Re: WWI - Paxman v Cameron : Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:54 am
Mintball wrote:
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.
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.
One of the most striking things I have retained in my memory of watching numerous documentaries and reading various accounts over the years on WW1 was the sad tale of one particular British Army Captain who on receiving his orders for the forthcoming attack worked out that given the positions of the enemy and line of attack he was being ordered to take, he and his men were all going to get killed. What is more he also worked out some sort of alternative flanking approach that would achieve the objective which would not have meant certain death (though I am sure he didn't think it was risk free either!).
On presenting all this to his commander he was ordered to stick to the original plan and do his duty. He did and was killed.
It is things like that and there are too many similar documented facts such as how many died on the last day of WW1 as idiotic commanders tried to get in one more attack before the armistice they new was coming came into force that undermines the revisionists who want us to view WW1 as a great crusade or whatever. There is just too much documented ineptitude you just can't sweep under the carpet.
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.
Exactly. Let's not forget there were literally thousand's of volunteers who rushed to join up. That doesn't mean once they experienced the front line and experienced the great loss of life they still felt the war was worth fighting. It also doesn't mean the civilian population back home were not scared stiff of defeat and so supported the continued fighting despite the losses.
Nor does the surge of patriotism that led to all those volunteering mean Gove has a justification for revising what is taught about how the war was executed by those in charge once it was under way.
Even if every soldier out there retained their volunteering enthusiasm there are too many examples of rank stupidity for them to be ignored.
If he thinks the cynicism and bravery depicted in the last episode of Black Adder is left wing propaganda and so is not a valid teaching vehicle how does he deal with the facts surrounding the tale of the British Captain I mentioned above? A very similar outcome and scenario which for all I know could be what that script was based on.
