The First World War
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Whether the revisionists are right or not (they are historians and the one thing they always, but always, are is disproved within a few years. And then those who disprove them are themselves disproved, ad infinitum) the reparations were a problem for many reasons. There was a considerable resentment in Germany and they did destabilise the country to an extent. The inflation suffered by Germany was not a major cause of the overthrow of democracy according to some other revisionists. But we'l never know for sure.
The reparations have been over-played. Germany paid the last part in 2010:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11442892
Reparations are not unquie to WWI, indeed they go as far back as Roman times. France, for example paid Germany reparations after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. Whilst Russia paid Germany after its 1917 surrender.
They where a problem, a problem in that they help fire the stab in the back myth. Germanies armies where defeated on the field.
)Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure it is still the conservative and unionist party.
Know one knows what would have happened in Ireland if WWI had not gone ahead. Perhaps nothing would have happened, and the UK's attempt to divest itself of Ireland would have gone ahead and everyone would have accepted the done deal. But the very reasonable suspension of independence was the only option. But on the other hand perhaps the terror that the PIRA inflicted on NI for nigh on 40 years would not have occurred had the UK decided to let them get on with it. Perhaps those in NI in their 50 and 60s nowadays would have had a chance in life.
The war saved Ireland rather than the UK.
I don't think, if you look at the figures, that the UK dodged anything. The death rate would not have been anything like the carnage of one battle in the trenches. From my family's point of view I think the reputation of the IRA's submarine force would have been preferable.
Who knows. I'm not a great "What iffer" as I said earlier.Know one knows what would have happened in Ireland if WWI had not gone ahead. Perhaps nothing would have happened, and the UK's attempt to divest itself of Ireland would have gone ahead and everyone would have accepted the done deal. But the very reasonable suspension of independence was the only option. But on the other hand perhaps the terror that the PIRA inflicted on NI for nigh on 40 years would not have occurred had the UK decided to let them get on with it. Perhaps those in NI in their 50 and 60s nowadays would have had a chance in life.
The war saved Ireland rather than the UK.
I don't think, if you look at the figures, that the UK dodged anything. The death rate would not have been anything like the carnage of one battle in the trenches. From my family's point of view I think the reputation of the IRA's submarine force would have been preferable.
But, being Irish, I am grateful that the war prevented the Civil War that never happened. With 300,000 armed men ready to get at each other, I am sure it would have been devastating.
The subsequent Irish conflicts which DID occur, although not nice, were relatively low key affairs in comparison.
Eric Mc said:
Who knows. I'm not a great "What iffer" as I said earlier.
But, being Irish, I am grateful that the war prevented the Civil War that never happened. With 300,000 armed men ready to get at each other, I am sure it would have been devastating.
The subsequent Irish conflicts which DID occur, although not nice, were relatively low key affairs in comparison.
Definitely something to be said for the returning soldiers being sick of armed conflict and patriotism not having the same glamour it had before the war.But, being Irish, I am grateful that the war prevented the Civil War that never happened. With 300,000 armed men ready to get at each other, I am sure it would have been devastating.
The subsequent Irish conflicts which DID occur, although not nice, were relatively low key affairs in comparison.
Certainly the War of Independence that happened after 1920 was very restricted in its focus and more or less ignored completely that part of the country that would eventually become Northern Ireland.
The 1914 Civil War, if it had happened, would have been an out and out fight between two heavily armed illegal armies with the British Army either stuck in the middle or, even worse, perhaps fracturing into factions which either obeyed the UK Government's order to assist in implementing the Home Rule Bill or those siding with the Unionists.
It would have been awfully, awfully messy. And its legacy, for Ireland, would be a lot worse than that which followed partition - bad as that was.
The 1914 Civil War, if it had happened, would have been an out and out fight between two heavily armed illegal armies with the British Army either stuck in the middle or, even worse, perhaps fracturing into factions which either obeyed the UK Government's order to assist in implementing the Home Rule Bill or those siding with the Unionists.
It would have been awfully, awfully messy. And its legacy, for Ireland, would be a lot worse than that which followed partition - bad as that was.
