AlanCurragh Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 Indeed - back to WW1 please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 I say again: I find myself agreeing with numbers 3,4,5,6,7,8, with no hint of exaggerations. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Could you be a mite clearer - are you saying that you agree and they are not myths or you agree that they are myths? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Please myth: I agree that they are myths. Or distortions. Or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin kenf48 Posted 22 January , 2014 Admin Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Anyone follow the link to the iWonder site http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3kgjxs Thought it was a jolly good show and if it's an example of what the BBC are going to do for the Centenary then bring it on! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 I agree that they are myths. Or distortions. Or wrong. It`s a matter of which definition of "myth" one adopts - a widely held but false belief, a traditional story, a misrepresentation of the truth, a fictitious or imaginary thing or an exaggerated or idealised conception. My point is that the general public may think them completely false or fictitious - not distorted. I see the Blessed Daniel sheds light on another aspect of history next week - "Dan Snow`s History of the Winter Olympics". Not just the ordinary history, you realize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 It`s a matter of which definition of "myth" one adopts - a widely held but false belief, a traditional story, a misrepresentation of the truth, a fictitious or imaginary thing or an exaggerated or idealised conception. My point is that the general public may think them completely false or fictitious - not distorted. I see the Blessed Daniel sheds light on another aspect of history next week - "Dan Snow`s History of the Winter Olympics". Not just the ordinary history, you realize! I think your definitions may need more work as there is considerable overlap. A traditional story may well be a misrepresentation of the truth and an exaggerated or idealised conception all at the same time. Just think of the image of the guy with the beard and red coat who has a (probably unhealthy) interest in children's bedrooms and stockings, breaks many laws of physics and yet is based on an historical figure in the form of a Turkish bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Definitions were taken from the New Oxford Dictionary of English! I quote them because there is overlap. That`s why it`s a matter of which definition you choose to use. The public may think that a myth is a complete fabrication. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Definitions were taken from the New Oxford Dictionary of English! I quote them because there is overlap. That`s why it`s a matter of which definition you choose to use. The public may think that a myth is a complete fabrication. Or not. Joe Public are not that thick (or at least many of them are not). If they can cope with the concept of an urban myth (which can encompass all of your definitions) they can manage to understand a WW1 myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Good news, by and large....a much needed anti dote to the Joan Littlewood and Alan Clarke school of thought. Didn't like the attempt to downplay the loss of life. The mortality of the Crimean and Napoleonic wars was hugely inflated by the fact that disease killed far more than enemy fire. This was not the case 1914-18. This time the vast, vast majority of soldiers were actually killed in battle, a feature which testifies to the enormous increase in the application of violence, in its scale, intensity and duration. Again, the mantra that the Civil War that rent the British people in the mid seventeenth century was more destructive of British life in proportionate terms needs to be viewed with more circumspection. That quibble notwithstanding, the thing meets with my approval. Phil (PJA) I agree re Civil War. However, the Great War is a testimony to the enormous advances in medical care in all its aspects in the early twentieth century - and just think what penicillin might have done. I knew a veteran (then aged 85) whose leg was saved by the Countess of Sutherland's hospital and their use of a drip of antiseptics on his hideously wounded leg. He could still manage on it seventy years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 I agree re Civil War. However, the Great War is a testimony to the enormous advances in medical care in all its aspects in the early twentieth century - and just think what penicillin might have done. I knew a veteran (then aged 85) whose leg was saved by the Countess of Sutherland's hospital and their use of a drip of antiseptics on his hideously wounded leg. He could still manage on it seventy years later. In all cases the state of medical care is irrelevant to the point in question, these wars were the ultimate cause of vast loss of life whether through microbes, starvation, the musket ball canister, the mine ball, shrapnel. machine gun rounds is irrelevant - dead is dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 A soldier who dies from dysentery is as dead as a soldier who is blown to bits by high explosive. Of course. Who could argue with that ? Yet the difference is relevant to the point in question. In the one case, a nation's manhood is decimated by disease. In the other, it is decimated by battlefield slaughter. The arithmetic is the same. The impact on society is very different. The Great War was transcendental in bringing industrialised killing to bear on humanity and that, in my view, is a good reason for differentiating it from previous conflicts. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 If the disease is caused by the war there is absolutely no difference - the war killed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 22 January , 2014 Share Posted 22 January , 2014 Time to recognise a dead horse, I think. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 23 January , 2014 Share Posted 23 January , 2014 If they can cope with the concept of an urban myth (which can encompass all of your definitions) they can manage to understand a WW1 myth Exactly - an urban myth is assumed to be totally false so the general public may assume Dan`s myths are also totally false - no grain of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 23 January , 2014 Share Posted 23 January , 2014 Exactly - an urban myth is assumed to be totally false No it isn't much more nuanced than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 23 January , 2014 Share Posted 23 January , 2014 A soldier who dies from dysentery is as dead as a soldier who is blown to bits by high explosive. Of course. Who could argue with that ? Yet the difference is relevant to the point in question. In the one case, a nation's manhood is decimated by disease. In the other, it is decimated by battlefield slaughter. The arithmetic is the same. The impact on society is very different. The Great War was transcendental in bringing industrialised killing to bear on humanity and that, in my view, is a good reason for differentiating it from previous conflicts. Phil (PJA) DID WE LOSE ONE IN TEN, THEN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 23 January , 2014 Share Posted 23 January , 2014 Yes, Phil(PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 23 January , 2014 Share Posted 23 January , 2014 Time to recognise a dead horse, I think. Phil (PJA) If the disease is caused by the war there is absolutely no difference - the war killed them. Yes to both! H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margaretdufay Posted 23 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 23 January , 2014 Reading all the different postings, is it maybe time to close this? mags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth505 Posted 24 January , 2014 Share Posted 24 January , 2014 Yes... What is everybody talking about now? 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