Martin Bennitt Posted 9 September , 2013 Share Posted 9 September , 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/anti-war-activists-ww1-centenary?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 This piece was given a full page spread in The Guardian this morning, and the paper's website is asking for readers' comments. I found Brian Eno's remarks somewhat simplistic -- like it or not the conflict is really "part of our national heritage", as it is for all the nations that took part. It may have been unnecessary and not very glorious, but the statement that it "destroyed a generation" is questionable -- but I'm all for the commemoration involving as many people and shades of opinion as possible. cheers Martin B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 Interesting that the British government funds such a large sum to the anti-war activists. They, the government, wish to be an honest broker amidst the parties, but in reality cannot decide . So they spread tax payer money to both sides..... I read ALL comments below the Guardian article with much interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 An interesting development shall we say. Thanks for posting. Interesting to read the comments to the article and how polarised opinion is getting. I respect the right to conscientious objection but think that Britain and the Empire had to fight in 1914, so will keep an eye open for the 'No Glory' activity but from a distance ! Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John(txic) Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 Reading the Comments on a story on the Guardian website can be quite an experience - much ignorance, spite and venom (so unlike here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin spof Posted 10 September , 2013 Admin Share Posted 10 September , 2013 Good to see the PPU get some money to publicise a little known aspect of the war. Not my area of interest but it is just as important as any other part. Does anyone know anything about the "executed conscientious objector"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandy hall Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 At the bottom of the article is a piece about corrections added today • This article was amended on 10 September 2013 to correct the number of conscientious objectors in the first world war from 6,000 to 16,000 and to clarify that conscientious objectors were not executed. Some were court martialled and sentenced to death, but the sentences were immediately commuted. Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin spof Posted 10 September , 2013 Admin Share Posted 10 September , 2013 Thanks Mandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnumbellum Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 To be precise, in June 1916 42 conscientious objectors were taken to France, to be court-martialled in the Boulogne area, instead of at the barracks in Britain where they had been held. Of the 42, 35 were formally sentenced to death, but immediately reprieved, the sentences being commuted to ten years penal servitude. In April 1919 the sentences were further commuted to time already served, and the men were released. The errors in the Guardian were made by the author, not by the PPU. Whereas the Guardian has acknowledged and corrected the errors, the Times today chose to repeat the error about conscientious objectors being executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 10 September , 2013 Share Posted 10 September , 2013 Magnumbellum, you have served your time, paid your dues, and established yourself as a highly respected member of the forum and advocate of the CO cause. Is it not about time that you 'came out' as the archivist of the PPU, to whom you so often refer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 11 September , 2013 Share Posted 11 September , 2013 The horrors of WW1 should have dispelled the idea that war was glorious and it was advantageous to the winners. Unfortunately, the politicians in the post WW1 era failed to see this and failed, despite the introduction of the League of Nations, to ensure there would be no future wars. They failed to address the rise of the Dictators and even those countries who gained economically from WW1 were eventually plunged into economic depression. Ironically this was partially overcome because of another global conflict. I believe that any commemorations for WW1should reflect these failiures but not without recognising the bravery of the individuals who participated and the sacrifice made by many throughout the world. This should include those who believed war was wrong and chose not to take part and suffered for their belief. The "No Glory" lobby have, I believe definitely got one thing wrong in saying WW1 was not part of our heritage. They seem not to understand the meaning of heritage and that WW1 was a part of and influence on the heritage of those who actively participated as much as the development of Democracy or the Industrial Revolution are on Britain (and the rest of the world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadog Posted 11 September , 2013 Share Posted 11 September , 2013 Quote from the above post "They failed to address the rise of the Dictators" Just out of interest how would that have worked?. Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 11 September , 2013 Share Posted 11 September , 2013 Gosh I hadn't thought that our MB is really the PPU archivist ! Always welcome Magnus Bellum's expertise, particularly when there is a CO related thread. Whether they choose to reveal their non-cyber identity is their perogative. And also found the PPU archivist very helpful. Regards, Michael Bully Magnumbellum, you have served your time, paid your dues, and established yourself as a highly respected member of the forum and advocate of the CO cause. Is it not about time that you 'came out' as the archivist of the PPU, to whom you so often refer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard_Lewis Posted 11 September , 2013 Share Posted 11 September , 2013 Let's see what Magnumbellum says. He has the right to say nothing, of course.. Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelS Posted 11 September , 2013 Share Posted 11 September , 2013 Interesting that the British government funds such a large sum to the anti-war activists. They, the government, wish to be an honest broker amidst the parties, but in reality cannot decide . So they spread tax payer money to both sides..... I read ALL comments below the Guardian article with much interest. From the HLF Website (Click) We are officially known as a ‘non-departmental public body’. This means that, although we are not a government department, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issues financial and policy directions to us, and we report to Parliament through the department. Our decisions about individual applications and policies are entirely independent of the Government. Since first reading about this in the paper this morning the story, according to the latest on the Telegraph's website Click , has, with an offer of assistance from the DIY chain B&Q, moved on it seems. Whilst the position of conscientious objectors during WW1 should not be forgotten, it certainly should not detract from the commemoration of the many more men of all nationalities who made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives; Personally - and I suspect that the majority of Forum members feel the same way - I certainly wouldn't want to see any events that glorify or celebrate war during the centenary, that is not what it should be about. NigelS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 12 September , 2013 Share Posted 12 September , 2013 This campaign is laughably unnecessary. Since the existing, long-established popular view of the war is that it was utterly futile, horrific slaughter anyone trying to 'glorify' it during the centenary commemorations would be wasting their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high wood Posted 12 September , 2013 Share Posted 12 September , 2013 What do you expect if you read the Guardian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 12 September , 2013 Share Posted 12 September , 2013 Quote from the above post "They failed to address the rise of the Dictators" Just out of interest how would that have worked?. Norman You raise a valid point and my truthful answer is "I don't really know" however Mussolini. Hitler and militarism in Japan sprung from dissatisfaction with the way they were treated postwar by the main allied powers GB, France and the USA. The Italians got very little in the distribution of former German colonies, the Versailles treaty was a root cause of the rise of Hitler and although Japan received some former German Colonies in the Pacific the USA seeing the potential threat from japan in this area connived to isolate them and insulted them by insisting on a Japanese navy that would be smaller than the USN & RN. There was an half hearted attempt to stop the Bolsheviks in Russia by GB and the USA but once it was realised that the White Russian opposition was basically weak and incapable of victory they pulled out. this is not surprising considering GB had just fought an expensive four year war both in casualties and national wealth; post WW1, isolationism was gaining momentum in the USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 18 September , 2013 Share Posted 18 September , 2013 Don't know whether this Mirror article , dated 15Sep has been posted already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 18 September , 2013 Share Posted 18 September , 2013 The best thing is to adopt a permanent air of disdain to 'slebtalk' in all these matters. Particularly people like Bonio and his ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooge1 Posted 18 September , 2013 Share Posted 18 September , 2013 There will be more disagreements over how to remember the Great War than there were disagreements between nations in the run up to the Great War! However one things for sure whether you like it or not; it is part of our heritage and how could it not be?? Bit of a stupid ignorant statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 21 September , 2013 Share Posted 21 September , 2013 Reflecting upon this thread: Ultimately if pals say 'We Will Remember Them' -does that mean we as individuals uphold this in our own lifespan ? Or are we wanting to ensure that our wider community remembers the sacrifices made during the Great War? To me it's each and every pal's own choice. . Personally I am interested in wider commemoration in my own community, So realise that if I want people whose interest is in the Great War is casual to take notice, then that is going to mean all sorts of initiatives,including projects that I don't feel much of an affinity with. I get inpatient with the emphasis on celebrity opinion, just because someone is talented in the creative arts doesn't me that they have a particularly insight into history (!) but these are the people who to some extent direct media focus.and stimulate wider interest in a range of subjects. Regards Michael Bully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb phillips Posted 24 September , 2013 Share Posted 24 September , 2013 I'm always concerned when modern groups step in and campaign for history to be remembered in a particular way. Those who control the past control the present, etc. This quote rather worried me: "The government's advisory board for the commemoration includes the authors Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks, MPs and former senior military figures." They don't see the need for a historian then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCurragh Posted 24 September , 2013 Share Posted 24 September , 2013 They don't see the need for a historian then? Prof Huw Strachan is on the advisory board - I thought there was another historian, but I can't recall who Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb phillips Posted 24 September , 2013 Share Posted 24 September , 2013 I was sure there would be, but it just struck me as a a bit typical of how some people view this event - a political / emotional response first, facts second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin spof Posted 24 September , 2013 Admin Share Posted 24 September , 2013 The original members of the panel can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-war-i-centenary-culture-secretary-maria-miller-names-first-members-of-advisory-group-to-oversee-plans I don't know if there have been any changes though. 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