What strikes me as so utterly compelling with regard to the first world war was the sheer commitment and enthusiasm to join up. Seemingly, in our modern age we pay scant regard to the notion of 'queen and country', yet back then it seemed to be everything... Did the war change notions of identity and national loyalty, because it seems to me it did.
WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
drivin_me_nuts said:
What strikes me as so utterly compelling with regard to the first world war was the sheer commitment and enthusiasm to join up. Seemingly, in our modern age we pay scant regard to the notion of 'queen and country', yet back then it seemed to be everything... Did the war change notions of identity and national loyalty, because it seems to me it did.
WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
Absolutely, Attitudes and political affiliations changed utterly.WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
In the UK, the Liberal Party was essentially wiped out as a political force to be replaced by Labour.
In Ireland, the Irish Party, which had succeeded in obtaining Home Rule by constitutional means in 1914 and was on the crest of a wave of popularity as the war started, was completely destroyed, never to recover. It was replaced by the much more radical Sinn Fein which up to then had been a pretty marginal party and (later) Fianna Fáil.
drivin_me_nuts said:
What strikes me as so utterly compelling with regard to the first world war was the sheer commitment and enthusiasm to join up. Seemingly, in our modern age we pay scant regard to the notion of 'queen and country', yet back then it seemed to be everything... Did the war change notions of identity and national loyalty, because it seems to me it did.
WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
I think it was the Kitchener armies that received the most volunteers and are the source of the photograph of queues. These poor bWW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
ds had no idea what they were letting themselves in for.The recruitment methods were a spectacular success with the youngsters from whole villages and towns volunteering - the ‘pals battalions’ - which caused such problems, and long lists on the memorials, after the armies were slaughtered on the Somme.
By then the reality of war was known and recruitment dropped away, being replaced by conscription.
Many of the Kitchener volunteers were educated, middle-class lads, officer material, and were more susceptible to the advertising it might appear. It seemed they whom the posters and the press campaigns targeted.
My father tried to volunteer for the RN in 1938 but was sent away as they had too many recruits at the time. He was told to try again later. On the way home he passed Woolwich Arsenal barracks and, having had an argument with his mother about joining up, he was too frightened of returning still a civilian so took the king’s shilling.
In the next two years he became an instructor, mainly PE, as they had to cope with the influx of volunteers. It wasn’t until the middle of 1940 that he fired a gun in anger.
These volunteers were not so heralded in the press but there was till a considerable number of those who felt it proper to defend their country. When you consider that they knew full will what they were letting themselves in for, you have to admire them. There was no suggestion it would be over by Xmas.
Many of the volunteers were aware of the rise of fascism, they being more politically aware after 10 years of the plebs having the vote.
I think the reform act of 1918, and the subsequent one of 1928 giving women equal standing with men, were more instrumental in allowing the emerging labour party to succeed the liberals as the loyal opposition. It went from around 20% of the population having a vote to virtually anyone 21 and over, a significant game changer.
The established parties took no notice of the newly enfranchised, expecting them to follow instructions of their betters. But by 1918, faith in those who ran things was destroyed I think. The war, the economy, and more would be enough to make anyone doubt it. Then to allow WWII to start, it's a wonder anyone volunteered I think.
On an additional point: those in the army got three meals a day.
When my father volunteered in WWII he discovered that if he took up boxing he got a real egg (not dried) every morning. He was all but 20 then and had only every had half a dozen whole eggs to himself before. He had never had three meals a day, let alone three cooked meals a day.
When my father volunteered in WWII he discovered that if he took up boxing he got a real egg (not dried) every morning. He was all but 20 then and had only every had half a dozen whole eggs to himself before. He had never had three meals a day, let alone three cooked meals a day.
Yes, I think that it is hard for us to grasp the strength of the class system and essentially Victorian Society. Everyone, pretty well, bought into it. Britain was on the top of the world and hardly anyone was minded to question authority. It has taken nearly a century to break free of the sometimes idiotic social constraints set up in the 19th century, and I do not think that even today we are entirely free of them.
However, the needless slaughter of World War One cracked the edifice from top to bottom.
However, the needless slaughter of World War One cracked the edifice from top to bottom.
cardigankid said:
Britain was on the top of the world and hardly anyone was minded to question authority. It has taken nearly a century to break free of the sometimes idiotic social constraints set up in the 19th century, and I do not think that even today we are entirely free of them.
