was it all worth it?

[redorchestra]

Incidentally, in answer to the question posed by the topic header, I find myself asking this question when looking at the innumerable names listed on war memorials, or walking amongst the thousands of graves in France and Belgium, or reading about the sacrifices made to capture some strategically insignificant objective, and my answer to the question has to be 'no, it wasn't worth it'.

Of course by saying that I don't mean to demean the contribution made by the fighting men and women of the time.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Of course it was worth it. And Edmund Burke, as long ago as 1770, probably gives the most succinct reason why:

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

(Commonly paraphrased as: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.")

Applies equally to 1939-45 too.

ciao,

GAC

[redorchestra]

That quote is useful if you think that wars boil down to a simple battle between good vs evil. I don't really find that the case in WW1. Maybe in WW2, but even then the line blurs, particuarly between Germany and the Soviet Union.

I wonder if the millions who died in the Great War, if they could voice an opinion and could look back with the benefit of hindsight, would think that the sacrifices of their lives had been worth it. Not something any of us could answer, but it's interesting to think about it.

[George Armstrong Custer]

That quote is useful if you think that wars boil down to a simple battle between good vs evil. I don't really find that the case in WW1. Maybe in WW2, but even then the line blurs, particuarly between Germany and the Soviet Union.

I disagree. Sir Michael Howard, in the Introduction to a new collection of essays on the historiography of the Great War, A Part of History: Aspects of the British Experience of the First World War (2008), makes as good a case as any I've read as to why the war was worth fighting - and popularly seen as such at the time:

By the end of 1916 the military authorities in German had virtually usurped control of the government, and their war aims were uncompromising: in the west, Belgium was to be virtually annexed and the French coast to be controlled down to the mouth of the Somme; in the east, German frontiers were to be extended deep into Russian territory and along the Baltic coast. What they aimed to create was the Grossdeutschland that Hitler would establish in 1940. The German government did not dare make these claims explicit, but they were well enough known to render any serious talk of peace out of the question. So again, the war went on. [............] Nonetheless, the question remains: was it all worth it? If the cost of victory was so heavy, would it not have been better if Imperial Germany had been allowed to win the war, whether by acknowledging defeat in 1914 or accepting her peace terms two years later? Some historians have pointed out that the plans put forward by German economists in 1916 for a Mitteleuropa, an integrated European economy monitored from Berlin, were little different from the European Union that eventually came into being, monitored from Brussels. [...........] Perhaps. But if the Germany of 1916 was not that of Adolf Hitler, neither was she that of Konrad Adenauer. Power was contested between an authoritarian, militaristic and increasingly proto-fascist right wing and a liberal-socialistic left, and every military success strengthened the hand of the former. Victory in war would have established their dominance, not only in Germany, but over Europe as a whole, and with it their determination to destroy Britain's naval supremacy and to reduce her to the status of a second-rate power as they had done to France in 1871. That at least was the perception in Britain itself, which was why, for better or worse, neither elite nor popular opinion in Britain across the political spectrum for a moment considered defeat to be an option. Reserves of national pride, built up over generations, were not yet exhausted. Politicians and generals were reviled for the way they conducted the war, but not for fighting it at all. [.......] As it was, Britain won the war of attrition at huge and tragic cost.

ciao,

GAC

[redorchestra]

I think it is still stretching the point a little to describe Germany as 'evil'. Militaristic, expansionist, aggressive, authoritarian, yes, and contemptible for the atrocities inflicted on 'gallant little Belgium', but I don't think 'evil' is a useful term to use when examining history. Were the atrocities committed by the Germans in Belgium any more 'evil' than those committed by the Belgians in the Congo?

I don't think Germany should have been allowed a free hand in Europe, and I think Britain made the right decision to enter the war, but it seems to me that at some point during the war the original objectives for entering the war became confused, until it seems that the only real objective was to 'win' at all costs and grind Germany into the dust.

When I am walking the graves of the many thousands, 'national pride' and stopping German economic domination of Europe seems a pretty poor reason for them to have lost their lives.

