Revisionist

[Muerrisch]

As the massive majority of the population are still in the "butchers and bunglers" camp this must mean the likes of John Terraine are still revisioinists.

Quite so. And an earlier contribution supposes that in the 1920's there was a pro-war sentiment? Really? I am incredulous. Any evidence?

I propose that [this is a short hand] for the sake of an agreed yardstick,

the "Lions led by Donkeys" believers are 'LLBD' people,

that those against are 'Revisonists',

and those either bored by it all, or fence-sitters, are labelled 'agnostics'.

So, hands up out there, show your cards, I am an agnostic with Revisionist sympathies.

[Muerrisch]

Word was revisionists, speling on sundae is por.

[Alan Lines]

I am an agnostic with Revisionist sympathies.

Langley you seem to make a lot of comments on subjects you claim to be "agnostic" about

Personally I'm still strongly a LLBD man.

[Muerrisch]

Langley you seem to make a lot of comments on subjects you claim to be "agnostic" about

Now, am I touchy, or was that a little confrontational?

In reply, even agnostics are, one assumes, allowed to debate religion. In this context, to say "a plague on both your houses" is surely legitimate. Or are only committed protagonists allowed a voice? Sorry I spoke.

[Clive Maier]

... And an earlier contribution supposes that in the 1920's there was a pro-war sentiment?  Really?  I am incredulous.  Any evidence? ...

Bond for example, holds this view. This is an extract from his 1997 Liddell Hart lecture which appears to be the precursor of the lectures that form the basis of his book The Unquiet Western Front:

Why then have these remarkable achievements by what was essentially an amateur and largely conscript Army been obscured in the public consciousness by the notion of unrelieved horror, disillusionment and futility? The outpouring of a flood of 'disenchanted' and even bitter war literature in the late 1920's and early 1930's was certainly influential in some quarters, but several critics, including myself, have challenged the definition, depth and extent of 'anti-war' sentiments regarding the First World War. firstly, bitter individual memoirs, mainly by sensitive intellectuals , did not represent what the vast majority of ordinary soldiers or their relatives felt about the war, or what they read. Secondly, the influence of the best-known 'war poets' at that time was by no means as important as is now assumed. Wilfred Owen's published verse had achieved only very modest sales by 1930 and, on this criterion, even the readership of poets like Sassoon and Rosenberg was minute - in comparison with the consolatory poets such as John Oxenham, the Rev G A Studdert Kennedy ('Woodbine Willy') and Robert Service. During the war, for example, Oxenham's verses sold in hundreds of thousands and his 'Hymn for the men at the Front' - sold seven million. It is not difficult to understand why these versifiers were vastly more popular than poets of a much higher literary calibre. As Martin Stephen sums up:

'In their different ways Oxenham and Woodbine Willy told those who read them that this was a war for decency and peace, and that suffering and salvation had ever been allied in the form of a young man nailed to a cross. Service told them that to fight was both the decent and manly thing to do, and brought a sense of humour to telling the tale'.

Thirdly, and even more damaging to the literary myth, scholars such as Hugh Cecil and Rosa Maria Bracco have shown that the bulk of middlebrow fiction cannot be construed in any way as 'anti-war'. 'It is often forgotten', Cecil writes, 'that this early wave of patriotic war books enjoyed far more acclaim than any of the later 'disenchanted' British war novels, such as Richard Aldington's Death of a Hero, 1929...Book for book, the British public over a thirty year period...seem to have preferred the patriotic to the disenchanted type of war book'. Cecil goes on to make the case that these best-selling novels by V M Yeates, Richard Blaker and others now largely forgotten, were welcomed by ex- combatants because they 'told the truth about the war' and are consequently still valuable for contemporary students of the conflict.

[Muerrisch]

No no. I am content that Bond [who I respect] himself appears to hold that view. I meant "what evidence is there that the pro-war sentiment existed in the immediate post-war period?". To say that 'Bond says so' is no more impressive than a LLBD man leaning on Winter, for example. We know what the protagonists of both sides have to say, but, as they cannot surely both be right, where and what is the primary and contemporary evidence?