Well, a jaundiced view might say that it has taken us a century to break free from being on top of the world, descending to being a bit of a pip-squeak also-ran, still on the way down with no end to the decline in sight.....drivin_me_nuts said:
What strikes me as so utterly compelling with regard to the first world war was the sheer commitment and enthusiasm to join up. Seemingly, in our modern age we pay scant regard to the notion of 'queen and country', yet back then it seemed to be everything... Did the war change notions of identity and national loyalty, because it seems to me it did.
WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
The peak of the voluntary recruitment was in the first week of September 1914 (191,000) - almost as many as joined up in the whole of August 1914. It had nothing to do with posters, since they did not go up until the end of the month.WW2 was fought more with the pragmatic need to resolve the Hitler Germany issue than any reat sense of nationalistic pride. I'm curious to know, did WW1 change this nation's attitude towards loyalty and identity?
Crucially that week was the aftermath of the Battle of Mons, amid the retreat to the Marne. Mons was the first action for the BEF and also the first indication of casualties to come. Despite inflicting heavy losses on the Germans, the BEF had to withdraw when their flank was exposed by the French withdrawal. The retreat to the Marne proved in the end to be a successful fighting retreat. But at time, the press reports back home, despite government censorship, told of a defeat and grievous casualties (many units were mixed up in the initial stages of the retreat so it was uncertain who was where).
Thus that peak in recruitment in the first week of September was not "poor b
ds who had no idea what they were letting themselves in for" but men (and not a few boys) who volunteered, for reasons of their own, in the knowledge that this was a time of grave danger to those serving in France and to the country.Portsmouth Football Club honours the men of the 'Portsmouth Pals'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28642187
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28642187
ninja-lewis said:
The peak of the voluntary recruitment was in the first week of September 1914 (191,000) - almost as many as joined up in the whole of August 1914. It had nothing to do with posters, since they did not go up until the end of the month.
From what I've read, the various newspapers ran a strong campaign for recruitment. As you say, the posters came later, and I believe some of the iconic ones we see reprinted today were not used publicly. A poster campaign would be used to support the main one.However, whilst those who volunteered might have been aware of a high casualty rate in the early skirmishes, the horrendous level of the first day of the Somme Offensive, for instance, was yet to come. In any case, it wasn't only the casualty rate but the conditions of service. I doubt they would have thought it was going to be a war of attrition and that body counts would be more important that yardage for both sides.
No one would have been aware of the carnage that would occur in the war. There had been nothing like it before
But my point was that whilst the volunteers in WWI were unaware of the slaughter to come, those who volunteered before WWII even started, let alone those who flocked to the centres once it was declared, believed that WWII was going to be a repeat of WWI yet still they took the shilling. This possibly negates the suggestion of someone earlier on in the post that loyalty and identity had gone by the start of WWII and it was more of a pragmatic approach.
There wasn't the same newspaper support for recruiting initially in 1939. Indeed, they played down the likelihood of war, preferring a negotiated peace. Further, there was an expectation that conscription would be started fairly early on in the war and some volunteered for the navy, for instance, in order not to be a soldier.
The newspapers encouraged people to volunteer for WWI. There was no similar jingoism before WWII. Don't forget that some newspaper proprietors were supporters of Hitler and ultra right-wing politics. Those who volunteered for WWII, especially before the war started, did so for their own reasons, perhaps patriotism and identity came into it. Volunteering cost my father by the way. Conscripts had a right to return to their job. Regulars were just kicked out and forgotten, especially those with medical conditions. My father had a skin condition after being hit by a 28-pounder anti-aircraft shell and the wound becoming infected. He was about to be discharged as unfit and then the V1s started, so he was declared A1 so no pension for him.
My father was one of many who thought the dangers of fascism had been grossly understated by the press and that Germany posed a risk to this country. This view of the masses seems to have been unreported. I don't believe 'peace in our time' fooled anyone, probably not Chamberlain and certainly not the politically aware men and women in my family. I had an uncle who fought in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. He was first mate on a coastal tramp but very intelligent and took an interest in politics and history. His pronouncements in the late 30s made him something of an oracle.
