Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb
Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb. In undergoing this life, numerous individuals consistently aim to do and also obtain the very best. New expertise, encounter, lesson, and every little thing that can boost the life will be done. Nonetheless, many individuals occasionally feel confused to get those things. Really feeling the minimal of encounter as well as resources to be far better is one of the lacks to have. However, there is an extremely basic thing that could be done. This is what your teacher constantly manoeuvres you to do this one. Yeah, reading is the answer. Reading an e-book as this Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb and also various other recommendations can enrich your life top quality. Exactly how can it be?
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb
Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb
Discover the key to improve the lifestyle by reading this Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb This is a kind of publication that you require currently. Besides, it can be your favored book to read after having this book Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Do you ask why? Well, Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb is a book that has various unique with others. You may not should know who the writer is, just how widely known the work is. As wise word, never ever evaluate the words from which speaks, yet make the words as your inexpensive to your life.
By reading Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb, you can understand the understanding and points more, not just concerning what you get from people to people. Reserve Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb will be more relied on. As this Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb, it will really offer you the good idea to be successful. It is not just for you to be success in certain life; you can be effective in everything. The success can be begun by understanding the standard expertise and do activities.
From the combination of knowledge as well as actions, someone can boost their skill and also ability. It will certainly lead them to live and function much better. This is why, the pupils, employees, and even companies ought to have reading behavior for publications. Any type of publication Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb will offer specific knowledge to take all advantages. This is just what this Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb tells you. It will certainly include even more expertise of you to life as well as function better. Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb, Try it and verify it.
Based on some experiences of many individuals, it remains in fact that reading this Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb can help them making much better selection as well as provide more experience. If you want to be one of them, let's acquisition this publication Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb by downloading guide on link download in this site. You could get the soft documents of this book Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb to download as well as deposit in your readily available digital devices. What are you awaiting? Allow get this publication Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb online and also read them in any time as well as any kind of area you will check out. It will not encumber you to bring heavy publication Mud, Blood And Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew About Britain And The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb inside of your bag.
The true story of how Britain won the First World War. The popular view of the First World War remains that of BLACKADDER: incompetent generals sending brave soldiers to their deaths. Alan Clark quoted a German general's remark that the British soldiers were 'lions led by donkeys'. But he made it up. Indeed, many established 'facts' about 1914-18 turn out to be myths woven in the 1960s by young historians on the make. Gordon Corrigan's brilliant, witty history reveals how out of touch we have become with the soldiers of 1914-18. They simply would not recognize the way their generation is depicted on TV or in Pat Barker's novels. Laced with dry humour, this will overturn everything you thought you knew about Britain and the First World War. Gordon Corrigan reveals how the British embraced technology, and developed the weapons and tactics to break through the enemy trenches.
- Sales Rank: #224207 in Books
- Published on: 2007-04-01
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 7.75" h x 5.00" w x 1.25" l, .86 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 432 pages
Review
'... convincing and highly revisionist... Myth after myth about [the generals] collapses before Corrigan's minute and wittily presented research... Corrigan peppers his book with statements that read outrageously at first but which he then backs up with devastating statistics ... This punchy book does not go over the top.' -- Andrew Roberts MAIL ON SUNDAY 28/9/03 'This fine revisionist book on the First World War amounts to a frontal bayonet charge on a well dug-in enemy, with no quarter given. The title 'Mud[...etc]' gives a hefty hint as to the book's content: a highly effective rebuttal of the "Lions led by Donkeys" school... Corrigan is a combative, persuasive and very readable historian.' -- Gary Sheffield THE INDEPENDENT (2/8/03) 'Gordon Corrigan has set out to expose this popular view, or myth as quite simply not in accordance with fact. To this task he brings a mass of evidence coupled with an ability to write clear, crisp, highly readable narrative... MUD(etc) should be in every school library - and studied with an open mind by all who teach the young about the Great War.' -- Correlli Barnett DAILY MAIL (18/7/03) '..this is no mere hagiography or turgid, blow-by-blow account of battles which, frankly often