French soldiers resisted pointless loss of life in 1917
The History of the First World War (in magazine format) casts more light on the mutinies in the French armies in 1917 that had been hushed up over the years, says author JB Duroselle.
The publication was on offer at the Westgate Walding auction on Wednesday.
So effectively were the mutinies covered up that it was difficult to obtain a balanced account. Wild rumours circulated, claiming that units were ordered to elect one in 10 men to be executed or that men had to draw lots for execution.
Duroselle presents a different picture, showing the events more as a refusal by war-weary soldiers to continue rendering service than an outright armed mutiny against the authorities. The number of men who mutinied represented a small percentage of the French army.
However, “the incidents were sufficiently widespread to confront the French commanders with a very serious crisis. Of a total of 122 divisions, 68 were affected by mutiny during April, May and June. It was by no means certain that the French forces could have withstood a determined German onslaught.”
Until then, French morale had been high and soldiers had been looking forward to being home in time for the harvest. The enthusiasm of the troops was such that entire regiments would have left immediately for the front to “shove a bayonet in the ribs of the Boches and so end the war victoriously”.
Then came the news that Gen Robert Nivelle’s ambitious offensive of 1917, the offensive “announced to the sound of big drums”, had misfired again.
Recriminations followed. Nivelle was accused of getting a lot of men killed for nothing, and phrases such as “butchers”, “drinkers of blood” and “incompetence and obsolete methods of the General Staff” circulated, as letters intercepted by censors showed. Other phrases that occurred repeatedly were “fratricidal struggle” and “capitalists are the cause of this war”.
The Nivelle setback did not promote solidarity with the French workers on the home front, whom they viewed with a feeling of “profound injustice”. The soldiers felt the workers were living at home with their families and earning good wages while the wretched soldiers were living in misery and at constant risk of death.
There were no mutinies on the front line. On the contrary, soldiers of the 167th Infantry said “when we see them attacking, we shall fire straight into them. We shall hold the trenches. But we shall not take part in attacks doomed in advance and hopeless.”
The mutineers referred to themselves as “strikers” and not as revolutionaries. Or as the army intelligence section said: “The army has no desire to stage a revolution, but if it believes one is being organised, it will wish to take part in it.”
The mutiny was largely supported by enlisted men and noncommissioned officers. Few, if any, officers participated. However, Duroselle believes that if disorder had spread, a revolutionary organisation would have been created.
Were the mutinies then a spontaneous revolt of despair, as military intelligence thought? For the troops did believe that France had to be defended at all costs, although they were not prepared to sacrifice their lives in futile offensives.
Nevertheless, the leaders of the mutiny were arrested. In all, 24,000 men were tried and found guilty; 400 were sentenced to death. Only 50 were shot and the rest served their sentences on Devil’s Island.