There was, according to reports, a great deal of social pressure to volunteer in WWI. For WWII there was a certain resignation, an expectation of a high casualty rate, but still they signed up. That, to me, is the most remarkable aspect.
It might be that we are transferring our own views onto the generation of nearly 60 years ago. I'm not so sure I would have had the bottle of my father. That said, he was young, he was politically aware and he was uneducated but intelligent. He had little to lose remember. Even by 1938, wages were dreadful, conditions were no better than he experienced in the army, and in some ways worse. He used to be sacked before a bank holiday and then re-employed afterwards. There was no job security. At least in the army he got three squares and regular pay. Mind you, he got shot at and bombed a number of times so there was a bit of a downside.
But many volunteers, for both wars, were kids. It was exciting compared to their daily grind. The newspapers knew what to say. One campaign suggested that if they didn't rush they would miss it.
The population was hit from all sides. Music and music halls were important in those days and those that went would be entertained and encouraged by:
We've watched you playing cricket And every kind of game
At football, golf and polo, You men have made your name,
But now your country calls you To play your part in war,
And no matter what befalls you, We shall love you all the more,
So come and join the forces As your fathers did before.
Oh! we don't want to lose you but we think you ought to go
For your King and Country both need you so;
We shall want you and miss you but with all our might and main
We shall cheer you, thank you, kiss (bless) you When you come back again.
And more in the same vein.
It sounds woefully crude now but it was, they suggest, very effective. A few posters pale into insignificance against a nice bit of crumpet singing this on stage.
For WWII it had to be considerably more sophisticated, with tunes difficult to march to:
We'll meet again,
Don't know where,don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again, some sunny day.
Keep smiling through,
Just like you always do,
Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds, far away.
So will you please say hello,
To the folks that I know,
Tell them I won't be long, (i wont be long)
They'll be happy to know that as you saw me go
I was singing this song.
We'll meet again . . .
The words, although rather heart-rending after the war for many families, are very positive. 'I know we'll meet again . . .'
Yeah, right.
She later came out with
There'll be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow
Just you wait and see
There'll be love and laughter
And peace ever after
Tomorrow
When the world is free
. . .
When the world is free
Come on and wait and see
When the world is free
You gotta wait and see
The emphasis here is on tomorrow, when and wait, and the tune again is by no means militaristic. Clever.
This was produced later on in the war and was not meant for recruitment so much as keeping the population on message.
My paternal grandmother hated Vera Lynn and 'wouldn't have her in the house' so if she came up on the radio, it had to be turned off.
Whatever the reasons for the high rate of volunteers in the early part of WWI, I think the same basic beliefs were present in ’39 except that knowledge of the dangers and the likelihood of high casualties was a given.
The degree of self-sacrifice is what is startling to me, from those who were treated poorly by the government.
An aunt married a bloke in the navy, an officer, at the outbreak of war. I don't know his age but she was probably no more than 17. They were just kids.
I used to see her once a week. She still lived in navy quarters in Greenwich. Just a two up two down but worth a fortune now. I was around 8 or 10 then and I didn't realise the full meaning of what she said but now I understand it.
They married, had one night during which neither of them had any idea what to do and he went off and was killed. She was a bit of a local character and I think the navy were unexcited at the challenge of turfing her out of the house. She went blind in late middle age and, always being a bit sickly - I think she had TB between the wars - died through smoking military grade cigarettes. She loved a bit of navy rum as well, the stuff that didn't pour.
She always seemed a bit of a casualty of the war herself. I liked the old girl, although she was a bit of an embarrassment. She would fart in the queue at the post office.
Some years after she died, I was probably around 25 or so, I went to a folk night at a local pub/club and a group sang Ladies go Dancing at Whitsun and I had to leave as I was crying. It seemed to describe her to a T. It really caught me out, came from nowhere. All the more poignant given the date now:
It's fifty-one springtimes since she was a bride,
But still you may see her at each Whitsuntide
In a dress of white linen and ribbons of green,
As green as her memories of love is.
The feet that were nimble tread carefully now,
As gently they measure what age do allow,
Through groves of white blossom, by fields of young corn,
Where once she was pledged to her true love.