seem repetitive. Corrigan's book is a fascinating read because he sets it up as a trial by jury. Each chapter (and they can be read in what order you please) takes a specific 'myth' of the Great War and subjects it to a test of evidence. The result - even if you want to disagree with Corrigan's overall thesis - is gripping.' -- George Kerevan THE SCOTSMAN (19/7/03) 'Corrigan has fashioned a pugnatious case, stripping away many of the misunderstandings and falsehoods that have settled as if they were established truths in the popular imagination.' -- Graham Stewart THE SPECTATOR (9/8/03) 'The generals were all incompetent buffoons who didn't care who they sent to their death. That's the accepted view of British leadership in WW1. Not so says Gordon Corrigan in his revisionist account of the war.' LIVING HISTORY (Aug 03) 'Any historical novelist planning a novel about the First World War who doesn't buy this book deserves Field Punishment Number One.' HISTORICAL NOVELS REVIEW (AUG 03) 'It is hard to quarrel with arguments so clearly and rationally presented, arguments well sustained by detailed evidence from official records... The seriousness of the author's theme is, however, pleasantly lightened by shafts of humour and the inclusion of amusing asides... This readable yet scholarly book will provoke discussion but may have come too late to change received opinion of the Great War.' SOLDIER (lead review) Aug 03 'Corrigan's depiction of the army grounded in his own experience. A fascinating and refreshingly different book.' THE ARMOURER (Sept/Oct 03) 'This is a welcome addition to the revisionist view of World War One. Corrigan tackles head on the myths propounded by author such as Alan Clark... he produces a more balance view of the events of 1914-18... A good argumentative tone is struck thoughout the book.' MILITARY ILLUSTRATED (Oct 2003) 'Gordon Corrigan's Mud Blood and Poppycock offers a witty and revisionist history of Britain and the Great War.' HISTORY TODAY (November 03)
About the Author
The author was commissioned from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in 1962 and retired from the Brigade of Gurkhas in 1998. A member of the British Commission for Military History and a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society, he speaks fluent Nepali and is a keen horseman.
Most helpful customer reviews
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful.
A welcome alternative to the "politically correct" view of the First World War that has dominated the genre since the 60s
By Kiwi
There is a popular perception of the First World War as a bloody waste of soldier's lives by incompetent and bungling generals. In "Mud, Blood and Poppycock", Maj. Gordon Corrigan, former officer in the Royal Ghurka Rifles, sets out to overturn and/or refute many of the popular myths about the British Army in World War One. In making his case that WW1 was NOT the futile and bloody waste that popular myth would have us believe, Corrigan draws on hard fact, statistical analysis (and the British Army kept extremely good and accurate records) and his experience of the realities of military life as a serving Army Officer in the British Army (something a number of non-military reviewers have criticised, but personally, having some limited military experience myself, I believe that all to many military historians and commentators without a military background don't understand all the nuances and ramifications of the military "reality" and this leads them to a distorted view of events and actions, the extent of the distortion only limited by their particular bias. As a further aside, I've generally found that it's useless to try and explain the concept of military duty to a civilian who simply CANNOT understand what it means. Some can, some can't. Those who can't never will. Something which is all to often reflected in reviews by those with no military experience on books about the military by writers WITH a military background. On the other hand, to quote David Drake in Rolling Hot (Hammer's Slammers #4)"It don't mean nothin'" (read Drake's story "Rolling Hot" and you'll get it. Or you won't. Sadly, most civilians never will get it - and that's not an insult, it's a cultural observation). Anyhow, back to Corrigan's book, it's a welcome alternative to the "politically correct" view of the First World War that has dominated the genre since the 60s.
Corrigan covers practically every perceived opinion on the Great War, seeks to overturn them, and puts forward an excellent case, but it's one that will certainly generate controversy - all those old myths just refuse to lie down and die. And there are all too many people without a military background who like to believe they're military and strategic experts. Kind of like me having an opinion on heart surgery with no knowledge of medicine or surgery. Corrigan shows that 1914-1918 did not result in Britain losing a generation, that its generals were not incompetent butchers, and that cultural events such as the musical and subsequent film 'Oh! What a Lovely War' are as historically useful as 'Wind in the Willows.' Corrigan may fly a little close to the winds of controversy for some people's liking, for example on the subject of soldiers executed for treason, but his arguments are incredibly well-constructed and thoroughly researched. It's certainly not a conventional history of WW1 in that it does not deal with the fighting on the western front in terms of just looking at the battles. The book takes a wider view and looks what turned the British Army from a small colonial force into a war winning, battle hardened army that beat the German Army in the field in 1918.And at the end of the day we dishonour the men and women who fought and died in this war if we simply write the officers off as thoughtless idiots and the men as simpletons who knew no better. The Army led by Field Marshall Haig constantly learnt the lessons of war, often from it's mistakes, but it continually improved and applied best practices.
