Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Centenary Commemorations


charlesmessenger

Recommended Posts

There is so much flim-flam, theory, postulating and general pie-in-the-sky continuously emerging from historians and authors etc on a regular basis and very few if any of them as sometimes quoted on this forum actually deal with the reality of the situation as it was after war had been declared on the 4th August 1914. In the real world Germany invaded and subjugated most of Belgium and large tracts of France so what exactly was Britain supposed to do both to protect her own interests which would ultimately impact on of her citizens and to honourably stand by the treaties she had signed with her Allies.

There is so much written with the benefit (or other) of hindsight that the reality is lost in a fog of academic mumbo-jumbo which would no doubt be lost on 99.99% of the soldiers who served. I would very much like to see some of the authors address this issue but on past and present evidence it would not be sensible to hold your breath whilst waiting for such a response. I sadly think that the whole 2014 "commemorations" will evolve into a "they were all victims" of political correctness which will not be factually correct but a distorted view of the war which in my opinion will do a great disservice to all those who fought and suffered.

Regards

Norman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 09:47 AM

Chris_Baker, on 09 February 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

From the article Norman has linked:

"In a foretaste of potential arguments to come, Guthrie told the Guardian: "It was a totally unnecessary war. We slid into it unnecessarily. There were horrifying casualties. It was not the soldiers' fault, it was the politicians'." The way Europe was "carved up" in the treaty of Versailles at end of war was "disgraceful", he added.

Lord Guthrie is one of the people chosen to advise on the subject.

QUOTE:

I can understand people saying that about the Great War; I can understand people saying that about many wars. What I don't understand is why people say one thing about WW1 and something completely different about WW2 - they seem to exist in parallel worlds. You could make Guthrie's quote about the Second World War with good justification (ignore Versailles), but people don't. Why?

Anthony

END OF QUOTE.

Anthony,

do I understand you correctly?

Are you saying re WW2 (and ignoring Versailles) :

"It was a totally unnecessary war. We slid into it unnecessarily. There were horrifying casualties. It was not the soldiers' fault, it was the politicians'." ?

Kath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go this is my nomination for the worse "commemoration" event planned so far

Would, most definitely, have to disagree. Commemorating the Christmas truce will be commemorating one of the very rare acts of common humanity in the whole war. To my mind, It will sit extremely well with the other major commemorations. It is also likely to be one of the rare events where both Britons and Germans will remember together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would, most definitely, have to disagree. Commemorating the Christmas truce will be commemorating one of the very rare acts of common humanity in the whole war. To my mind, It will sit extremely well with the other major commemorations. It is also likely to be one of the rare events where both Britons and Germans will remember together.

Well said John - Would, most definitely, have to agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 09:47 AM

Anthony,

do I understand you correctly?

Are you saying re WW2 (and ignoring Versailles) :

"It was a totally unnecessary war. We slid into it unnecessarily. There were horrifying casualties. It was not the soldiers' fault, it was the politicians'." ?

Kath.

Let me clarify.

Was WW2 unnecessary (in that politicians should have prevented it) ? - almost certainly.

Was it worth fighting when the politicians had failed? - of course.

Personally, I wouldn't make Guthrie's statement about either world war. My point was that some people seem to apply completely different standards to the two wars.

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that some people seem to apply completely different standards to the two wars.

But surely that's a valid position for folk to take. The causes of the two wars were different, IMO, and the motivation for participation by Britain also different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking from a personal point of view, I thought Strachan made a lot of good points. Of course there's the national commemoration and then there will be the innumerable local commemorations by a wide variety of organisations. The tone of these will vary widely I suspect. As a museum curator, I'm always conscious of the need to inform/"educate", whilst not imposing my own views too much on the subject. Particularly tricky with such an emotive subject. Acknowledging that this was a world war is very important I think - of course many people will focus on the western front (which is probably where the greatest danger of falling into the cliche trap lies), but all the other campaigns need their voice. It's partly why when I was looking for a subject for our 2014 display I felt the Yeomanry in Palestine would be a fresh angle (and admittedly, I'd done a small display earlier and found the regiment's story fascinating!). As there are no veterans left to speak for themselves, any commemoration worth its salt should try to include a good cross section of contemporary views. Though I think the chronology of the conflict is important, a good sense of "what it was like" through the words of those who were there is what I'm going to try to aim for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely that's a valid position for folk to take. The causes of the two wars were different, IMO, and the motivation for participation by Britain also different.

I think there is a substantial argument to be made that from the time of Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71 and the Unification of the German States in 1871 there existed a certain inevitability about the prospect of a substantial continental war. If there-in lie the roots of WW1 then subsequently there-in also lie the roots of WW2 and probably the Cold War. These roots were begat by an expansionist Germany and were probably a matter of destiny once Germany experienced both industrialisation and population growth in the mid 1800's.

I think it's all linked. The periods of peace were actually times of re-groupings, pauses for breath and the bolstering of grudges and then, latterly, opportunities of provocation. None of the key countries achieved real national rebirths of thought, structure or idea in the 1920's or 30's. Britain and France remained as fading Empires and German and Russia merely replaced Imperialism with different versions of totalitarianism. America remained the same protective mercantile state it always has been. The Balkans changed little in nature across 150 years and the seeds of Arab and Muslem states remained in a condition of discontented foment.

My thoughts only, wouldn't attribute any wisdom to them but I certainly see WW1 and WW2 as catastrophes with a common cause.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Perhaps Guthrie was influenced by the late Sir John Keegan and his time at Sandhurst. Keegan argues it was an unnecessary war, especially for the United Kingdom, which was a common view in the English press in 1914.

I recently read at one sitting another Committee Member's latest WW1 fiction, Pat Barker's 'Toby's Room' as ever beautifully written descriptive prose, but

SPOILER ALERT

Main themes include incest, b***ery in the stable officer vs enlisted man, grassed up by villainous chaplain leading to inevitable suicide when sporting Germans refuse to do the job. As ever COs, Owen and Sassoon get a mention as does Virginia Woolf and the Charleston set.

Now, perhaps that's something to worry about :blush:

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a substantial argument to be made that from the time of Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71 and the Unification of the German States in 1871 there existed a certain inevitability about the prospect of a substantial continental war. If there-in lie the roots of WW1 then subsequently there-in also lie the roots of WW2 and probably the Cold War. These roots were begat by an expansionist Germany and were probably a matter of destiny once Germany experienced both industrialisation and population growth in the mid 1800's.

I think it's all linked. The periods of peace were actually times of re-groupings, pauses for breath and the bolstering of grudges and then, latterly, opportunities of provocation. None of the key countries achieved real national rebirths of thought, structure or idea in the 1920's or 30's. Britain and France remained as fading Empires and German and Russia merely replaced Imperialism with different versions of totalitarianism. America remained the same protective mercantile state it always has been. The Balkans changed little in nature across 150 years and the seeds of Arab and Muslem states remained in a condition of discontented foment.

My thoughts only, wouldn't attribute any wisdom to them but I certainly see WW1 and WW2 as catastrophes with a common cause.

Tim

'Inevitable' and 'destiny' - you will be saying that God willed it next. There is no evidence of German 'expansionism' in Europe. Germany was an integral part of the European/international order until the July crisis of 1914 when it could have done more to restrain Austria-Hungary instead of the Kaiser's blank cheque. Your post is an echo of the all Germans are bad Germans rubbish that we moved on from a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Inevitable' and 'destiny' - you will be saying that God willed it next. There is no evidence of German 'expansionism' in Europe. Germany was an integral part of the European/international order until the July crisis of 1914 when it could have done more to restrain Austria-Hungary instead of the Kaiser's blank cheque. Your post is an echo of the all Germans are bad Germans rubbish that we moved on from a long time ago.

Could not disagree with you more.

I've no idea where your knowledge of C19th century European History comes from but it's source is so divergent from my own I'm going to avoid a pointless argument.

Any 'rubbish' about stereotyping comes from your inference not my comment. As for the absence of German expansionism(by will or by action) I'm at a complete loss what to say so I won't, save to say what were they building that Navy for in 1900, boating ?.

I gave my opinions in response to a comment raised by John Hartley and there I propose to leave them.

Tim

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely that's a valid position for folk to take. The causes of the two wars were different, IMO, and the motivation for participation by Britain also different.

I don't think it's valid to apply different standards of analysis, interpretation, morality, etc. I think its fine to reach different conclusions about the two wars having applied the same standards. It seems you've probably reached different conclusions to me about the causes and motivations for Britain's involvement and I've no problem with that. What I was questioning was why the same issues and topics in the two wars are regularly portrayed in completely different ways.

Anthony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could not disagree with you more.

I've no idea where your knowledge of C19th century European History comes from but it's source is so divergent from my own I'm going to avoid a pointless argument.

Any 'rubbish' about stereotyping comes from your inference not my comment. As for the absence of German expansionism(by will or by action) I'm at a complete loss what to say so I won't, save to say what were they building that Navy for in 1900, boating ?.

