of history, we may simplify and even distort our understanding of the past.

The culture of the interwar years, and the flapper era in particular, actually took shape on the eve of WWI. Similarly, the postwar era’s look and feel owed a lot to the late 1930s: the first comic books; the invention of TV; the rise of suburban living; and the showcasing of how science and technology would transform the future—a good example being the 1939 New York World’s Fair and its “world of tomorrow” theme. The trajectories of history often follow separate paths and cannot be easily tied together into prewar and postwar bundles.

Source: The Unz Review, 28 February 2015. The author draws extensively on McGovern, J.R. (1968). "The American Woman’s Pre-World War I Freedom in Manners and Morals", The Journal of American History, 55, 315-333.  Canadian Peter Frost holds a PhD in Anthropology from Université Laval and currently publishes on Substack.

A Primer on Iran's (Persia's) Rather Unpleasant World War I Experience

The Teheran Gate, Persia

Originally Presented on AwayFromTheWesternFront.org

Persia (now Iran) is little known as a theatre of the First World War, but events there influenced global politics in the years following the war. Although Persia declared its neutrality in 1914, it was too important strategically for Britain, Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Germany to leave it alone and as a British diplomat wrote, "Persia, during the war, had been exposed to violations and sufferings not endured by any other neutral country."  Persia and Iran are use interchangeably in this article.

1905–1909 Constitutional Revolution

The Persian constitutional revolution sought to replace arbitrary power with law, parliamentary democracy and justice. When Naṣer-e-Din Shah Qajar was assassinated in 1896, the crown passed to his son Moẓaffar-e-Din Shah Qajar, who reigned until 1907. He was forced in 1906 to grant a constitution that called for some curtailment of monarchical power. He was succeeded by his son Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, who with the aid of Russia, attempted to rescind the constitution and abolish parliamentary government. He aroused opposition and was deposed in 1909, the throne being taken by his son, Aḥmad Shah Qajar, who reigned until 1925. The occupation of Iran during the First World War by Russian, British, and Ottoman troops was a blow from which Aḥmad Shah Qajar never effectively recovered.

Click on Image to Enlarge

Map of southwest Asia, showing British and Russian areas of rule or influence. 

1907 The Anglo-Russian Convention

This convention was signed on 31 August 1907. It made a neutral buffer of Tibet, recognized Britain’s interest in Afghanistan and partitioned Persia into spheres of influence: a Russian zone in the north, a British zone in the south and a neutral “buffer” zone in the rest of the country, in which both the British and the Russians shared power. [Read our article on how this resulted in the expansion of the Entente Cordiale to the Triple Entente, HERE.]

First oil drilling Masjed Soleyman, 1908

1908 Discovery of oil in Persia

The Anglo-Persian oil company struck oil at Masjid-e-Suleiman in the southwest of modern-day Iran. The British Navy started to switch to oil combustion in 1910, thereby increasing its operating distance and speed.

1911 Occupation of Iran by Russia

A rebellion had broken out in Tabriz in north-western Iran on 23 June 1908, and in response to the siege situation there, Britain and Russia agreed that a Russian force should be sent to occupy the city. The Russians occupied Tabriz on 30 April 1909. Negotiations for its withdrawal soon began but dragged on into 1911. On 29 November 1911, the Russian government presented the Persian government with an ultimatum. There were several demands, but the most significant was to fire an American lawyer Morgan Shuster, who had been hired by the Majlis (parliament) to organize the country’s financial affairs. Upon the Persian parliament’s refusal, the Shah dissolved parliament and agreed to the Russian ultimatum. The ultimatum created unrest in Tabriz and on 21 December 1911, militants attacked the Russian troops, inflicting high casualties. In response, a brigade of the Russian Imperial Army was dispatched to Tabriz. Its aim was to occupy three major cities – Tabriz, Anzali and Rasht. The fiercest battle of the Russian invasion occurred in Tabriz, where the constitutionalists resisted. After about three days, the defense of the city broke, the Russians shelled Tabriz with artillery and entered the city on 31 December 1911. The Russians executed the constitutional revolutionaries of Tabriz, their families and many civilians of Tabriz as well. The Russians also destroyed part of the Arg of Tabriz by shelling, and a fire broke out there while it was held by Russian troops. The Russian forces remained in the city until 1917.