There's no denying that major mistakes were made, preparations were often not good enough and many lives were lost that could have been avoided. But this is WAR, and similar mistakes have happened in all conflicts from the Romans to Iraq today. WW2 has plenty of poorly managed and wasteful British battles and actions: France 1940, Singapore, Anzio, Leros, Cassino, Arnhem to name the most obvious - you just can't rely on your enemy (or allies) to do the things that make your plan work. A number of reviwers have picked holes in Corrigan's work based on these mistakes - usually around actions such as the Somme, often failing to take into account Corrigan's trying to give the reader "the big picture", such as that the British effort on the Somme was required to take the pressure off the French at Verdun; and that acting as part of a coalition the British staff were not always given a free hand. Corrigan isn't infallible, and he does make the occasional error, such as asserting that no army can plan for the 'next' war, but instead *must* plan for future wars by learning from past wars, and that no army has the resources to plan speculatively for the future. This is clearly in error: While any responsible army must indeed study the lessons of past wars, a truly responsible army also studies current trends in an attempt to discern the future. Now while I realize that this, as doctrine, is relatively new, asserting that it doesn't exist at all is a mistake. He does give himself an 'out' by noting that armies of the day had little budgetary resource for studying war from a speculative approach. Still, Corrigan would've done better to explain that doctrines change, rather than to deny the possibility of a particular doctrine. This is one of the very few failed analysis I can find in the entire book, and is a near-miss, rather than a clean miss.
Corrigan uses his knowledge of the British army and a close analysis of the statistics and the histories to examine all these questions and answer them comprehensively and with some authority. This is not a book to read if you know nothing about WW1. Corrigan makes no attempt to discuss WW1 in any larger sense than the realm of his own theories and arguments. What he does do is present his ideas and allow you, the reader, to make your own conclusions. If you want a book that will aid you in your research and that will challenge, albiet mildly, what you think then pick this up. For those readers who have the historical nouse to know how much myth-making rubbish has been, and is, published about the Great War, Corrigan's book is a refreshing breeze of old fashioned common sense combined with rigorous historical enquiry. Overall, it's an excellent and thought provoking read, while some of the authors arguments are a bit weak, these are more than outweighed by the rest of the book.
Among other topics, Corrigan covers:
- Was it an unnecessary war?
- Did Britain actually lose a generation of young men?
- Did soldiers actually spend their entire war in a lice-infested and muddy hole being shelled and knawed on by rats?
- Were the British army technically deficient?
- Did the British cavalry just sit behind the lines in comfort waiting for a breakthrough that never came?
- Did Cavalry Officers dominate the chain of command and did the British Army waste resources to keep the cavalry happy?
- Was gas the terrible weapon that left thousands of men blinded and dead on the Western Front?
- Were the British `lions led by donkeys' as popularised in by Stephen Fry in Blackadder goes Forth?
- Was Haig a butcher and incompetent?
- Were a lot of very scared young men propped against the nearest post and shot for desertion for no good reason?
- Was the Battle of the Somme a needless slaughter?
- Did the USA "enter the war at the last minute, contribute nothing, and became the only power to make money out of it?"
Overall, I highly recommend reading this book; you will love it or you will hate it, but there is no denying the strength of Corrigan's formidably constructed arguments (many of which have been put forward individually by other authors, but never drawn together like this). And a minor point - whilst most military historians adopt a somewhat holier than thou approach to the serious subject matter of war, Corrigan writes with a dry and very British sense of humor which permeats the book while also not detracting in any way from the content or the argument. The humour might be a bit hard for non-Brits or the "politically correct" to understand at times - but for those who understand and enjoy the British sense of dry humour, there are some truly hilarious moments.
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful.
Dr Pangloss Does WWI
By Rodney J. Szasz
This book is a real treasure -- closely argued, well researched with the deft touch of a military man with a good grasp of his subject I was very favourably impressed with both his crisp writing style and his rather curmungeonly avuncular, slightly eccentric English grandfather-type of personality that wants to "sit you right down young man and sort you out."
For the moderately read scholar of WWI much of this book will not come as a surprise. Yes, amongst the masses it is a myth that British officers sat behind the lines sipping brandy whilst ordering working classes into the teeth of machine guns. Yes it is a myth for some that the American contribution was not significant or that the war was a just war.
For those people this book will be a good tonic and the cold salve for their gaping ignorance. But I think that this book was not written for the general reader having a first stab at the study of WWI. As the reviews below prove, those with considerable knowledge like the book... I liked it too. I wonder if it is because it pandered quite a bit to my personal tastes... and conservative sentiments.