The fields they stand empty, the hedges grow free,
No young men to tend them, the pastures go seed.
They've gone where the forests of oak trees before
Had gone to be wasted in battle.
Down from their green farmlands and from their loved ones
Marched husbands and brothers and fathers and sons.
There's a fine roll of honour where the Maypole once was,
And the ladies go dancing at Whitsun.
There's a straight row of houses in these latter days
Are covering the Downs where the sheep used to graze.
There's a field of red poppies, a wreath from the Queen.
But the ladies remember at Whitsun,
And the ladies go dancing at Whitsun.
Difficult to read now even. Poor old girl.
Sing that, Vera Lynn.
I met her once, in Brighton, at an incident. Can't remember what it was all about but I think she was a complainant. To give her her due, she didn't come out with, 'Do you know who I am?' but I recognised her instantly.
I used to see her once a week. She still lived in navy quarters in Greenwich. Just a two up two down but worth a fortune now. I was around 8 or 10 then and I didn't realise the full meaning of what she said but now I understand it.
They married, had one night during which neither of them had any idea what to do and he went off and was killed. She was a bit of a local character and I think the navy were unexcited at the challenge of turfing her out of the house. She went blind in late middle age and, always being a bit sickly - I think she had TB between the wars - died through smoking military grade cigarettes. She loved a bit of navy rum as well, the stuff that didn't pour.
She always seemed a bit of a casualty of the war herself. I liked the old girl, although she was a bit of an embarrassment. She would fart in the queue at the post office.
Some years after she died, I was probably around 25 or so, I went to a folk night at a local pub/club and a group sang Ladies go Dancing at Whitsun and I had to leave as I was crying. It seemed to describe her to a T. It really caught me out, came from nowhere. All the more poignant given the date now:
It's fifty-one springtimes since she was a bride,
But still you may see her at each Whitsuntide
In a dress of white linen and ribbons of green,
As green as her memories of love is.
The feet that were nimble tread carefully now,
As gently they measure what age do allow,
Through groves of white blossom, by fields of young corn,
Where once she was pledged to her true love.
The fields they stand empty, the hedges grow free,
No young men to tend them, the pastures go seed.
They've gone where the forests of oak trees before
Had gone to be wasted in battle.
Down from their green farmlands and from their loved ones
Marched husbands and brothers and fathers and sons.
There's a fine roll of honour where the Maypole once was,
And the ladies go dancing at Whitsun.
There's a straight row of houses in these latter days
Are covering the Downs where the sheep used to graze.
There's a field of red poppies, a wreath from the Queen.
But the ladies remember at Whitsun,
And the ladies go dancing at Whitsun.
Difficult to read now even. Poor old girl.
Sing that, Vera Lynn.
I met her once, in Brighton, at an incident. Can't remember what it was all about but I think she was a complainant. To give her her due, she didn't come out with, 'Do you know who I am?' but I recognised her instantly.
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with Vera Lynn or the songs she sang during the war.
The last thing a young Tommy wanted to hear on the radio when he was oiling the tracks of his Sherman in the North African heat is a song by a bunch of old moaners wallowing in sad feelings.
What he wanted was a bit of nostalgia for home sung by a pretty girl - which was what people like Vera Lynn and Deanna Durban provided.
On the theme of "wallowing" - why does WW1 bring out this mawkishness and WW2 doesn't - especially for the Brits.
I haven't come across much self pitying poetry or dreary folk songs about the destruction of the east end of London, or the bombing of Portsmouth.
Indeed, WW2 tends to bring out the completely opposite sentiment - a warm nostalgia for togetherness and a sense of purpose.
The last thing a young Tommy wanted to hear on the radio when he was oiling the tracks of his Sherman in the North African heat is a song by a bunch of old moaners wallowing in sad feelings.
What he wanted was a bit of nostalgia for home sung by a pretty girl - which was what people like Vera Lynn and Deanna Durban provided.
On the theme of "wallowing" - why does WW1 bring out this mawkishness and WW2 doesn't - especially for the Brits.
I haven't come across much self pitying poetry or dreary folk songs about the destruction of the east end of London, or the bombing of Portsmouth.
Indeed, WW2 tends to bring out the completely opposite sentiment - a warm nostalgia for togetherness and a sense of purpose.