Tabriz defenders in the days before the fall of Tabriz

1914 Declaration of Iran’s neutrality

The Iranian government’s early reaction to the outbreak of the war was to declare Iran’s strict neutrality by royal decree on 1 November 1914. In 1914, the British Indian Army had several units located in the southern influence zone.

Ahmad Shāh Qājār, Shah of Iran, 1897–1925

1914 Provisional National Government in Exile

In the absence of a powerful central government in Iran to resist Anglo-Russian dominance, some Iranians concluded that aligning with Germany was the best option to guarantee national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Britain and Russia viewed the activities of some members of the parliament with mistrust and dismay. The situation became so tense that Russian troops began marching to the capital, Tehran. The cabinet of Mostowfi al‑Mamalek considered moving the capital from Tehran to Isfahan. Unable to reach Isfahan, they established themselves in Kermanshah. In 1916, Kermanshah fell to Russian forces, and the Provisional National Government collapsed.

The Ottoman Army in Urmia, 1916

1915 Ottoman invasion

The city of Tabriz in Iranian Azerbaijan suffered from multiple occupation and re-occupation by the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire during the First World War. Tabriz had been held by Russian forces since the Russian invasion of 1911. On 2 January 1915, at the Battle of Sarikamish in the Caucasus, Ottoman forces started their campaign inside Iran and forced the Russian forces to retreat to Jolfa. During this campaign, Ottoman forces occupied Tabriz. With fresh forces, the Russians defeated Ottoman forces south of Jolfa and regained control of Tabriz in early February 1915. The Russians proceeded on toward the west, invaded Urmia and went up to Van Lake. At the same time the Russians entered central Iran and occupied Qazvin, Karaj, and Tehran.

1915 Constantinople Agreement

The Anglo-Russian part of the agreement stipulated the division of the whole of Iran into two zones of influence between Russia and Britain. The neutral zone that the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 had established in the center of Iran was to be added to the British zone of influence, except for the city of Isfahan, which was to be allocated to the Russian zone.

Rais Ali Delvari and other Tangestani fighters

1915–1918 Resistance to the Occupation of Persia

The Iranian tribes, including Qashqais and Tangestanis, resisted the British occupation in Southern Iran. On 12 July 1915, the Tangestani tribes of southern Iran attacked the British forces near Bushehr. The British dispatched a force from Basra to Bushehr and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Tangestanis. Between 1915 and 1921, in the forests of the Caspian coastal province of Gilan, the ‘Jangalis’ nationalist movement, combined domestic objectives with anti-colonial and anti-imperialist agenda.

1916 South Persia Rifles

Towards the end of 1915, Sir Percy Sykes established a force, the South Persia Rifles, using local tribesmen. His mission was to counter the German influence in most of South Persia. After establishing headquarters at Shiraz, Sykes tried to restore order in the south; he paid subsidies to tribes who remained loyal and rounded up enemy agents and their Persian allies. The South Persia Rifles’ first action was at Bocaqci on 28 September 1916, where it defeated tribesmen who were being assisted by 25 escaped German prisoners. For the next two years, it was involved in similar actions, but its existence increased the hostility of local tribal leaders, who saw it as a potential threat to their interests and independence. In July 1918, the Abadeh garrison of the Rifles mutinied. Sir Percy Sykes left Persia in October 1918 and the Rifles were finally disbanded in July 1921.

1917 Russian Revolution

The Soviets renounced their 1907 Anglo-Russian treaty rights in Persia at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, and Lenin sent a formal message to the government of Persia "repudiating all Tsarist privileges and agreements that are contrary to the sovereignty of Persia." After the February Revolution in 1917, frontline Russian forces dissolved and started to retreat from Iran. Ottoman forces quickly took action and occupied northwestern Iran and Tabriz. They stayed in Tabriz up until 23 August 1918, despite two British efforts to dislodge them.

1917–1918 Famine

Successive seasonal droughts caused widespread famine during 1917–1918. The requisition and confiscation of foodstuffs by the occupying armies to feed their soldiers added to the famine.

Resht, Persia, local police, being inspected by British soldiers from
the Dunsterforce, July 1918

1918 Dunsterforce in Persia

After the Russian Revolution in 1917, pro-German tribesmen under Mirza Kuchik Khan rebelled against the Russian forces in the north of the country. Britain sent Major-General Lionel Dunsterville and an elite group of British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand soldiers from Mesopotamia. They became known as the Dunsterforce. Its mission was to safeguard the immense oil installations at Baku from the Ottomans and the Germans, while organizing local groups of Armenians, Georgians, and anti-Bolsheviks to safeguard the strategically important trans-Caucasus railway and approaches to Afghanistan and India.