One thought keeps returning. The widespread and well accepted phenomenon of many old soldiers who were reluctant to tell their war stories suggests at least a sentiment that could be construed as, shall we say, not pro war.

[David Seymour]

As the veterans become fewer it is inevitable that the TV progs on the Great War have to wheel out the same ones but this was not always the case as the 1964 BBC series shows. Also one might consider the testimony which appears in a variety of books on the war, not least those of Lyn Macdonald. Therefore, by what yardstick can we effectively measure the reluctance of old soldiers to tell their stories, and by what measure do we assess the significance of that reluctance?

Regards,

David

[Muerrisch]

By definition, those willing to be interviewed, or to write their stories, were not among the unwilling. But [and I have not analysed this] they do not come over as "all for it" ie "pro-war".

In my extended family, I knew half a dozen who had served. The war was out of bounds as a subject and, if broached, provoked tears, regrets for lost friends, and a decidedly not pro-war stance. It seems to me that to be pro war is to know little about it.

[Clive Maier]

No no.  I am content that Bond [who I respect] himself appears to hold that view.  I meant "what evidence is there that the pro-war sentiment existed in the immediate post-war period?".  To say that 'Bond says so' is no more impressive than a LLBD man leaning on Winter, for example.  We know what the protagonists of both sides have to say, but, as they cannot surely both be right, where and what is the primary and contemporary evidence?

One thought keeps returning.  The widespread and well accepted phenomenon of many old soldiers who were reluctant to tell their war stories suggests at least a sentiment that could be construed as, shall we say, not pro war.

I was lazy. I cited Bond as an example because the extract was to hand and he had figured in the discussion. I agree that ‘Bond says so’ is insufficient. I don’t have an informed view that ‘pro-war’ was the predominant mood immediately and for some years after the war; just an impression that it was so. I don’t want to defend this impression; I would prefer to learn how it really seemed to people at the time. My impression is based on my notion of the time as still very hierarchical and deferential. I feel there was a core presumption that those in authority knew best and that it was not one’s place to question what was handed down. God, King and country were conceptual keystones and I have always imagined that boat-rocking would have met with automatic disapproval, at least in public.

Returning soldiers did I believe hold widely differing views about the war. I am not sure how influential they may have been in forming opinion, but it was probably less than they merited. The extreme reticence of many is undeniable. I think this was regarded as a manly trait at the time but that is probably insufficient to explain the suppression of the most important things that happened to them. It is surely safe to assume that many saw and did nightmarish things that they could barely live with thereafter, and they were in no sense pro-war. My father, who served right at the end of the war and lost his brother, certainly was not pro-war, but I think that would have been his conviction even without the personal experience.

[BeppoSapone]

Could it just be that people reach a position as a result of emotion and then "cobble together" a few "facts" that support whatever that view is?

If you hope to make a career in the "establishment" (for want of a better term (it would be a smart career move to be pro-war/see WW1 as a "good" thing. If you don't do that you are hardly as likely to lecture at Sandhurst etc etc.

If you are of a more "modern" historical persuasion and "tainted" by "the long march of 'everyman' " and oral history you are far more likely to see the institutionalised murder of millions of ordinary people in a positive light.

Show me a historian who "tells it like it was" and I will show you someone who is deluding themselves.

[BeppoSapone]

If you are of a more "modern" historical persuasion and "tainted" by "the long march of 'everyman' " and oral history you are far more likely to see the institutionalised murder of millions of ordinary people in a positive light.

Oops!

Far LESS likely!!!

[Muerrisch]

Show me a historian who "tells it like it was" and I will show you someone who is deluding themselves.

If by 'historian' you mean the professorial explainers of grand strategy and the big issues, the makers and breakers of reputations, then I tend to agree.

But history can be very factual. This is not blowing my own trumpet, but I am a published amateur historian of sorts, so here goes.