Eric Mc said:
Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with Vera Lynn or the songs she sang during the war.
The last thing a young Tommy wanted to hear on the radio when he was oiling the tracks of his Sherman in the North African heat is a song by a bunch of old moaners wallowing in sad feelings.
What he wanted was a bit of nostalgia for home sung by a pretty girl - which was what people like Vera Lynn and Deanna Durban provided.
On the theme of "wallowing" - why does WW1 bring out this mawkishness and WW2 doesn't - especially for the Brits.
I haven't come across much self pitying poetry or dreary folk songs about the destruction of the east end of London, or the bombing of Portsmouth.
Indeed, WW2 tends to bring out the completely opposite sentiment - a warm nostalgia for togetherness and a sense of purpose.
So you weren't chez the Smiths on Remembrance Day in the 50s when my Dad's five brothers and umpteen brothers-in-law were remembered and mourned? When the widows and one orphan were brought together, at least when my gran was alive.The last thing a young Tommy wanted to hear on the radio when he was oiling the tracks of his Sherman in the North African heat is a song by a bunch of old moaners wallowing in sad feelings.
What he wanted was a bit of nostalgia for home sung by a pretty girl - which was what people like Vera Lynn and Deanna Durban provided.
On the theme of "wallowing" - why does WW1 bring out this mawkishness and WW2 doesn't - especially for the Brits.
I haven't come across much self pitying poetry or dreary folk songs about the destruction of the east end of London, or the bombing of Portsmouth.
Indeed, WW2 tends to bring out the completely opposite sentiment - a warm nostalgia for togetherness and a sense of purpose.
The problem with WWI was that the dirt and the trenches didn't make for myth building via film. Even Saving Private Ryan was a bit light on those with severed limbs, with brains blown apart, sometimes without anything solid hitting them. Of men unable to feed their families. And that was supposed to be anti-war.
What could they say about WWI? Sit in a trench for six months, amid s
t and mud, then climb out and get shot? Not much of a storyline. I read a novel on the Kitchener armies, the author actually interviewing a friend of my father's and including his story in the book, sans heroism. It would have made a really dreadful film but it was/is a brilliant book: Covenant With Death.
I can vouch for the fact that one part of it is spot on.
cardigankid said:
Yes, I think that it is hard for us to grasp the strength of the class system and essentially Victorian Society. Everyone, pretty well, bought into it. Britain was on the top of the world and hardly anyone was minded to question authority. It has taken nearly a century to break free of the sometimes idiotic social constraints set up in the 19th century, and I do not think that even today we are entirely free of them.
However, the needless slaughter of World War One cracked the edifice from top to bottom.
Rather I would say that the myth of “useless slaughter” was used to undermine the order as it existed at 1914, for good or ill.However, the needless slaughter of World War One cracked the edifice from top to bottom.
Make no mistake Germany needed to be stopped in 1914, just as much as it did in 1939, and in both wars the German army needed to be fought until it could no longer continue the fight, with massive losses (for which still larger losses were necessarily incurred on the allied side).
The myth of “lions led by donkeys” disguises the fact that of all the wars to stop one country dominating Europe this was the one in which the UK can have the most pride in their contribution to the overall cause.
Edited by JagLover on Thursday 7th August 11:21
It's the constant use of the word "needless" that needles me.
I think it is an insult to the dead that they are accused of having died in vain.
You can say that about virtually all wars.
If WW2 HADN'T happened 20 years after WW1, then maybe the myth of "needlessness" may not have received the purchase it did.
If you are constantly being bashed over the head being told -
It was a waste
It was needless
They all died in vain
It was all a plot by the upper classes
The Generals were all fools
The officers avoided the front line etc etc etc
then eventually the mythology takes over from the truth.
I think it is an insult to the dead that they are accused of having died in vain.
You can say that about virtually all wars.
If WW2 HADN'T happened 20 years after WW1, then maybe the myth of "needlessness" may not have received the purchase it did.
If you are constantly being bashed over the head being told -
It was a waste
It was needless
They all died in vain
It was all a plot by the upper classes
The Generals were all fools
The officers avoided the front line etc etc etc
then eventually the mythology takes over from the truth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff