Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:01 pm  

Links as promised: Calendar of events. Telegraph piece.

Links as promised: Calendar of events. Telegraph piece.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:25 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I'd also suggest some films – how about All Quiet on the Western Front? That might not be British – anti-war films don't tend to be made much by victors – but I think it's also important that there is a sense that the loss off life was on both sides (IIRC, Harry Patch considered this vital) and it would be rather good for there to be a general understanding that 20-odd years of colonial adventurism on all sides were the real roots of WWI.

Paths of Glory would be a good one then, though it is based on French soldiers.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:32 pm  

Bearded wrote:

Paths of Glory would be a good one then, though it is based on French soldiers.

Good call.

I'd suggest Westfront 1918 too – arguably better, in some ways (certainly grittier than All Quiet) except they'll need to actually release a copy of it with English subtitles first.

It was made in 1930 as an early German talkie (I saw it some years ago at the NFT) and it really is very, very good.

And then there's La Grande illusion, which is pretty much iconic.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:01 am  

Interesting stuff here.

Interesting stuff here.

[DaveO]

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:05 pm  

Mintball wrote: Interesting stuff here. Well I am all for putting history into the perspective of the time but I think this is total rubbish: "The generation who fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less it was fought with reason. British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects are often overlooked." At best these comments may apply to the ruling elite and I doubt after a few years on the Western Front many soldiers, if they survived, thought it was a war remotely worth fighting. In any case WW1 was ultimately futile because the "bad" didn't stay defeated for long and so regardless of who thought what at the time, it was a complete waste in that sense. Hindsight lets us make that judgement but how can you not? If we had enjoyed 100 years of peace in Europe maybe the War to End all Wars could be viewed as worth the sacrifice despite the fact incompetence (that they also seem to want to erase) led to-many deaths.

Mintball wrote: Interesting stuff here. Well I am all for putting history into the perspective of the time but I think this is total rubbish: "The generation who fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less it was fought with reason. British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects are often overlooked." At best these comments may apply to the ruling elite and I doubt after a few years on the Western Front many soldiers, if they survived, thought it was a war remotely worth fighting. In any case WW1 was ultimately futile because the "bad" didn't stay defeated for long and so regardless of who thought what at the time, it was a complete waste in that sense. Hindsight lets us make that judgement but how can you not? If we had enjoyed 100 years of peace in Europe maybe the War to End all Wars could be viewed as worth the sacrifice despite the fact incompetence (that they also seem to want to erase) led to-many deaths.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:12 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Well I am all for putting history into the perspective of the time but I think this is total rubbish:

"The generation who fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less it was fought with reason. British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects are often overlooked."

At best these comments may apply to the ruling elite and I doubt after a few years on the Western Front many soldiers, if they survived, thought it was a war remotely worth fighting.

You're right in that after even a few months I'd guess most fo them would be cursing the day they ever walked into the recruiting office but don't forget that there was, eventually, not initially, a surge of patriotism and lots of peer pressure and not a little bullying into the decision that most men made when joining up, the popularity of the Pals Battalions in northern towns showed that and it would take a brave man to face his mates on the factory floor and tell them that he wasn't coming with them and an even braver man to join them down the pub whenever they came back on leave - none of which owes any thing to "a set of values" or the other bollax.

[DaveO]

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:20 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

You're right in that after even a few months I'd guess most fo them would be cursing the day they ever walked into the recruiting office but don't forget that there was, eventually, not initially, a surge of patriotism and lots of peer pressure and not a little bullying into the decision that most men made when joining up, the popularity of the Pals Battalions in northern towns showed that and it would take a brave man to face his mates on the factory floor and tell them that he wasn't coming with them and an even braver man to join them down the pub whenever they came back on leave - none of which owes any thing to "a set of values" or the other bollax.

Good point about the Pal's and but I took the quote to mean that even after a spell in the trenches the Pal's and everyone else were still of the same conviction that "none the less it was fought with reason".

I would imagine when they did come back on leave their advice to anyone in the pub would have been "stay at home" (but of course conscription put an end to that anyway).

There were also those who handed out white feathers to seemingly able bodied men who remained at home. I am sure they felt it was also a war being "fought with reason" when they did it.

But then it would have to be a very blinkered person who once they learned of the casualties and conditions didn't feel like a total moron for doing so.

Of course they may have remained ignorant and felt what they did was right but such ignorance just means they were misguided and ill informed. Not fully signed up for the program in the full knowledge of what the war entailed on the front line as it seems those quotes from the committee would have us believe.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:47 pm  

Not unrelated, since the subject has come up because of the centenary, but Michael Gove has been slammed for his over-simplistic attitude toward WWI (and the teaching of history as a whole – and his most recent complaint may have a political basis). However, it seems that we should be viewing WWI not as 'donkeys leading lions' (a bit unfair on the donkeys, I've long thought) and not as a pointless war, but as a very important one. Story The whole business raises questions about education in general and history education in particular, but it also raises questions about the nature of WWI. It would be extremely simplistic to believe that viewing the leaders – military and political – of the Great Powers as 'donkeys' does not represent an insult or lack of respect to those who actually served on the front lines; or that concluding, with the perspective of time, that it was a war that could easily have been avoided but for the ambitions (largely imperialist) of all the Great Powers and two decades or so of build up and preparation (plus a belief among leaderships of the same powers, that it would be over in a few weeks), does also not mean that the populaces in general at the time believed that it was a war that had to be fought. An interesting piece speculating on what might have happened if the result of WWI hadn't been what it was.

Not unrelated, since the subject has come up because of the centenary, but Michael Gove has been slammed for his over-simplistic attitude toward WWI (and the teaching of history as a whole – and his most recent complaint may have a political basis). However, it seems that we should be viewing WWI not as 'donkeys leading lions' (a bit unfair on the donkeys, I've long thought) and not as a pointless war, but as a very important one. Story The whole business raises questions about education in general and history education in particular, but it also raises questions about the nature of WWI. It would be extremely simplistic to believe that viewing the leaders – military and political – of the Great Powers as 'donkeys' does not represent an insult or lack of respect to those who actually served on the front lines; or that concluding, with the perspective of time, that it was a war that could easily have been avoided but for the ambitions (largely imperialist) of all the Great Powers and two decades or so of build up and preparation (plus a belief among leaderships of the same powers, that it would be over in a few weeks), does also not mean that the populaces in general at the time believed that it was a war that had to be fought. An interesting piece speculating on what might have happened if the result of WWI hadn't been what it was.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:37 pm  

Mintball wrote: In answer to your question, Paxo's correct. Commemorations, certainly, but nothing celebratory. and nothing that in any way glamorises war in general and that war in particular. Exhibitions of work by war artists; readings of the work of the war poets; history etc. http://www.silentcacophony.co.uk Mintball, that happens on a small scale. Have a look at the site and see what they get up to. If that could be spread to a larger scale?

Mintball wrote: In answer to your question, Paxo's correct. Commemorations, certainly, but nothing celebratory. and nothing that in any way glamorises war in general and that war in particular. Exhibitions of work by war artists; readings of the work of the war poets; history etc. http://www.silentcacophony.co.uk Mintball, that happens on a small scale. Have a look at the site and see what they get up to. If that could be spread to a larger scale?

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:43 am  

Mintball wrote: Good call. I'd suggest Westfront 1918 too – arguably better, in some ways (certainly grittier than All Quiet) except they'll need to actually release a copy of it with English subtitles first. It was made in 1930 as an early German talkie (I saw it some years ago at the NFT) and it really is very, very good. And then there's La Grande illusion, which is pretty much iconic. Google 'Westfront 1918: Vier von der Infanterie (with English subtitles!)' and make sure captions are switched on. Mintball wrote: Interesting stuff here. That's a terrible article, clearly written by someone with a huge chip and little actual knowledge. It doesn't even seem to have a meaningful point. No-one is 'rewriting history' - 'revisionist' works on WW1 have been around for many years. That just reeks of desperation to find conspiracy and scandal where none exists. Yes, the commemorations need to be done correctly, I think everyone agrees on that. In truth, anyone who thinks (for example) Haig was a bumbling butcher rather than a competent commander wrestling with the rapidly evolving nature of industrialised war (as did probably most generals of WW1) is in opposition of the facts and believes this to suit their agenda. Anyone following the evolution of strategy and tactics over the course of WW1 should be able to understand the new and rapidly changing problems commanders faced. For example, initially the BEF expanded far too rapidly, this combined with the loss of many experienced commanders and officers meant problems and mistakes were inevitable. The evolution of artillery tactics in infantry offensives is another classic example, as is the introduction of tanks and air power. 'Donkeys and lions' may have occurred in isolated cases but is actually pretty far from the truth, as is the idea that generals drank in luxury chateaux as the troops were slaughtered. At least 78 British generals were killed in WW1 (approx 240 wounded and a casualty rate of almost 20%), and they were actually more likely to be killed by small arms than the men they commanded which says something about their proximity to the fighting. Indeed, in Oct 1915 after losing several Brigadier Generals in a matter of weeks at Loos, Field Marshal French issued an advisory against his 'Corps and Divisional Commanders taking up positions too far forward when fighting is in progress'. It would be ridiculous to expect senior commanders to reside permanently in the trenches, but they were certainly not shy of the front. In fact the Germans suffered the only General to pursue an all-out strategy of attrition in Falkenhayn and his attempt to 'bleed France white' at Verdun, which saw him hope that the outrageous casualties would see the Allies look to end the war, or that France would suffer critical losses far higher than Germany. As a direct result the Somme offensive became less of a decisive attack than an attempt to divert German forces from Verdun and relieve the French. Most historians agree there was little alternative. Did WW1 achieve anything? The short answer is no, at least nothing positive. The longer answer is almost too long and complex and has astounding consequences. Either way it had to end in 1918, all those committed to the war were exhausted, with the exception of the USA. Germany came close to winning in early 1918 but overstretched themselves in almost every offensive and crucially their manpower reserves were long past tipping point. I suppose the armistice at least achieved peace, but also a simmering anger in Germany against the reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles. Hindsight is a wondrous thing. None of the nations involved could have foreseen the scale or nature of the war to come. Yes, it was a result of Imperial frictions, militarism and outdated autocratic power and alliances, but that's simply how Europe was in 1914 and had been for centuries. The difference being that war was now industrialised. Back home, many naive young men saw it as an adventure; a chance to leave their hometowns. Others succumbed to peer pressure or bought into recruitment campaigns. Kitchener's 'New' Army recruitment drive was almost overwhelmed with enthusiastic volunteers until late 1915 when the population began to understand the growing cost of the war, following which volunteer numbers dropped and conscription was introduced. Britain's army before WW1 had been a small professional force; very few had seen or understood war. Let there be no doubt - in the early years there was enormous enthusiasm to join up.