As an example of factual history, my 'Bounden Duty' .... in 'Stand To' is very light on opinion. I even like to think it is correct. Even my books "Duty Done" and my "Blast of War" attempt to tell it like it was [or I break faith etc].

Nothing grand, no great opinions, just facts, except where I forgot myself and shed a few tears. Indeed, my wife, my best critic, kept saying that my stained pages were the best and fought with me to reinstate them. I pointed out that I am not clever enough to have opinions, just a grafting researcher lucky enough to have time, energy and funds to actually get to the point of publication.

So, I suppose I am deluded as charged.

Manual of Military Law, now where did I put it ...... ah, delusion, delusion ......

[BeppoSapone]

Show me a historian who "tells it like it was" and I will show you someone who is deluding themselves.

If by 'historian' you mean the professorial explainers of grand strategy and the big issues, the makers and breakers of reputations, then I tend to agree.

That is exactly what I mean by "Historian". Until fairly recently "History" was written by these people, and was really the story of Kings etc.

The common mans best attempt was probably either singing a song, or a some sort of warning to his son. When my great uncle volunteered at the start of WW1 his father, my great grandfather, called him a "bloody fool" and punched him, knocking him across the room. My great grandfather was a retired colour sgt who probably had some inkling of what war was like. His son was killed in 1918.

Perhaps as a result of WW1 "ordinary" - if that be the word - people have become involved in the historical process. They write as "true" a version of history as they can, but from another perspective. I am all in favour of this, but am also of the view that this form of "History" is as value laden as the old type of history.

The problem I have with any history is that the "records" of WW1, or any records at all, are written with an ulterior motive and are not, and can never be, "true". The best that anyone can ever do is to make an honest attempt at accuracy.

Examples of records that are not "true"? Somewhere in here is a thread about a mutiny that took place in north Russia in 1919. Someone looked in the unit history, or War Diary - can't remember which, and it doesn't much matter, but there is no mention of this mutiny!

There are also deliberate attempts at 'covering up' things that took place in WW2,- ie leaving details out of official records and making up "myths"- , but this is probably off topic.

[Jock Bruce]

I think the term 'pro-war' is unhelpful.

I very much doubt anybody who experienced WW1 could be anything but 'anti-war' (stand fast the sociopaths), but that is different to the belief that WW1 was futile, pointless, etc.

Jock Bruce

(Probably a revisionist but much given to apathy and agnosticism)

[michaeldr]

I am puzzled by several of the points made by Mr Bond as quoted earlier by Clive.

In fact my difficulties start with the very first sentence -'Why then have these remarkable achievements by what was essentially an amateur and largely conscript army been obscured in the public consciousness by the notion of unrelieved horror, disillusionment and futility?'

One of my grandfathers volunteered, the other was a conscript and both were amateurs who to my mind achieved remarkable things in that they survived WWI. But what has this to do with the disillusionment, horror or futility? The Lions did not venture forth alone; they were led by gentlemen who would have been very much affronted to have been called 'amateurs' at their chosen game! Mr Bond's point here has escaped me.

He goes on to mention amongst others the words of Woodbine Willy.

"Studdert Kennedy has been held up as an exceptional chaplain. The evidence from his own writings - transcripts of lectures he gave - point to his having adopted a role which primarily emphasized the Army's aims and objectives. There is no question of denying the heroism and sacrifice of any chaplain, least of all Studdert Kennedy, who was awarded the MC at Messines in 1917. But he himself gives incontrovertible evidence of what has often only been stated as a suspicion; that chaplains adopted a role of morale-sustaining propagandists for the national cause."

'Chaplains in Conflict' by Stephen H. Lauden [Principle RC Chaplain in the British Army] 1996

"He [studdert Kennedy] seems at times to have allowed himself to be used as a morale booster to an extent which would certainly have been regarded as improper in a chaplain in the Second War."

