NigelS Posted 5 May , 2013 Share Posted 5 May , 2013 Article in today's Sunday Telegraph (5th May) Click - don't think it's already been mentioned - the usual wide range of informed & uninformed comments... Also a piece on the restoration of the Cenotaph Click NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 5 May , 2013 Share Posted 5 May , 2013 I fear we have already had a set of parallel ill tempered rants --- well balanced and polite discussions on the first of these topics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 5 May , 2013 Share Posted 5 May , 2013 Thanks for posting this Nigel. Have only read it through briefly but thought that the article highlighted the ongoing debate quite fairly. And was pleased to see that the WFA got a mention. I imagine that the expression 'triumphalism' will emerge on a frequent basis. Regards Michael Bully Article in today's Sunday Telegraph (5th May) Click - don't think it's already been mentioned - the usual wide range of informed & uninformed comments... Also a piece on the restoration of the Cenotaph Click NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel9 Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin14 Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Note other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 6 May , 2013 Share Posted 6 May , 2013 Define "win" in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 Not losing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 Yes we did win the First World War but it was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory with very little to cheer about in the post war years of economic difficulty and social strife. Also the German people were persuaded that they did not lose and they decided to have another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 OK, but given that the armies had very little involvement in the peace terms, is it not right that the contributions (in this case the British/Dominion/Imperial army, AKA the BEF, BMF, etc etc) should be given its rightful place in the commemorations? I quite agree that consequences and impact also have to be considered as well, but if, for the moment for the sake of argument, one considers commemorating the military aspect, then there does seem to be a gap in what is being proposed. For example, is anyone considering the centenary of the foundation of the RAF, the Italian campaign etc., over and above campaigns within the war that are seemingly going to be overlooked the most significant of which would be the Hundred days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 I have a feeling that these attempts to persuade the powers-that-be to include coverage of, amongst others, the Hundred Days is all too little and all too late. The battle has not been fought hard enough, and things not shouted loudly enough, for 50 years or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 7 May , 2013 Share Posted 7 May , 2013 This debate is very much like that Haig debate. I have my own views - the Germans were the aggressors, we won the Great War - in collaboration with allies, and I approve of Haig as a man, soldier and leader. I no longer bother to debate with the other side, since if you argue with the ignorant or the idiot , you merely win or loose an argument with the ignorant or the idiot. I shall simply go on doing my own thing in my own way during the centenary years and let the vested interests get on with it without me even attempting to notice their foolishnesses . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew pugh Posted 14 May , 2013 Share Posted 14 May , 2013 Good evening All. Am I right in saying that General Pershing wanted to defeat the German Army in the field,but the terms of the armistice said otherwise, and if he had got his way and defeated the German Army,would the German Generals have had the will to start re-arming later for ww2. Also if the French had not pushed so hard for war reperations for the damage caused by the German Army which in turn crippled the German economy causing great unrest in Germany would Cpl Hitler have rose to power. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Pigott Posted 15 May , 2013 Share Posted 15 May , 2013 Yes we did win the First World War but it was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory with very little to cheer about in the post war years of economic difficulty and social strife. Also the German people were persuaded that they did not lose and they decided to have another go. I think all major wars are to a large extent 'Pyrric victories' and there was certainly little to cheer about in post WW2 Europe. One major difference is that in WW2 the allies 'followed through' and the destruction and rebuilding of Germany prevented it 'having a go' a third time. However in 'winning' WW2, we ended up replacing one threat with another one and although the Cold War fortunately never became 'hot' for us (though perilously close at times), the casualties from the many proxy wars that did take place probably add up to a figure comparable to the two world wars. Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Grundy Posted 15 May , 2013 Share Posted 15 May , 2013 Who won the war? Who won (or lost) the peace? Two very different debates. No-one can - ok, should - argue that the war was won militarily by the Entente. What happened afterwards....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Birch Posted 15 May , 2013 Share Posted 15 May , 2013 Yes we did win the First World War but it was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory with very little to cheer about in the post war years of economic difficulty and social strife. Also the German people were persuaded that they did not lose and they decided to have another go. Well said!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth Digger Posted 29 May , 2013 Share Posted 29 May , 2013 Our (aliied) soldiers, sailors and airmen won the war, our politicians lost the peace. No wonder Lloyd Goat and Churchill had to vilify Haig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charpoi Warrior Posted 29 May , 2013 Share Posted 29 May , 2013 That would be an ecumenical matter . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Tucker Posted 29 May , 2013 Share Posted 29 May , 2013 Re Post 10...Also the German people were persuaded that they did not lose and they decided to have another go. Generalisation of the year/decade/century!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin14 Posted 29 May , 2013 Share Posted 29 May , 2013 Good evening All. Am I right in saying that General Pershing wanted to defeat the German Army in the field,but the terms of the armistice said otherwise, and if he had got his way and defeated the German Army,would the German Generals have had the will to start re-arming later for ww2. Also if the French had not pushed so hard for war reperations for the damage caused by the German Army which in turn crippled the German economy causing great unrest in Germany would Cpl Hitler have rose to power. Regards Andy To your first point, maybe, perhaps Pershing could also have moved faster to get his troops into battle as well. Second, reparations at the end of hostilities were perfectly normal for previous wars, so it was nothing special for the French to demand them. Indeed, their initial demands were much much more severe than what was finally agreed to. Both Lloyd George and Wilson had many arguments with Clemenceau prior to the Peace Treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctord84 Posted 29 May , 2013 Share Posted 29 May , 2013 "The World is a wonderful place and worth fighting for....I believe in the second part of the statement" (Hemingway allegedly). Personally (not wearing my curatorial hat), the 1919 cartoon with the child weeping under the words "1940 class" says it all for me. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the war, whether you think there was a "winner" or not, the fact that humanity did it all over again only two decades later suggests some serious failings with the peace process, although that of course is not the whole story by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snapperxv Posted 31 May , 2013 Share Posted 31 May , 2013 I feel the war was lost to academics in the 60's, and until very recently to have a view disimilar to their interpretation and (in some cases) invention was to be branded imperialist, militaristic, unacademic and be labelled a revisionist historian with all the negative associations that go with such that designation. In 1994 It was made clear to me that if I persisted in my choice of dissertation (were the men of the Great War betrayed by histoians?) there would have been no question of me attaining my degree. I changed my whole dissertation to a different area, I, for one, did not have the means or courage to challenge the accepted academic norms. That's my rant over chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now