Mintball wrote: Good call. I'd suggest Westfront 1918 too – arguably better, in some ways (certainly grittier than All Quiet) except they'll need to actually release a copy of it with English subtitles first. It was made in 1930 as an early German talkie (I saw it some years ago at the NFT) and it really is very, very good. And then there's La Grande illusion, which is pretty much iconic. Google 'Westfront 1918: Vier von der Infanterie (with English subtitles!)' and make sure captions are switched on. Mintball wrote: Interesting stuff here. That's a terrible article, clearly written by someone with a huge chip and little actual knowledge. It doesn't even seem to have a meaningful point. No-one is 'rewriting history' - 'revisionist' works on WW1 have been around for many years. That just reeks of desperation to find conspiracy and scandal where none exists. Yes, the commemorations need to be done correctly, I think everyone agrees on that. In truth, anyone who thinks (for example) Haig was a bumbling butcher rather than a competent commander wrestling with the rapidly evolving nature of industrialised war (as did probably most generals of WW1) is in opposition of the facts and believes this to suit their agenda. Anyone following the evolution of strategy and tactics over the course of WW1 should be able to understand the new and rapidly changing problems commanders faced. For example, initially the BEF expanded far too rapidly, this combined with the loss of many experienced commanders and officers meant problems and mistakes were inevitable. The evolution of artillery tactics in infantry offensives is another classic example, as is the introduction of tanks and air power. 'Donkeys and lions' may have occurred in isolated cases but is actually pretty far from the truth, as is the idea that generals drank in luxury chateaux as the troops were slaughtered. At least 78 British generals were killed in WW1 (approx 240 wounded and a casualty rate of almost 20%), and they were actually more likely to be killed by small arms than the men they commanded which says something about their proximity to the fighting. Indeed, in Oct 1915 after losing several Brigadier Generals in a matter of weeks at Loos, Field Marshal French issued an advisory against his 'Corps and Divisional Commanders taking up positions too far forward when fighting is in progress'. It would be ridiculous to expect senior commanders to reside permanently in the trenches, but they were certainly not shy of the front. In fact the Germans suffered the only General to pursue an all-out strategy of attrition in Falkenhayn and his attempt to 'bleed France white' at Verdun, which saw him hope that the outrageous casualties would see the Allies look to end the war, or that France would suffer critical losses far higher than Germany. As a direct result the Somme offensive became less of a decisive attack than an attempt to divert German forces from Verdun and relieve the French. Most historians agree there was little alternative. Did WW1 achieve anything? The short answer is no, at least nothing positive. The longer answer is almost too long and complex and has astounding consequences. Either way it had to end in 1918, all those committed to the war were exhausted, with the exception of the USA. Germany came close to winning in early 1918 but overstretched themselves in almost every offensive and crucially their manpower reserves were long past tipping point. I suppose the armistice at least achieved peace, but also a simmering anger in Germany against the reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles. Hindsight is a wondrous thing. None of the nations involved could have foreseen the scale or nature of the war to come. Yes, it was a result of Imperial frictions, militarism and outdated autocratic power and alliances, but that's simply how Europe was in 1914 and had been for centuries. The difference being that war was now industrialised. Back home, many naive young men saw it as an adventure; a chance to leave their hometowns. Others succumbed to peer pressure or bought into recruitment campaigns. Kitchener's 'New' Army recruitment drive was almost overwhelmed with enthusiastic volunteers until late 1915 when the population began to understand the growing cost of the war, following which volunteer numbers dropped and conscription was introduced. Britain's army before WW1 had been a small professional force; very few had seen or understood war. Let there be no doubt - in the early years there was enormous enthusiasm to join up.