After reading about half-way into the book I felt that it was starting to border more upon a polemical work, rather than an objective study.
- whatever Corrigan writes about there is no doubt that he is right. Corrigan is really loath to offer contrasting examples from very bone fide historians and where he does, such as in the case of citing Alan Clark as a non-historian, we can do nothing but agree. I could not help but leafing through Leon Wolff's "In Flander's Field" to convince myself that there was more going on between the miliary-politico machinations than Corrigan cites.
- almost all Generals seems to be either misunderstood -- really great minds that were doing the best they could under hard circumstances -- or were hobbled by the machinations of politicians. This is simplistic in the extreme, and Corrigan's stories are highly selective and slanted. It is also a easy target to round on Lloyd George, but quite another thing to question the motivations of certain members of Parliament (and while Churchill is criticised, Corrigan does not once mention his experience in the trenches and his willingness to pay for mistakes (even though they were not his).
- Corrigan does rightly state that the effects of Gas and Fire weapons and tanks were greatly exagerated. Despite their perceived horrible nature, few casualties were actually inflicted by these new weapons, and even fewer fatalities. But all horrors are not created equal, and his avering that the costliest battles for Britian and the Empire, the Somme and Passchendaele, were actually "great victories" stretches the definition of victory. There are many ways to critique these battles, but by merely portraying them as inevitable and really not all that bad, he risks throwing out the baby with the bath water. He does not mention the British Army Reports from the Battle of Loos in 1915 clearly stating that wire cannot only in the best of circumstance be cut with HE. My grandfather in the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (seconded to the British Army at the beginning of the Somme) told me that it was common knowlege in the officer core that the wire had not been cut before July 01st. This is but one example of where clearly British commanders were playing fast and loose with soldiers lives and allowing themselves to get caught up in the inevitable nature of battle. In almost all cases, even where the allies knew the Germans expected the attack, the dice were always tossed. This must be an indictment of some commanders in the field and was what Lloyd George was precisely against(not that I want to go too far out on a limb for LG).
- there is also a lot missing here from the myths that I would like Corrigan to add in his next revision: Galliploi was a good idea. Using the Navy was Churchill's sound policy that was actually forcing the straits when politicians intervened and decided that ships were more valuable than men and embarked on the land campaign to capture the Dardenelles. Badly handled but sound strategy. Corrigan should explore this more fully (He might also want to take some wind out of the sails of the average Aussie who feels that Gallipoli was a purely Australian affair. They were a minor but significant partner with the British commiting almost 4 times the number of Australians and the French losses being marginally more than the Australians).
All in all, despite the fact that Corrigan is trying his damnest to copy Candide, I felt the book was a great and ripping read and give it my highest recommendation. That doesn't mean that it does not pander to preconceived notions, it just means that Corrigan does write well and tells his story even better -- and the best books are usually those with a few flaws.
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful.
Another Revisionist Bites the Dust
By Omer Belsky
The purpose of Gordon Corrigan's "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" is to demonstrate that the conventional wisdom of the First World War is wrong: The War was not a futile war, in which brave young men were led to slaughter by incompetent leaders. In this it is a classic "revisionist" account, much like Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory (Systems and Control: Foundations and Applications). Also like that book, it attacks laypersons and unspecified "common perceptions", rather than actual historians. This is fortunate for him, because his thesis, as I will try to demonstrate, is unsustainable: For the British, the Great War was a disaster, in which Britain's strategy was undoubtedly inept and its tactics almost certainly incompetent.
But while Corrigan's thesis is problematic, his book is well worth reading. It offers a wealth of information on all aspects of the Western Front, from tanks to hygiene, and from the French Mutiny to the political squabbles between Britain's soldiers and their civilian superiors. On the latter, Corrigan offers a highly biased account, in which the Generals, and Douglas Haig in particular, are always right, and politicians, and especially Lloyd George always wrong - unless he agreed with Haig. I am no blind enthusiast of the Welsh Wizard (see my review of Lloyd George: War Leader, 1916-1918 (Penguin Biography)), but this seems unduly harsh.
Corrigan narrates all in (almost always) readable prose, and he writes with dry British wit, which I found very appealing. In his discussion of animal usage it is expressed particularly well "The mule is uncomfortable to ride and cannot cover ground at the speed of a horse, but pound for pound he is a better weight carrier, and less fussy about what he eats" (p. 141). Or see his discussion of lances, which, incredibly but perhaps not illogically, were still used by the cavalry during the war "Contrary to the impression given in paintings and Hollywood films, the lance was not couched under the armpit in the manner of medieval jousting. To strike an opponent in this way would either pull the soldier off his horse or leave him with a transfixed German sitting on the front of his saddle". (p. 147).
Where the book becomes unreadable is in the battle description, and there the trouble is with maps. It is a pet peeve of mine to complain about the paucity of maps in military history books. In this one, the offense is qualitative, not quantitative. For some strange reason, the powers that be behind the maps decided to publish them without a clear marking of the armies' positions and of the directions of advance and retreats. The only marking on the maps are the positions of the fronts in various dates. I must unhappily confess my inability to follow any of the book's numerous battle descriptions.
Corrigan wants to convince us that World War 1 was a `good war', that Britain was justified in fighting. I will grant him that premise. When Germany invaded Belgium and France, it upset the balance of power, threatened a key British ally and a fellow democracy, and forced Britain to choose between violating its treaty obligations to Belgium and fighting. For once, Realpolitik and Ideology pointed to the same direction: War.
I'd argue that Britain's mistake was not in entering the war; it was in fighting it as a total war, with massive commitment of men and treasure along the Western front. The problem with Corrigan's argument is that he considers winning the war an absolute value - he never considers the costs and benefits of the decision to commit entirely to the endeavor.
The traditional British way of making war, as it was in the Napoleonic Wars and as it would be again during World War 2, was to concentrate on naval power, subsidize forces on the continent, and only involve a large amount of British troops for the endgame. Why did Britain fight the Great War so differently?
The answer is that Britain feared defeat too much. Once it had (rationally) gotten into the war, it pursued it without seemingly to consider its interests. Particularly, Britain proved unwilling to allow the French to collapse. This had two adverse effects on Britain's conduct of the war: it meant Britain fielded many more troops than it usually would in such a conflict, and it subordinated Britain's tactics and strategy to those of the French.
The fear of French collapse was vastly overrated. In the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had several times seen its continental allies defeated, and yet they always came back. The 1910s were a far more nationalistic era than the 1800s. It is unlikely that Wilhelm would have been able to rule Europe better than Napoleon.
Even if I'm wrong about that, the consequences of a German occupied Europe were not so bad for Britain. Britain would have been able to continue to fight; the chances of a successful German invasion of the isles were slim. As a British admiral proclaimed, while the German may come, they would not come by sea (p.48).
If Britain's strategy was irrational, so were its military tactics. The British line was in Flanders, defending a low, wet country. The author concedes that the rational thing would have been to retreat to higher, drier and easier to protect ground, but he never tells us why they didn't (p. 84). Later we learn that one General had been sacked for proposing to do exactly that (p. 203). Perhaps that was why the "lions were led by donkeys" - all the lions commanders had been pushed out.
More generally, I always found puzzling the decision to attack on the Western front. The First World War was an era in which military tactics were on the side of the defender. The defenders would hide their entire bodies in deep trenches, behind walls of concrete and barbed wire, and calmly (or not so calmly) shoot the poor infantry struggling its way over no man's land. One is tempted to conclude that the repeated offences were crimes of their own; The British should have been sitting in their Trenches, waiting for the Germans to starve, for effective tanks to be developed, or for the Americans to join the war - whichever came first.
But strangely, the number of casualties from both sides seems to have been more or less the same regardless as to who was attacking. How is that possible?
Corrigan indivertibly offers one answer: Trench raiding. A trench raid was a "local attack on a portion of the enemy line... it has no strategic object... [it] is one way of ensuring that one's troops do not become defensive minded, but think aggressively" (p. 202). How Corrigan can argue that these were not "senseless forays in pursuit of self-aggrandizement" is beyond me.
The absurdity of Britain's offences probably peaked in the battle of the Somme, in which the British lost some 20,000 men in one day. The battle of the Somme was fought "with the object of relieving the pressure on the French at Verdun" as Haig's order stated. But the French were holding Verdun, an ancient castle, for symbolic reasons, not military tactics "it would have made military sense for the French to give up Verdun in 1914". So the best of Britain's youth died in order to defend a French symbol. If that is not futile, I don't know what it.
See all 21 customer reviews...
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb PDF
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb EPub
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Doc
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb iBooks
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb rtf
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Mobipocket
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Kindle
! Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Doc
! Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Doc
! Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Doc
! Download Mud, Blood and Poppycock: This Will Overturn Everything You Thought You Knew about Britain and The First World War (Cassell Military Paperb Doc