I'm no pacifist. I think WW2 was worth it. I just can't shake this feeling when I study the first world war that it achieved and solved nothing, other than the temporary subjugation of the Germans. I often wonder if this is why you hear of the curious sense of anti-climax and deflation that seems to have been the dominant mood among the fighting men at the time of the armistice.

I am genuinely open to persuasion that it was worth it, I just haven't heard any arguments that have convinced me as of yet.

[baorbrat]

That quote is useful if you think that wars boil down to a simple battle between good vs evil. I don't really find that the case in WW1. Maybe in WW2, but even then the line blurs, particuarly between Germany and the Soviet Union.

I wonder if the millions who died in the Great War, if they could voice an opinion and could look back with the benefit of hindsight, would think that the sacrifices of their lives had been worth it. Not something any of us could answer, but it's interesting to think about it.

Doesn't that depend on us? It is up to us to make their sacrifice "Worth it". Make sure your life is not in vain is the best, and only, way of making sure their sacrifice was not in vain.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I don't think Germany should have been allowed a free hand in Europe, and I think Britain made the right decision to enter the war, but it seems to me that at some point during the war the original objectives for entering the war became confused, until it seems that the only real objective was to 'win' at all costs and grind Germany into the dust.

I think the essential point that Michael Howard makes is regarding the shifts that had occurred in Germany by late 1916, and the pre-eminence of the 'authoritarian, militaristic and increasingly proto-fascist' faction in changing German war aims from those stated in August 1914 to a policy of pan-European domination and occupation similar to that achieved by Hitler in 1940. Howards use of the term 'proto-fascist' is important - the front fighters of the Imperial German Army were the same men who went on to form the Freikorps after the Armistice and became, in the title of the best English-language history of that movement, the 'Vanguard of Nazism.' Remember, too, that Ludendorff marched side by side with Hitler in the Munich putsch of 1923. Personally I see the German war aims of European economic hegemony and reduction of British maritime power to have been cause enough to stand up to them. But a peace wrought by German military achievement in, say, 1916 would also have secured Howard's 'proto-fascist militaristic' clique in charge of a Germany calling the shots in the post-war world. And if it's evil you're looking for, I'd say that clearly discernable element of 'proto-fascism' is a good place to start, along with a perusal of Horne & Kramer's German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial. The seeds of the dirty war fought in the East by the Germans in the second world war were already discernable in the conduct of some elements of the German army of 1914-18, and in the political ideas of some of the military elite who were effectively driving German policy by 1916/17. Confronting Germany in 1914-18 was absolutely necessary, as indeed it was to be again in 1939.

ciao,

GAC

[redorchestra]

GAC,

Thanks, my local library have the Horne and Kramer book so I will check it out and maybe get back to you once I have done so.

All the best,

Darryl

[truthergw]

Further to George's point and as additional reading, you may find it worthwhile to look at, " Absolute Destruction" by Isabel V Hull. She precedes a study of military culture and practice in the War with an analysis of the German practices in the African colonies and in China. A chilling book and tends to go against the idea that Nazis sprang from nowhere and were alien to German culture. Not an easy book and quite disturbing to read but I think well worth while.

[salesie]

George is absolutely right - the seeds of National Socialism can be clearly seen in 1914-18 Germany. Its total disregard of treaty obligations towards Belgian neutrality on the spurious grounds of self-defence was, in essence, pure Hitlerite, and, especially from 1916 onwards, the virtual political omnipotence of Hindenburg and Ludendorff give us a strong signpost to later years. And, please bear in mind, these seeds were propagating long before the Versailles treaty - a mistake by the allies for sure, and a bloody convenient excuse for the nurserymen of the young saplings of Nazism to use as fertiliser.

What was it Foch said in 1919? This is not a peace, but a truce that will last just twenty-years. (paraphrased from memory).

As for was it worth it? I would say the balance sheet says yes it was - but only bloody just.

Cheers-salesie.

[JimSmithson]

"The story goes that, at the official unveiling ceremony, chairs were set out for the local bigwigs whilst most of the villagers stood. Someone spotted Elizabeth Lee and Harriett Wrench in the crowd and shouted out to those seated "Get up you so-and-so's. There's Mrs Lee and Mrs Wrench left standing there - and they've each lost three lads".