Azeri and Turkish Artillery Firing at Baku, 1918

The Battle of Baku, which began on 26 August 1918 ended with the evacuation of Dunsterforce on 14 September. They fought a determined and well-orchestrated action but were vastly outnumbered and under-equipped and were forced to concede Baku and its prized petroleum resources to the Ottomans. They also struggled to mobilize the residents of Baku, who were too preoccupied with infighting to mount a united defense. Despite this, Britain’s wartime prime minister, David Lloyd George, believed the Dunsterforce had succeeded in keeping the Ottomans and Germans from acquiring much-needed oil for six crucial weeks of the war in August and September 1918.

Once the Ottomans capitulated in late October 2018 and the war in the Middle East was officially over, British troops poured into Northern Iran to complement their control over the South.

1919 Anglo-Persian Agreement

The British government showed no sign of following the Russians and declaring the 1907 and 1915 conventions null and void. With the collapse of the tsarist and Ottoman Empires, Britain now not only dominated Persia itself, but had extended control to most of the surrounding regions. The Iranian prime minister was replaced by the pro-British Hassan (Vosough) Vossug ed Dowleh, who played a leading role in the negotiations with the British Ambassador. After six months of secret negotiations, the Anglo-Persian Agreement was declared on 9 August 1919. This agreement was widely viewed as establishing a British protectorate over Iran. However, it aroused considerable opposition, and the Majlis (parliament) refused to approve it.

Reza Khan (later Reza Shah) in his time as war minister

1921 Termination of Qājār Dynasty

With a coup d’état in February 1921, Reza Khan, who ruled as Reza Shah Pahlavi, 1925–1941, became the preeminent political personality in Iran. Aḥmad Shah was formally deposed by the Majlis, the national consultative assembly in October 1925 while he was away in Europe. The assembly declared the rule of the Qājār dynasty to be terminated. 

I'm Haunted by Inspector Rutledge and the Ghost of Corporal MacLeod

Like Many Tales, This One Begins at the Somme

By Mike Hanlon, Editor/Publisher

World War One veterans Scotland Yard detective Ian Rutledge and deceased soldier Hamish MacLeod are the main figures in a two dozen-volume collection of mystery novels I'm addicted to. Their creator, "Charles Todd", actually a dual-pseudonym for a mother-son team of writers, Caroline and David Watjen,  lived and wrote in North Carolina. Caroline passed away in 2021, which seemed to have ended the critically acclaimed series. Recently, however, the David half of Charles has produced two additional Rutledge works, a Christmas-themed novella, and another case for Rutledge set in 1921.

I was lucky to discover this series with the publication of the first of the novels in the mid-1990s and have been regularly reading them ever since. I've lost track of which of the subsequent volumes I've read.  This has caused me to overlook some of the adventures and re-read some.  

The stories are all set in post-WWI England, and the cases Rutledge is assigned—like another big favorite series of mine, the early Maisie Dobbs mysteries—are all connected to the war somehow. A major contrast in these two successful series, though, is that Masie has remained sensible and level-headed, while Rutledge is, well, possessed. This requires some explanation.

After recovering from his wartime injuries, Inspector Rutledge returns to his old job, despite secretly still suffering from shell shock. Captain Rutledge had commanded a group of sappers of the Royal Engineers up through the Battle of the Somme. Postwar, he remains haunted by the voice of a fellow soldier, a former subordinate. Our detective, of course, must hide this information from those around him in order to avoid the social stigma which accompanies odd psychological disorders, especially among other coppers.

During the Battle of the Somme, his man, Corporal Hamish MacLeod, had refused to follow orders to join a foolish attack and was sentenced to death at his court martial. As MacLeod's commanding officer, Rutledge was obliged to carry out the execution of MacLeod and did so. Rutledge, however, was almost immediately buried alive with the man's corpse when an artillery shell exploded near the burial site. After being rescued, Rutledge learned that it was an air pocket created by Hamish's corpse that had kept him (and no one else) alive underground. 

The source of this interesting information is the voice/counter-spirit/super-ego (whatever) of MacLeod that has now taken permanent tenancy in Rutledge's mind—at times sadistically tormenting him over his moral insufficiencies, puncturing his self-righteousness (Hamish is quite witty about this), and suddenly and at unpredictable moments helping to solve the crimes, despite his implacable resentment.  The thought-streamed interchanges are not one-sided.  Rutledge scores his points. Also, the adversaries form a tacit alliance against Rutledge's resentful boss, who is continually undermining him. 

Together, Rutledge and MacLeod manage to make a formidable mystery-solving team, comparable in many ways to you-know-who. What I've written so far applies to the dozen or so books of the series I've read.  I've seen  reviews that suggest as the cases move beyond 1920, Rutledge starts putting his war trauma behind him, and MacLeod's presence starts to fade away.  I don't know if I'll enjoy the stories as much when I get to those volumes.

Let me suggest a starter set of four  Rutledge books, if I've succeeded in interesting you in reading these mysteries. They are books I've read myself and enjoyed—listed in order of the inspector's postwar cases, not by publication date. The sequence of cases is not especially significant,  but the early development of the Rutledge—MacLeod relationship is.

Order HERE

Book # 1,  A Test of Wills begins in June 1919, introducing the war-damaged Scotland Yard Inspector with PTSD named Ian Rutledge. After returning home to England, Rutledge has put his life back together and is thrown into a baffling murder case.

Order HERE

Book # 2,  Wings of Fire rolls right into a new case in July 1919 in Cornwall, Southern England, when Inspector Rutledge investigates the sudden deaths of three members of the same eminent family.

Order HERE

Book # 3,  Search the Dark takes place in August 1919, Dorset, England during which a dead woman and two missing children, followed by a second murder, bring Rutledge’s quest to find answers up against both the locals and Londoners whose privileged positions and private passions work to prevent it. 

Order HERE

Book # 4,  Legacy of the Dead takes you to Scotland in September 1919 when Rutledge takes on a murder investigation involving a young mother accused of committing the crime. She turns out to be the former fiancée of Hamish MacLeod, whom Ian had executed during the war.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries, The Charles Todd Website

David Stevenson on the Unexpected Armistice of 1918 (Video)

Bless the French! They Kept Up Their Production of Naughty Cartoons in Wartime

Laying Siege to a Heart

By Tony Langley

La Vie Parisienne was one of the best-known risqué magazines. Published in Paris, its stood symbol for a high-spirited and slightly hedonistic lifestyle in which women, wine, and having a good time were considered to be of prime importance in life. It made a name for itself by printing numerous drawings and illustrations (no photographs) of lovely looking ladies in all stage of dress and undress. Sometimes, the nicely or scantily dressed girls would be shown expressing anti-German sentiments or performing heroic deeds but almost always with a hint of the erotic. The illustrations were made by artists such as Leonnec and Hérouard, many of whom later became rightly famous for their charming depictions of the female.

Utterly innocent and inoffensive by modern standards, the magazine nevertheless managed to offend the bourgeois sensibilities of many a straight-laced individual, especially those living outside of France. Some American and British military authorities unfavorably mentioned La Vie Parisienne by name as an unhealthy influence upon the manners and mores of the troops.

Publication continued during the war years and the magazine was no doubt eagerly read by soldiers at and behind the front lines, French, British, American, or German for that matter. War-related humor was quite the thing during 1914-18 of course and several collections of cartoons and drawings from La Vie Parisienne were published. This collection of cartoons comes from a volume called l'Amour en Campagne (Love on Campaign). Most of the drawings were simply excuses to show ladies in various romantic or erotic situations. Here we have chosen those with a military theme.

 

Cover for a Collection of 100 Cartoons
from La Vie Parisienne

"It's not only the front line trenches that are dangerous" —
a joke about the hastily built barricades around Paris in August 1914

She wants nothing more to do with things "made in Germany."

Howling at the moon and zeppelins

One of the fruits of war: the hand grenade

 
Everything a good French soldier needs to go on campaign

Source:  From the Tony Langley Collection

Eyewitness: "Burying Pete Walling" by Arthur Guy Empey

 

After remaining in rest billets for eight days, we received the unwelcome tidings that the next morning we would "go in" to "take over." At six in the morning our march started and, after a long march down the dusty road, we again arrived at reserve billets.

I was No. 1 in the leading set of 4's. The man on my left was named "Pete Walling," a cheery sort of fellow. He laughed and joked all the way on the march, buoyed up my drooping spirits. I could not figure out anything attractive in again occupying the front line, but Pete did not seem to mind, said it was all in a lifetime. My left heel was blistered from the rubbing of my heavy marching boot. Pete noticed that I was limping and offered to carry my rifle, but by this time I had learned the ethics of the march in the British Army and courteously refused his offer.

We had gotten half-way through the communication trench, Pete in my immediate rear. He had his hand on my shoulder, as men in a communication trench have to keep in touch with each Other. We had just climbed over a bashed-in part of the trench when in our rear a man tripped over a loose signal wire, and let out an oath. As usual, Pete rushed to his help. To reach the fallen man, he had to cross this bashed-in part. A bullet cracked in the air and I ducked. Then a moan from the rear. My heart stood still. I went back and Pete was lying on the ground; by the aid of my flashlight, I saw that he had his hand pressed to his right breast. The fingers were covered with blood. I flashed the light on his face, and in its glow a grayish-blue color was stealing over his countenance. Pete looked up at me and said:

"Well, Yank, they've done me in. I can feel myself going West." His voice was getting fainter and I had to kneel down to get the words. Then he gave me a message to write home to his mother and his sweetheart, and I, like a great big boob, cried like a baby. I was losing my first friend of the trenches.

Word was passed to the rear for a stretcher. He died before it arrived. Two of us put the body on the stretcher and carried it to the nearest first-aid post, where the doctor took an official record of Pete's name, number, rank, and regiment from his identity disk, this to be used in the Casualty Lists and notification to his family.

We left Pete there, but it broke our hearts to do so. The doctor informed us that we could bury him the next morning. That afternoon, five of the boys of our section, myself included, went to the little ruined village in the rear and from the deserted gardens of the French chateaux gathered grass and flowers. From these we made a wreath.

While the boys were making this wreath, I sat under a shot-scarred apple tree and carved out the following verses on a little wooden shield which we nailed on Pete's cross.

True to Us God; true to Britain,

Doing his duty to the last,

Just one more name to be written

On the Roll of Honor of heroes passed.

Passed to their God, enshrined in glory,

Entering life of eternal rest,

One more chapter in England's story

Of her sons doing their best.

Rest, you soldier, mate so true,

Never forgotten by us below;

Know that we are thinking of you,

Ere to our rest we are bidden to go.

Next morning the whole section went over to say good-bye to Pete, and laid him away to rest.

After each one had a look at the face of the dead, a Corporal of the R. A. M. C. sewed up the remains in a blanket. Then placing two heavy ropes across the stretcher (to be used in lowering the body into the grave), we lifted Pete onto the stretcher, and reverently covered him with a large Union Jack, the flag he had died for.

The Chaplain led the way, then came the officers of the section, followed by two of the men carrying a wreath. Immediately after came poor Pete on the flag-draped stretcher, carried by four soldiers. I was one of the four. Behind the stretcher, in fours, came the remainder of the section.

To get to the cemetery, we had to pass through the little shell-destroyed village, where troops were hurrying to and fro.

As the funeral procession passed, these troops came to the "attention," and smartly saluted the dead.

Poor Pete was receiving the only salute a Private is entitled to "somewhere in France."

Now and again a shell from the German lines would go whistling over the village to burst in our artillery lines in the rear.

British Field Burial Service (Getty Images)

When we reached the cemetery, we halted in front of an open grave, and laid the stretcher beside it. Forming a hollow square around the opening of the grave, the Chaplain read the burial service.

German machine-gun bullets were "cracking" in the air above us, but Pete didn't mind, and neither did we.

When the body was lowered into the grave, the flag having been removed, we clicked our heels together, and came to the salute.

I left before the grave was filled in. I could not bear to see the dirt thrown on the blanket-covered face of my comrade. On the Western Front there are no coffins, and you are lucky to get a blanket to protect you from the wet and the worms. Several of the section stayed and decorated the grave with white stones.

That night, in the light of a lonely candle in the machine gunner's dugout of the front-line trench, I wrote two letters. One to Pete's mother, the other to his sweetheart. While doing this I cursed the Prussian war-god with all my heart, and I think that St. Peter noted same.

The machine gunners in the dugout were laughing and joking. To them, Pete was unknown. Pretty soon, in the warmth of their merriment, my blues disappeared. One soon forgets on the Western Front.

Arthur Guy Empey (1883–1963) was an American soldier, author, actor, and screenwriter best known for his 1917 bestselling book Over the Top from which this account is an excerpt. As a volunteer in the British Army, he documented his rather brief, but harrowing experiences in WWI trenches, becoming a famous war hero, cheerleader for Liberty Bonds, and pioneer in early war films.