'Woodbine Willy' a biography by William Purcell 1962

In choosing Studdert Kennedy as an example Mr Bond seems inadvertently to illustrate that he is incapable of balancing the idea of patriotic war-time support for one's country with the equally valid and perfectly healthy criticism which arises once the war is over and the ordinary men have returned home and they try to explain [if they are able] the horrors of the previous four years of filth and fear.

The term Revisionist pre-supposes an earlier stance, that of the orthodox. Into this category fall those who fought and experienced the war at first hand; my grandfathers, Sassoon, Owen, Liddell Hart, Bernard Montgomery et al.

The orthodox learnt from their experience. Some wrote about it in prose or verse which will outlast the work of many a historian. Some acted upon those lessons to the benefit of the next generation.

"The Higher Command, he saw, had come to visualise a division as a sort of undifferentiated block of flesh to be propelled forward behind a screen of metal. The human as such was ceasing to count. The infantry Montgomery served as staff officer seemed to be progressively regarded in the words of Wilfred Owen

'Men, gaps for filling:

Losses who might have fought

Longer; but no one bothers'

He was haunted by the recurrent order

which used to insist, day after day, that an attack would be maintained regardless of losses. Montgomery reversed this attitude."

'Montgomery as Military commander' by Ronald Lewin 1971

Would the Revisionists have preferred the Second World War to have been fought in the same way as the First?

Regards

Michael D.R.

[AndyHollinger]

I think the term 'pro-war' is unhelpful.

I very much doubt anybody who experienced WW1 could be anything but 'anti-war' (stand fast the sociopaths), but that is different to the belief that WW1 was futile, pointless, etc.

Jock Bruce

(Probably a revisionist but much given to apathy and agnosticism)

Seeing WWI as a "good" thing is hardly "pro war" ... one would have to be insane to be pro-war ... I show my class the monument at Ypres to other destroyed cities when we talk about being pro-war. However, some wars provide more positive results to "mankind" than others ...

Historians are just like statisticians ... you can prove anything AND you don't get published by agreeing. It is, like religion and politics, a running argument of teacups and tempests ... It is on the high acedemic side and it is on our "enthusiasts" side ... the only place it is placid and factual is when my students say "Just tell me what I have to know to pass!"

[Clive Maier]

Could I just mention that the term ‘pro-war’ was used in this thread only as shorthand for a particular position, to save setting out the details over and over again. It was defined upfront as a gross simplification.

I think the thread is about played out now, after a decent run, so I will try to summarise. I started the thread because I had seen the term ‘revisionist’ applied to Great War historians in contradictory and apparently illogical ways. I did not understand what it meant. I still don’t.

Revisionist evidently can mean ‘one who does not agree with me’ but a sounder meaning is probably ‘one who disputes the orthodoxy’. Given that orthodoxies can and do change, this means that people at opposite poles of the argument can both be labelled revisionist. This has happened in Great War circles so I conclude that the term has lost any meaning it may once have had, and is no longer useful except perhaps when academics want to be rude about each other. I’ll not be using the term again but I don’t expect it to go away.

I think this is a result of sorts, so thanks for all the contributions.

[uncle bill]

Being a revisionist, here in France, can lead you straight down the path to court. This generally applies only to those who stray from the official line concerning the more sensitive ( protected ) issues concerning world war two.

[Muerrisch]

I think the thread is about played out now, after a decent run, so I will try to summarise.

Given that orthodoxies can and do change, this means that people at opposite poles of the argument can both be labelled revisionist.

Well, Clive, very decent of you to try to close the thread down.

I am perfectly clear in my own mind what is meant by 'revisionist', and I dare say others are too. Bond is, Winter isn't. I am agnostic. Now I've finished.

Now the thread can close!

[BeppoSapone]

Unless we revise the decision?

[Clive Maier]

langleybaston1418,

No no. I said I would try to summarise, not to close down.

By the way, Bond – whom you are clear in your own mind is a revisionist – is clear in his own mind that someone with Winteresque opinions is a revisionist.

[Muerrisch]

Now please see the John Terraine thread.