There followed a bit of sheepish muttering and shuffling before chairs were made available for the two women. " John Hartley

Nice story John. I wonder whether it would have happened today.

On the other hand it is easy to forget that with each generation the standard of living has risen in materialistic and comfort terms. The lads in my school don't join the army (as many do coming from Army families) to escape the grinding 12 hours or more a day in the pits or factories; they join because they want to in spite of the inherent risks that means today. What is less positive is in how we deal with one another - socially I feel the UK is on a downward path - sad to see but it is the impression I get from a distance.

Jim

[John_Hartley]

I wonder whether it would have happened today.

No. Stockport Council wouldn't have the money for any chairs. Everyone would be standing.

[redorchestra]

Thanks, you've given me some interesting thoughts here and I will read up a bit to see if my opinion changes.

I can't get away from the thought that if the war was meant to curb German aggression, expansionism and militarism etc, then it failed as they had to do it all over again 20 years later. Of course I see this as a failure of the politicians rather than the people who had fought and died, but still I find it difficult to see the end of the Great War as much of a 'victory'. Recently I finished watching the 1960's BBC Great War series. The final episode dealing with the end of the war showed scenes of jubilation back with some triumphant music. I was expecting some qualifying remarks to end the series, about how so many things would be left unresolved resulting in the rise of the Nazis and WW2 - but instead it just ended on a high note! I found that really uncomfortable. Is this perhaps a pre-1960's view of the war? Maybe I have been infected with post-1960's views of the futility of war..

WW2 seemed to have much more of a definite end - the country was occupied and disarmed. WW1 to me seems to just fizzle out. I know the German army were in retreat, but they weren't completely routed. It seems bizarre to me the way the war just ended and they let the German army march away in good order, fully armed. I read a book recently which showed a picture of the German army returning to Berlin in December 1918. You could understand why some people at home might think the German army hadn't been properly defeated.

[salesie]

Thanks, you've given me some interesting thoughts here and I will read up a bit to see if my opinion changes.

I can't get away from the thought that if the war was meant to curb German aggression, expansionism and militarism etc, then it failed as they had to do it all over again 20 years later. Of course I see this as a failure of the politicians rather than the people who had fought and died, but still I find it difficult to see the end of the Great War as much of a 'victory'. Recently I finished watching the 1960's BBC Great War series. The final episode dealing with the end of the war showed scenes of jubilation back with some triumphant music. I was expecting some qualifying remarks to end the series, about how so many things would be left unresolved resulting in the rise of the Nazis and WW2 - but instead it just ended on a high note! I found that really uncomfortable. Is this perhaps a pre-1960's view of the war? Maybe I have been infected with post-1960's views of the futility of war..

WW2 seemed to have much more of a definite end - the country was occupied and disarmed. WW1 to me seems to just fizzle out. I know the German army were in retreat, but they weren't completely routed. It seems bizarre to me the way the war just ended and they let the German army march away in good order, fully armed. I read a book recently which showed a picture of the German army returning to Berlin in December 1918. You could understand why some people at home might think the German army hadn't been properly defeated.

Red, in my opinion you hit the nub of the matter - the very reason why when I say, "it was worth it" that I always qualify it with "but only bloody just".

What I mean is, German militarism had to be stood up to in 1914 otherwise the end result of Britain not getting involved would, in my opinion, have ultimately led to even greater catastrophe i.e. just like Nazism, the more we appeased German Militarism the more avaricious it would have become - growing stronger and bolder with every attempt to appease her. The time came to draw a line in August 1914 when Germany showed utter contempt for Belgian neutrality - David Lloyd George, not a warmonger by any means (as his strong opposition to the Boer War demonstrated), gave an excellent speech in September 1914 as to the reasons why Britain must fight. In this context, it was well worth it - what price Britain's integrity (and own security) if it hadn’t stood up to unbridled aggression on its own doorstep; fierce and unambiguous aggression against a close neighbour it had given its word to protect.

