Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:02 am  

The fact war is to considered as worth celebrating is to me weird.
The fact that young men were sent to their deaths over a domestic tiff between royalty shows how daft it was.
The fact that those sent to do the elites dirty work were promised a land fit for heroes when they returned by the elites were screwed, by the elites, is shameful.
The same elites were part the system that allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
WW2 promised the same again , but on this occasion something was there for the returning troops in the form of the NHS etc.
The elites though have been striving to get rid though and keep the "troops" down since then.
Nothing changes except the scale but people die for others to keep their position in the system.
War is a disgrace on civilised society.
A final, but worthwhile, quote: "VIOLENCE IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE INCOMPETENT" - Isaac Asimov

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:57 am  

I'll try to get to individual comments later, but in the meantime, another interesting article. For clarification: "Interesting article" doesn't translate as 'I agree with everything it says'.

I'll try to get to individual comments later, but in the meantime, another interesting article. For clarification: "Interesting article" doesn't translate as 'I agree with everything it says'.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:50 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

The fact war is to considered as worth celebrating is to me weird.
The fact that young men were sent to their deaths over a domestic tiff between royalty shows how daft it was.
The fact that those sent to do the elites dirty work were promised a land fit for heroes when they returned by the elites were screwed, by the elites, is shameful.
The same elites were part the system that allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany.
WW2 promised the same again , but on this occasion something was there for the returning troops in the form of the NHS etc.
The elites though have been striving to get rid though and keep the "troops" down since then.
Nothing changes except the scale but people die for others to keep their position in the system.
War is a disgrace on civilised society.
A final, but worthwhile, quote: "VIOLENCE IS THE LAST REFUGE OF THE INCOMPETENT" - Isaac Asimov

The Lloyd George quote, made after the ceasefire on 24th November 1918 whilst campaigning for the General Election in Wolverhampton, is actually: "What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in". I'm not sure that constitutes a promise, but it's a nice soundbite that can be twisted to suit. Yes, some returning soldiers were treated shamefully and the demob policy was deeply flawed, but that's another issue entirely.

As for it being a "domestic tiff between royalty", I suggest you look a little deeper into the root causes of the war, and specifically why Britain entered the conflict. Yes, the old aristocratic power bases had some influence (as they had for centuries), however it's rather more complex than that. Europe was a powder keg waiting to explode, a dangerous web of alliances, agreements and treaties that meant the slightest spark could escalate out of control - which is what happened. In hindsight it was a crazy process, but again hindsight is a wonderful and clever tool.

And despite some poorly chosen words from a couple of people, I haven't seen anyone talking about a "celebration" of the war - except those seemingly determined to protest the nature of the 2014 commemorations. On that note, commemoration and celebration are two different things, a concept some people are finding hard to grasp.

Continuing the stirring, emotive theme of your post - remember that in almost every city, town and village across the UK you'll find a WW1 memorial listing the names of those who died during the conflict - the bloodiest in this nation's history by some distance. Those who never came home. I think we can all agree they and their experiences deserve to be remembered, and the commemorations should be more about the people than the war or its causes.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:52 pm  

Mintball wrote: I'll try to get to individual comments later, but in the meantime, another interesting article. For clarification: "Interesting article" doesn't translate as 'I agree with everything it says'. I didn't think it did, but still, that was a very poor and vacuous article. This one, however, is an excellent and well-researched read.

Mintball wrote: I'll try to get to individual comments later, but in the meantime, another interesting article. For clarification: "Interesting article" doesn't translate as 'I agree with everything it says'. I didn't think it did, but still, that was a very poor and vacuous article. This one, however, is an excellent and well-researched read.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:30 pm  

On Gove's 'left-wing myths about WWI' crusade: "Some scenes in Oh, What a Lovely War! were based on historian and Conservative politician Alan Clark's revisionist history of WW1, The Donkeys, which is credited with starting the trend for unflattering portrayals of WW1 top brass." Those nasty lefties, eh? Full story And this is interesting on Gove's comments, a recent appearance on Start the Week with three historians and the current debate.

On Gove's 'left-wing myths about WWI' crusade: "Some scenes in Oh, What a Lovely War! were based on historian and Conservative politician Alan Clark's revisionist history of WW1, The Donkeys, which is credited with starting the trend for unflattering portrayals of WW1 top brass." Those nasty lefties, eh? Full story And this is interesting on Gove's comments, a recent appearance on Start the Week with three historians and the current debate.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:29 pm  

When I was a kid, people in their 70s had fought in the First World War. You'd hear fascinating stories. Each one a different account, a different opinion.

History and historians can only take into account what they know to be true. Though they can chose to ignore or distort written contemporary accounts. Anything other than that gets rubbished. The point being one of those old fellas would perhaps give a different account as to what was written in a company's journal/diary. But history can be proven by the written word. Does that mean the old fella's lying? Nope.



Here's an interesting thing I was told on WW2 when I was a kid. In the North Africa campaign, Montgomery used to put Indians outside the armoured vehicles and walk. None were put inside. These Indian infantrymen were from the 4th? Indian division and not to be confused with the First Indian National Army who fought for Indian Independence with the support of Japan. Even fighting against the British and Commonwealth forces in places like Burma.