I gave my opinions in response to a comment raised by John Hartley and there I propose to leave them.

Tim

.

Re naval issues...

Sir Francis Bertie ,assistant Under-secretary, Foreign Office, to Baron Herman von Eckardstein, March 1897….re the Transvaal. “Should it come to war with Germany the entire Engish nation would be behind it and a blockade of Hamburg and Bremen and the annihilation of German commerce on the high seas would be child’s play for the English fleet”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was questioning was why the same issues and topics in the two wars are regularly portrayed in completely different ways.

I would probably agree with you in that case. Taking, say, the subject of German aggression in both wars, I would not address that differently as an issue, even though I would take the view that the reasons for the aggression were different. Aggression would be aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the general tone of the commemoration planned so and the words of Lord Guthrie quoted on this thread can I propose a change to the planning Committee?

I suggest removing Hew Strachan, whose opinions as a historian will just serve to confuse the general public, who surely know all they need to know about WW1 from Blackadder, and replace him with a new member.

Paul McCartney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVK_mJrLbmY

WW1, football AND music. Kids will love it.

'Seb' Faulks, Pat Barker and Macca, the dream team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should also remember that the description "the unnecessary war" was applied by Basil Liddell Hart, who, unlike Lord Guthrie, Sir John Keegan or any of us, was actually there. Unnecessary perhaps, but probably inevitable in the sense that war between Germany and France, the latter supported by Russia, was likely to have happened anyway.

Whether or not Britain would inevitably have been drawn in is debatable. Had Germany not invaded Belgium, and thereby given Britain the casus belli, we would have been in a very difficult position, as we were not committed to assisting France but could hardly stand by and possibly watch her being overrun by Germany.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Inevitable' and 'destiny' - you will be saying that God willed it next. There is no evidence of German 'expansionism' in Europe. Germany was an integral part of the European/international order until the July crisis of 1914 when it could have done more to restrain Austria-Hungary instead of the Kaiser's blank cheque. Your post is an echo of the all Germans are bad Germans rubbish that we moved on from a long time ago.

Maybe i am missing something here, but what about Alsace and Iorraine, not to mention the Kaiser's colonial aspirations?

Hazel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point about Alsace Lorraine is that by 1914 it had been under German occupation for 53 years and the French showed no signs of doing anything about it. It was a by-product of the 1870-1 war and not part of some expansionist master plan. If you want to use colonialism as an example you have to condemn Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal etc. In the context of the time Germany was perfectly justifiable in seeking overseas territories although the rhetoric was far greater than the achievement. And to reiterate - there is no sign of German expansionism IN Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I totally agree with what you are saying about colonialism.

Where I differ is that I don't think that ' The French showed no signs of doing anything about it '( German occupation of Alsace-Lorraine). Wasn't the revanche for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine quite a powerful concept for some sections of French political opinion ?

Regards, Michael Bully

The point about Alsace Lorraine is that by 1914 it had been under German occupation for 53 years and the French showed no signs of doing anything about it. It was a by-product of the 1870-1 war and not part of some expansionist master plan. If you want to use colonialism as an example you have to condemn Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal etc. In the context of the time Germany was perfectly justifiable in seeking overseas territories although the rhetoric was far greater than the achievement. And to reiterate - there is no sign of German expansionism IN Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, I totally agree with what you are saying about colonialism.

Where I differ is that I don't think that ' The French showed no signs of doing anything about it '( German occupation of Alsace-Lorraine). Wasn't the revanche for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine quite a powerful concept for some sections of French political opinion ?

Regards, Michael Bully

Do anything about in practical terms. I agree it was a running sore and an inspiration for French revanchism, the Boulanger affair etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Alan, so do you think that by 1914 the political and military authorites in France had largely given up on having Alsace-Lorraine returned in the sense of being a realistic achievable goal?

I remember reading somewhere that Rauol Villain,who assasinated Socialist Leader jean Juares, was a member of League of Young Friends of Alsace-Lorraine......were they more of a fringe organisation or even a bunch of cranks- albeit dangerous ones ? I tried reading about French politics immediately before the Great War some 3-4 years ago, and found it a very complicated subject indeed.

Regards

Michael Bully

Do anything about in practical terms. I agree it was a running sore and an inspiration for French revanchism, the Boulanger affair etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought the Prussians had in the 19th century done there bit of expansion from the 1840s onwards up to 1871 then took a breather and began to look a bit further China , and the usual suspects .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...