However, the "only bloody just" qualifier applies to the so-called peace after hostilities ended. The Human cost of WW1 was extremely high, but if we'd won the peace as well as the war then that price would have been well-worth it, but we didn't. We allowed a mish-mash of a treaty to come out of Versailles. Don't get me wrong, I understand the strong feelings that hostilities must end, understand the relief that the slaughter was over and must never be re-started, understand the strong reluctance to continue the fight and rout the German army all the way to Berlin - I can even understand the need for revenge, the strong feelings that Germany must pay, must make reparation for the economic disaster it had caused. But, what I can't understand is how they expected her to actually pay?

The Royal Navy's blockade had brought Germany to her knees economically, and been a prime reason for the socio-economic collapse that was a key element in her defeat. So, how could she make adequate reparation without assistance to recover economically? The Kaiser and his petty princelings did not flee from allied armies sweeping into Germany but from their own, half-starved people - the German people themselves said enough is enough. Surely, this was the glorious hope that we'd actually gone to war for - the enemy's own people saying no more. Surely, this was an ideal opportunity to nurture democracy in Germany? But what the Versailles treaty did was to make the situation inside Germany as bad if not worse than the war-time depravations that forced its people to rebel against militaristic rule - they were not given any breathing space at all, they were simply ground down even further. Democracy had no chance in post-war Germany - the lies of the National Socialists that the German Army was betrayed by politicians and was in fact un-defeated in the field and its promises of a new Germany must have seemed highly attractive.

Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but there were quite a few at the time questioning the sense of Versailles (only to be ignored) - unfortunately, they were the ones proved right.

I repeat - it was worth it, but only bloody just.

Cheers-salesie.

[redorchestra]

Thankyou salesie. I think you have more or less articulated the way I feel. It's such a terrible shame that after all the trauma and the grief, and all the lives expended that we should even be having this discussion. I wonder how the bereaved families must have felt when the Nazis came to power such a short time later and started banging the war drums.

[truthergw]

Was it worth it. Was what worth what? The question is vague and allows lots of answers. The men of the Great War were not fighting to establish conditions 90 years later. To that extent the question has no real meaning. Was a war to stop an absolute monarchy with rudimentary political representation becoming the supreme power in Europe worth it? Yes. The political developments after the war were unrelated to the war itself. The war merely gave one side the right to impose their terms on the other side. We perhaps ought to ask whether the Treaty of Versailles was as well thought out as it ought to have been. That is where the roots of later developments lie, not in the war which preceded it.

[salesie]

I'm sorry, Tom, but to say that Versailles and the later political developments emanating from it are not related to the war itself is, in my opinion, fundamentally unsound.

For sure, Versailles was the victor imposing its terms on the vanquished - and to my mind there seems no doubt that it was ill-conceived, and that there were several missed opportunities in later years to "put things right". But the later political development i.e. the rise of Nazism, had as much to do with the war itself as it did to the allies missing these opportunities. How could such evil have grown so powerful if the allies, particularly the British, had not been so appalled by the memory of the slaughter of WW1 that they tried to appease Hitler on so many occasions rather than take political/military action to drown his movement in its infancy? Why was Churchill crying in the wilderness?

The war itself cast a long shadow over everything - cause and effect did not stop in 1919; a new cause creating its own effects did not start with Versailles. To say that political events post-Versailles were nothing to do with war that preceded it is akin to saying that the development of the smallpox vaccine had nothing to do with the disease itself.

Cheers-salesie.

[truthergw]

What I was saying was that the question implied a direct connection between the War, the men and how it was fought with social and political conditions today. I think there have been many events since the war, starting with the Treaty and proceding through another world war, several large conflicts, Korea, Vietnam, political upheavals world wide. and so on and so on. Was it worth it, is not a question which can be usefully asked. What is the ' it' to which we are asked to attach a worth? I pointed out one outcome of the war which I believe some of the men would have recognised. A danger which was present in their day and which the war averted. I cannot speak for any of the men. I do know something of two of them though and believe they would have been gratified at that particular outcome. Was forcing the abdication of the Kaiser worthwhile in lives lost? Again I think the question ill posed. Men went to war to make the Kaiser supreme ruler in Europe with all that that implied in a global context. Men went to war to stop that happening. The latter succeeded. Was this a beneficial result? I say yes. Would my grandmothers have paid the price they did knowing that outcome? I do not know. Wars demand that men sacrifice their lives to gain a victory. Men go to war for an immediate and tangible result, not to influence social conditions 90 years down the line.

[salesie]

Tom, in my opinion the original "Was it worth it?" which started this thread, clearly implied there was something wrong with today's society and that the men who fought in WW1 would perhaps be dismayed at what they see now. The original question of course, for the reasons you state, is somewhat nonsensical in that it is based on modern perceptions of society today. However, it seems to me that because of the way this thread has developed then the "it" has changed to mean - Was it, for the those at that time, worth going to war in the first place?

Of course, to answer this "changed" question we have to exercise our own judgement totally on past events - but what kind of judgement would we be able to come to if we divorced events which were clearly linked and effected those alive at the time; effected them pre, during and post-war? I'm not talking about events ninety-years apart; I'm talking about events 1914 to 1939, some twenty-five years apart; a cause and effect scenario that many alive at the time would have endured in full.

For the reasons I stated earlier, I still believe "it" was worth it, but only bloody just.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Thankyou salesie. I think you have more or less articulated the way I feel. It's such a terrible shame that after all the trauma and the grief, and all the lives expended that we should even be having this discussion. I wonder how the bereaved families must have felt when the Nazis came to power such a short time later and started banging the war drums.

Not just the bereaved families, Red - how did the survivors of the trenches feel when waving off their sons to finish the job?

Cheers-salesie.

[truthergw]

Quite a few waved good bye as they set off for a second time.

[salesie]

Quite a few waved good bye as they set off for a second time.

To their eternal credit, Tom, to their eternal credit.

Cheers-salesie.

[Skipman]

Tom, in my opinion the original "Was it worth it?" which started this thread, clearly implied there was something wrong with today's society and that the men who fought in WW1 would perhaps be dismayed at what they see now. The original question of course, for the reasons you state, is somewhat nonsensical in that it is based on modern perceptions of society today. However, it seems to me that because of the way this thread has developed then the "it" has changed to mean - Was it, for the those at that time, worth going to war in the first place?

Of course, to answer this "changed" question we have to exercise our own judgement totally on past events - but what kind of judgement would we be able to come to if we divorced events which were clearly linked and effected those alive at the time; effected them pre, during and post-war? I'm not talking about events ninety-years apart; I'm talking about events 1914 to 1939, some twenty-five years apart; a cause and effect scenario that many alive at the time would have endured in full.

For the reasons I stated earlier, I still believe "it" was worth it, but only bloody just.

Cheers-salesie.

You are right salesie.I think the answers have outgrown the original question ,i just think the men who fought in ww1 would be disappointed at the way society has turned out.it was worthwhile as you say maybe "only just" .the question maybe wasn't framed well but it's generating a great debate.Am enjoying it.

[KJames]

Firstly I'd like to say how fascinating such a simple question has become and the moving poem from salesie in post 14. Here are some of my thoughts on the debate.

At the turn of the last century with so many momentous changes happening, aeroplanes, cars, movies, wireless etc people became less tied to their own locality and more able to find out about the wider world in which they lived.

Then, with the collapsing of one empire, the British, and at the end of a period of great prosperity but, as pointed out in earlier posts, a prosperity not so evenly spread across the social spectrum many people, by all accounts, and from all sides of the divide, greeted the onset of the First World War as a break from what was, for them, the tedium of the years that had preceded it.

Now again we have huge changes, this time wrought by computers, the internet, mobile and space technologies which have all changed irrevocably the way in which people live. We also live at the end of a time of prosperity but, yet again, have reached a point where past achievements are often taken as assumed, supposed that it will always be so, and as the last war involved a new power forcing the solution by coming down on one side, is it not possible that come 4th August 2014 the next great conflict between say, the West and the Middle East, at the diminishing of the American superpower will be kicking off only to be resolved many years and much material and social destruction down the line by the intervention of the next world leader at the dawning of its ascendency, China.

Therefore maybe the -was it all worth it- question has yet to be, and may even never be, fully answered. It might just be more a case of us making it our responsibility to make sure that it was worth it and will continue to be so by our present day actions keeping in mind the possible chain of events should some chauffer accidently take a wrong turning (maybe their garmin was clipped in upside down or something).

Ken

[salesie]

An interesting and thought provoking comparison, Ken, between the past, present and future. However, on this forum, for very good reasons, we must keep this debate focused on a specific area of the past. So, all I'll say about China is that it will almost certainly be heading for troubled times now that it has adopted virtually unbridled capitalism but retained a totalitarian government, I would say that the old battle-cry "No taxation without representation" will inevitably rear its head. This was the main cause of the English Civil War (religion just an excuse to rouse the masses), and, of course, the American War of Independence (in effect a continuation of the former conflict). The world will then become a much more dangerous place - the challenge being to keep China's internal strife within China.

Back to our own particular area of interest, and your comments that men were drawn to the army to relieve the tedium of everyday life. In my opinion, the main reason among several, why WW1 became "locked" in the British psyche above all other events was because, for the first time, the middle-classes became involved en-masse. The middle classes contained the "educated" ones, the ones with money, the ones with the power to access, and sometimes control, the mass media of the day, the ones whose point of view came over more than any other. And, in my opinion, this voice of middle-class outrage was not wholly representative of those who fought.

The evidence for this middle-class angst, I believe, lies in the poetry of WW1 - here's an extract from poems of the First World War, Never Such Innocence, by Martin Stephen:

"The relative ability of the First World War generals may be in question; the result of the war is not. The superbly trained British Expeditionary Force was all but wiped out in helping the French hold the Germans before the latter reached Paris. Many more angels, and devils too, were created at the Battle of Mons than were ever seen in the sky over the battlefield, but such early actions were mere skirmishes compared with the battles that were to follow.

Caught by surprise, Britain nevertheless managed to recruit and train the largest volunteer army in its history. Nearly 60,000 of these men were to become casualties on the first day of the Somme offensive in 1916. It is these men and this battle (actually a series of offensives launched over a number of months) that, ever since, have come to symbolise the war in the popular imagination. Weighted down with over 60 pounds of equipment, hundreds of thousands of troops went 'over the top', marching slowly forward in close-knit waves, in one instance kicking footballs ahead of them - all to be ripped apart by German rifle-and machine-gun fire. With the death of that army something went out of the heart of England. For many people the anguish and the truth about the First World War are forever symbolised by the work of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosen-berg, and the other famous 'trench poets'. So great is the association that, in Britain at least, the term 'war poets' can only be the poets of the Great War. Or so the story goes . ..

To question that image of the First World War is regarded nowadays almost as sacrilege. Yet even a cursory glance at history suggests that in our reaction to the war, we show a response quite out of proportion to the known facts. The Industrial, French and Russian revolutions arguably had more political impact. The Second World War cost far more lives in Europe and as a whole. A great many more of these lives were those of innocent civilians. The Second War forced a radical and persistently dangerous division of Europe. Most of all, the Second World War ended with the detonation of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it is true that a whole, tragic .generation was wiped out in the Great War, then the Second World War told us to prepare for a whole planet to be wiped out.

My own battle with the conventional image of the First World War started with a doctoral thesis on its poetry. My particular hero at the time was Isaac Rosenberg, who in the balmy days of 1972. could still be described as the undiscovered genius of the First World War. I carried into my research all the features that were, and possibly still are, the product of a standard education in English Literature at a standard British university. Doubts began to come at an early stage. My research task was to explore the links between pre-war poetry and that written in the First World War. The dominant group of poets in England, in the years before 1914 at least, was the Georgian Poetry move-ment, with Edward Marsh as its administrator and Rupert Brooke as its chief young star. There was a disturbing disparity between what the critics appeared to be saying the Georgians had written, and what was actually there on the pages of the anthologies which had spearheaded the movement. Partly out of literary interest, and partly because I was involved in some research into military history at the same time, I began to meet with and talk to survivors of the fighting in the First World War, the most prestigious of whom was the writer and historian Charles Carrington (author, under the name of Charles Edmonds, of A Subaltern's War), the most lowly a man who had served for a few weeks in the trenches with a Lancashire regiment.

