Great War Overkill?

[Paul67]

Well it seems as though the UK is experiencing 'centenary fatigue' in a manner that hasn't hit here yet. We could do with more media coverage that heightens awarness of events beyond Gallipoli (which unfortunately often seems to be the extent of many Australians understanding of the war).

Most of our centenary commemorations are to take place in 2015 overlooking our first action against the German garrison in Rabaul in Sept 1914.

Many Australians have only taken an interest in the war through researching their own family history and in general have remained ignorant of the bigger picture which hopefully may change with these comming events.

[Ghazala]

I must say say Paul that over the years I have met a great many Australians on The Somme mainly around Poziers. Some of them have had a good knowledge of The Great War. Although, as you say, a lot of them were researching their own family members. I have sung many "Aussie" songs in Le Tommy Cafe with them. Long may it continue.

[David Filsell]

Not simply a waste of intellectual space as the term 'counter-factual' underlines. Incidentally I have heard one military historian describe Fergusson as the worst historian in the history of history - no names no pack- drill

[Guest exuser1]

So for years not a great deal of intrest in the Great War ,along comes the next 4 years and its the 'IN' thing to complain of all the books ,tv possible movies and every thing else ,all i can say is lay back and enjoy, pick up all the remainded books in the Works and Naval and Military , laugh at all the politicos and the gaffs, wait for the cheap dvds on Amazon and stop moaning.

[phil andrade]

On the positive side, I've been listening to banter in the local gym. Football is the main topic that is being discussed relentlessly. There has been a change in the last week... some lively chat about Paxman and his documentary, and people really do show interest.

The Great War is capturing the imagination of people who would never normally give it a thought.

As to whether this will be sustained for several years...well, that's another matter.

Phil (PJA)

[Hollytree]

So for years not a great deal of intrest in the Great War ,along comes the next 4 years and its the 'IN' thing to complain of all the books ,tv possible movies and every thing else ,all i can say is lay back and enjoy, pick up all the remainded books in the Works and Naval and Military , laugh at all the politicos and the gaffs, wait for the cheap dvds on Amazon and stop moaning.

I used to be a cub leader in the 70 & 80s, and one of our annual events was Armistice Day, and I had the job of cajolling 8 & 9 year olds to attend the parade knowing full well that the boys didn't really appreciate what they were standing in the cold on a November day for.... we were there with the British Legion and little else. So I think that all the publicity allbeit sometimes not completely unbiased, accurate, or perhaps as correct as it could be (especialy for you experts here) is far preferable to the apathy that I witnessed in those days

Anne

[Coldstreamer]

Lots of programs means more choice so Im all for it

[MichaelBully]

Indeed, Agree with the last few comments. Particularly with Anne's point in post #84.....re 'apathy'. Regards, Michael Bully .

Lots of programs means more choice so Im all for it

[Guest]

" Germany, I apologise for this sickening avalanche of first world war worship "

Did you see Simon Jenkins' in The Grauniad 30/1/2014

Mike

[Guest exuser1]

Can we send him in to no mans land with a white feather? news stands crammed full of magazines?

[David Ridgus]

" Germany, I apologise for this sickening avalanche of first world war worship "

Did you see Simon Jenkins' in The Grauniad 30/1/2014

Mike

He ends the piece with the question 'Can we really not do history without war?' To which the answer is, 'No of course you can't!'

I've admired Simon Jenkins' writing for many years. This article is a real disappointment.

David

[keithmroberts]

My question is "Can we not do the Great War without television?

To which my reply is definitely in the affirmative.

Keith

[Dust Jacket Collector]

What utter tosh the article is. And where did he get his figures from. I seem to have missed at least 7950 of the books being published on the War.

[David Ridgus]

Interesting letter in The Times today...

British reasons for entering the First World War included the fear that Germany would acquire a Napoleonic dominance over Europe

Sir, I read with interest Professor Ferguson’s thesis (Jan 31) that Britain’s entry into the First World War was “the greatest mistake in our history”, but with respect, this is not a matter about which either he or any other historian is qualified to judge.

Historians can and should explain to us what happened and why. To judge what should have happened is beyond our field of professional competence.

The British government, and people, entered the war for a variety of reasons, but chief among them was the fear that if Germany won the war and acquired a Napoleonic dominance over Europe she would set about building a fleet that would enable her to challenge Britain as a world power and destroy her empire in what the kaiser described as a “Second Punic War”.

They may have been wrong in this assumption, but there was plenty of evidence to indicate that this was the intention of powerful elements in the German ruling classes, with the kaiser at their head.

Whether, in the event of continental victory, Germany could or would have gone on to launch such a war is a hypothesis unprovable by historians or anyone else. But it was a very reasonable assumption for the British to make in 1914, and who are we, historians or anyone else, to say that they were wrong?

Sir Michael Howard

Eastbury, W Berks

Sir Michael Howard - now there is a great historian. At 91 he can still demolish Ferguson's argument as elegantly as this.

David

[Mark Hone]

Simon Jenkins has written some strange pieces about Historical matters. A few years ago he devoted a column in the Times to a lament about how all this irrelevant medieval and Tudor stuff was taught to kids instead of recent events to which they could relate. Very odd, not to day patronising, I thought for the head of the National Trust and a bloke who's written books on visiting old churches etc. To cap it all, there was an article in the Times in the very same week in which another writer bemoaned the fact that all children seemed to be taught about at school was Hitler!

[David Filsell]

Re Jenkins and Ferguson - they simply do what journos and self publicists of their water do do. Write to burnish thei own self importance regardless of what? -.. almost anything else.

[Sue Light]

This thread is about 'Overkill' and I think that there will be many people who agree with Simon Jenkin's first paragraph, if not the whole item:

I must apologise to the Germans. They are about to suffer an avalanche of often sickening Great War memorabilia, largely at their expense. It will be the British at their worst: sanctimonious, self-congratulatory, worshipping at the tomb of the unknown, awful German. The centenary of the first world war is already flooding the television schedules before the date of its outbreak (in autumn 1914). History bestseller lists focus on little else: there are no fewer than 8,000 titles on the subject. War magazines cram newsstands. Churches will fill with candles for the fallen. Children carry flowers "of reflection and remembrance". The horror, the mistakes, the cruelty, the crassness of war will be revived over and over again, "lest we forget".

Sue

[Seadog]

Simon who?

Just found out who this person is:

Simon Jenkins is a journalist and author. He writes for the Guardian as well as broadcasting for the BBC. He has edited the Times and the London Evening Standard and is chairman of the National Trust. His latest book is England's Hundred Best Views.

Is his view any more or less relevant than anyones?, I think not if his latest book is anything to go by seems like he is just trying to make an impact with the rubbish he is writing!

Norman

[Guest exuser1]

The most intresting bit on Mr Jenkins was is ex Mrs Gayle Hunnicut who was married to David Hemmings back in 1968 whos first child was called Nolan ,now theres a decent pub quiz question

[glosterman]

Re Jenkins and Ferguson - they simply do what journos and self publicists of their water do do. Write to burnish thei own self importance regardless of what? -.. almost anything else.

A charge that could also be made against a few posters on the GWF!

I do not agree with Mr Jenkins but he has a right to his opinion. As they say:

'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it'

KH

[Steven Broomfield]

GUEST, I am led to believe.

I am a great fan of Sir Simon Jenkins: he frequently writes pieces with which I vehemently disagree; equally he often writes pieces with which I vehemently agree. His writing is always well-made and thoughtful and - most importantly - he writes what he believes. He also writes to court and spark debate.

Hate to say it, but if I were to be forced to choose between Norman seadog and Sir Simon as a thought-provoking writer, I'd plump for Sir Simon.

[Sue Light]

Quite

[MelPack]

Having read this thread, I am astonished by some of the comments about 'overkill' made by those with an evident deep interest in the First World War but, then again ........... I suspect that much of the churlishness is prompted less by the volume of coverage and more by the fact that it does not reflect the prevailing orthodoxy that has congealed as Holy Writ on this Board in the past decade - namely:

1. Everybody else's perception of the war has been distorted and misinformed by the malevolent influence of the war poets, Oh What a Lovely War, Blackadder and the practitioners of the dark arts of 'donkeyism'
2. Haig was a demi god and brilliant tactician
3. The British army underwent a learning curve (albeit at a pace that would embarrass someone with an educational disabily) that eventually resulted in it defeating the German army in the last hundred days with the Allies only playing an incidental role.

Roll on more overkill !

Your starter for ten.

[Guest exuser1]

Well said.

[hazelclark]

Having read this thread, I am astonished by some of the comments about 'overkill' made by those with an evident deep interest in the First World War but, then again ........... I suspect that much of the churlishness is prompted less by the volume of coverage and more by the fact that it does not reflect the prevailing orthodoxy that has congealed as Holy Writ on this Board in the past decade - namely:

• Everybody else's perception of the war has been distorted and misinformed by the malevolent influence of the war poets, Oh What a Lovely War, Blackadder and the practitioners of the dark arts of 'donkeyism'
• Haig was a demi god and brilliant tactician
• The British army underwent a learning curve (albeit at a pace that would embarrass someone with an educational disabily) that eventually resulted in it defeating the German army in the last hundred days with the Allies only playing an incidental role.

Roll on more overkill !

Your starter for ten.

I wondered, in that you are obviously a long time member, why I had never heard of you. Having read your post, I now know why. Having said that, it seems that things may be improving. I find most people fairly rational nowadays.

Hazel