Oh and American History, taught in America is one of the funniest things you'll hear.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:53 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Google 'Westfront 1918: Vier von der Infanterie (with English subtitles!)' and make sure captions are switched on...

Cheers!

Cronus wrote:

... 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 ...

One of the things that struck me from one article (it may be one I've linked to or not) was that someone who was coming from pretty much this position was arguing that the reason that soldiers had been ordered to march slowly on German lines was to keep them together.

Okay, that's a reason, but being mown down with machine gun fire would possibly occur as a reason not to go down this route. Machine guns were hardly new – the Gatling gun, for instance, was first active in 1861. It cannot have been that much of a surprise. So with the best will in the world, it's hard to consider such things and not think that there was an element of the Tommies being disposable.

I think you're right about warfare evolving, but some things, like that, could have been worked out. tb was noting earlier that British troops had very old-fashioned rifles at first because it was thought that, if you gave them something more modern, they'd just fire off (waste) a load of ammunition at one go.

As I noted via another link, the historian who is credited with the popular view of the military leadership was the late Alan Clarke, also a Conservative politician – hardly Gove's raving lefty – who wrote a book, The Donkeys, on the subject in 1961. That's not to declare Clarke historically right, but it does show up the idiocy of Gove and his claims.

My own suspicion, if you will, is that the causes of WWI were manifold – as you say – including but not limited to the imperial ambitions of all the Great Powers, military build up, a general feeling that war was coming. And then these were combined with a belief that it wouldn't last beyond a few weeks.

I've ordered Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914: a really good and interesting historian (his Iron Kingdom is superb), I'm looking forward to this. I gather that he also goes far more to town on the aspect of what led up to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and the role that that – and the wider importance of what that part of – played.

I've no doubt that many (if not most) people did feel that it was a war worth fighting – they could not have known the ramifications and nor should people pretend they could and should.

However, there's been a habit, since WWII, to try to read history as a backwards timeline, as though historic figures could see into the future and see what would happen and whether or not their actions would influence that – before making decisions. It's a nonsense way to read history, but it's been part of the whole: 'what caused Hitler?' question.

Equally, we have to (as you mention) understand that times were different and attitudes were different. And also that propaganda played its part – on all sides – in what people believed about the war.

I think class influences our views today – for instance the war poets, who are seen as so central to how we perceive the conflict, were all middle class and seemed (on the basis of some of what I've read) to have been more shocked by what they saw than some other troops.

To add, it was also one of the first conflicts to be photographed and filmed and reported as widely: I'm sure that too has had an impact on our cultural memory.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:55 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

The fact war is to considered as worth celebrating is to me weird...

Commemoration and celebration are not synonyms.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:02 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote:

... Here's an interesting thing I was told on WW2 when I was a kid. In the North Africa campaign, Montgomery used to put Indians outside the armoured vehicles and walk. None were put inside. These Indian infantrymen were from the 4th? Indian division and not to be confused with the First Indian National Army who fought for Indian Independence with the support of Japan. Even fighting against the British and Commonwealth forces in places like Burma...

I had a friend, years ago, who had fought (and been injured) in North Africa. Of the very little he'd say, he noted that the troops hated Monty, because they felt he didn't care an iota for the ordinary soldiers. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the senior officer he said they loved though.

Rooster Booster wrote:

Oh and American History, taught in America is one of the funniest things you'll hear.

An American acquaintance has been in Europe working for about three years now. Started reading some history and has been absolutely staggered by what he discovered. This guy's a nuclear engineer (not quite Homer Simpson), but was absolutely stunned at what, in effect, he hadn't been taught.

And thanks for the link earlier.

Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:58 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I had a friend, years ago, who had fought (and been injured) in North Africa. Of the very little he'd say, he noted that the troops hated Monty, because they felt he didn't care an iota for the ordinary soldiers. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the senior officer he said they loved though.

Just goes to show how personal history can really differ from written history.

Mintball wrote:

An American acquaintance has been in Europe working for about three years now. Started reading some history and has been absolutely staggered by what he discovered. This guy's a nuclear engineer (not quite Homer Simpson), but was absolutely stunned at what, in effect, he hadn't been taught.

Thing is, if you point out real history to an american, you'll get labelled something. I'm not a fan of people who are labellers as a defence mechanism.

But American History is riddled with lies, to conceal and distort what happened. When they wanted to kill Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq and the French weren't with them they did things like change the term French Fries to Freedom Fries in fast food outlets. You wouldn't exist in the form you are if it wasn't for the French who joined the War in 1778. You would not have been granted your independence to each of the 13 colonies if it wasn't for the French. Oh and Spain and then the Dutch. The statue of Liberty is a gift from France. The list could go on. Best not even mention that George Washington fought with the British in the Franco-Indian wars with the likes of General Wolfe, whose statue s in Greenwich Park.

In fact the last time the British and the Americans fought against each other during the 1812 war, whiilst we we still fighting the French (again) in Europe, we gave them a sound leathering after they tried to get lands in Canada. The war ended with a peace treaty with all the borders going back to how they were, but not before we set fire to the White House and Washington in 1814.