The turning-point, for me, came in an interview with a Norfolk gentleman-farmer who had served for the whole war with the artillery. He listened carefully as I waxed enthusiastic about Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Yes, he agreed, they were fine men, and fine poets. But, he added, I was not to think that they were altogether representative. He asked if I watched the ceremonies on Armistice Day. Had I ever wondered what it was that drew those increasingly ancient men out of their beds, and made them re-unite every year at chronic risk to life and health? He was like them. He remembered the war with sadness, sometimes with repulsion, but more often with pride. They had taken on the most professional army in Europe, and beaten it in a fair fight. They had also taken on German militarism, and, in his opinion, if the politicians had not messed it up in 1918 there might have been no Second World War...

...Perhaps the prevailing impression left after twelve years of reading dusty volumes of First World War poetry in university libraries is that the voice we most commonly hear, and the one with which we are most familiar, is actually the voice of outraged middle-class protest.

The poets of the First World War who have achieved lasting fame were poets first, and soldiers a long way second. The recruiting, and, later, conscription, nets drew in men who in any previous ages, given their education and backgrounds, would never have thought of enlisting, and as a result many more of these, even allowing for the vast scale, were poets than had been the case in previous wars. In addition, the war itself caused the writing of poetry by men who would almost certainly not have done so otherwise. The absence of an equal body of poetry about the war at sea, as compared with the war on land and especially on the Western Front, is not because conditions for a stoker at Jutland or Scapa Flow were any less horrific than for a soldier in the trenches, but rather because the Royal Navy retained much more of a traditional intake during the war, and to have written poetry at Dartmouth then would be analogous to playing Jerry Lee Lewis at a harpsichord recital now. Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Edward Thomas, Robert Graves, and Edmund Blunden, like so many other poets of the war, came from an educated class with an awareness of literature. Their view of the war is admirable in both poetic and moral terms; it would, however, be wrong to assume that it is therefore typical or representative.

That familiar voice from the Great War is also the voice of the officers, something which is also true of some poetry which is occasionally hailed as being 'from the ranks'. Very often this proves to have been written by a middle-class mind which happened to be serving in the ranks, and which commented on the attitudes of the majority of the troops, rather than actually capturing them. Although trench life did sometimes breed a much closer understanding of the ordinary soldier on the part of the officers, there was at that time an unbridgeable gap between officers and men in all branches of the armed services. Owen did not wish to write anything to which a soldier might say 'no compris', but persistently did just that, and was horrified by the crudity and gross sentimentality of the ordinary soldier's attitude to the war. All this changed as more officers were promoted from the ranks, but in poetic terms the true voice of the infantryman is hard to find.

The most convenient image of Great War poetry is based on the shock-and-horror category of writing. It symbolises what in our national guilt we feel we ought to think about the First World War. It is gripping, immediate - and something of a cul-de-sac. It prompted W. B. Yeats's famous remark that passive suffering was not a fit subject for poetry, and Yeats was too shrewd a critic for the complaint not to have a germ of truth in it. In Edward Thomas's poetry, in the words of countrymen quoted in Ronald Blythe's Akenfield, and in a host of other writings, there is the feeling that, horrific as the war was, life still went on, the seasons were unchanging, and time and nature covered the scars of war.

To Owen and Sassoon the war was an outrage, a crime against decency, civilisation, and humanity. To the aristocrat and the farm- or factory-worker (though for very different reasons) the war sometimes did not seem quite so appalling. The aristo-cracy had been conditioned since before Norman times to exchange their privileges for military service, and that had always carried with it the risk of mutilation and death. Such conditioning helped form the officer caste of the Regular Army. At times Julian Grenfell welcomed the war with boyish glee, and with the realisation that active service was just like school, only he did not have to wash nearly as often. To the farm-worker, who lived under conditions of feudal deprivation which nowadays are only a bad dream, war may have been frightful, but not nearly so frightful as it was for those from sheltered backgrounds.

When rural happiness could sometimes be measured in terms of a full stomach, something to smoke and drink, reasonable health, and warm place to sleep, it took relatively little for the average infantryman to achieve a modicum of contentment in the Army, a fact frequently remarked on in tones of wonder by the essentially middle-class officers. The same often applied to the products of the industrial communities as well. Previous suffering did not make army life good; it made it more acceptable, in a way that Owen's poetry rarely conveys, for all his desire not to write anything to which a soldier might say 'no compris'."

Cheers-salesie.