A reply to more than one post.

[swellal]

Canadian whiskey?!! Come now, Al - don't compound the faux pas!

If it's any consolation, it is Crown Royal. Has a smooth Canadian flavour.

But more to the point of this thread, yes, my grandfather came home from the war. The more I learn about the suffering and barbarity of it, the more I wonder how he remained sane and "normal".

To make matters worse, he signed on for WW2 as a small arms instructor, training the troops for the Dieppe Raid. He tried to go ashore with them, was caught by the CO and ordered below deck. For his trouble, he was sent back to Canada a couple of weeks later escorting German POWs. For the balance of the war he was used as a drill instructor in Canada.

To those who did not know different, he was an ordinary man, to me he was a hero.

[jainvince]

My interest in WW1 was aroused by investigations undertaken for a trip to the Salient. This involved developing our knowledge of those soldiers listed on our local war memorial, where they fought and, yes, where they died. From those studies and other researches we have built up a picture of the men, where they worked, where they lived. The effects of their deaths on the local population (for some 30 years on) has been calculated by a student as well as the effects on certain factories. Delving into Ancestry has given light to the social movements which the war entailed and how women moved significant distances to or when re-married. Ancestry also gives an insight to infant mortality which the soldiers would be well aware of.

The Salient trip and that to France this year does include further researches about our lost soldiers but also much more. A much wider interest in the great War has resulted and this and the Ypres forum have introduced some freindship which didn't previously exist.

The researches into the Soldiers of Littleborough undertaken by freinds and myself have enabled men who died some 90 years ago to be remembered a century on. A good thing.

In our next exhibition (Nov 2008) we want to remember those who fought and survived but finding details is not that easy but we will try.

But thanks for your rant - it got us all thinking.

BernardP

[geraint]

.I think it is something of a myth to think that everyone returned from the war psychologically damaged. Considering the millions who took part, if everyone had been that badly affected the country would've probably ground to a halt..

What do you think led to the General Strike of 1926, the Wall St Crash 1929, the 'Hungry thirties' the depressed twenties, the cataclysmic social changes at end of war, rampant inflation, lowered wages, lock outs, lay-offs, rise in alcoholism, wife beating, social values declining (Roundtree Reports, Bevan Report) slums,hunger, rickets, return of smallpox, cholera, typhoid, decline in literacy, increased criminality and recidivism, spiraling murder rates etc etc.

I'd say it was a pretty good catalogue of a country 'grinding to a halt'

Geraint

[Just Barbara]

Yes I joined because I wanted to find out more about grandad, but I've also found out about...

picklehaubes

munitions girls

buses turned into mobile pigeon cotes

the sheer amount of explosive used on the western front

tunnels

tunnelers

real and fake photographs

differences in uniform

patient people who answer my questions

Barbara..

[redorchestra]

What do you think led to the General Strike of 1926, the Wall St Crash 1929, the 'Hungry thirties' the depressed twenties, the cataclysmic social changes at end of war, rampant inflation, lowered wages, lock outs, lay-offs, rise in alcoholism, wife beating, social values declining (Roundtree Reports, Bevan Report) slums,hunger, rickets, return of smallpox, cholera, typhoid, decline in literacy, increased criminality and recidivism, spiraling murder rates etc etc.

I'd say it was a pretty good catalogue of a country 'grinding to a halt'

Geraint

I agree with some of what you say, and as I have already stated twice I never said 'everyone came home and had a jolly good time', I was just arguing that many did come home and lead 'normal lives', including all of my ancestors who came home and went back to their jobs or set up businesses or stayed in the army and successfully brought up families, managing to leave the Great War firmly behind them - unless these don't count?

As for slums, hunger and disease - these existed before, during and after the Great War. Several thousand years before in fact.

Clearly the Wall Street Crash, inflation etc are consequences of the Great War, but they were economic consequences. I was talking about psychological consequences.

[geraint]

Thing is, Redorchestra, you had over a million demobbed men arriving home within months. The economic desolation caused by that, was immense. Dole, unemployment, a worsening of the slums, poverty and diseases. Slum clearances started in the late 20s early 30s and the old Victorian diseases had made a comeback. On top of that, I think most veterans were affected by their experiences - the workhouses throughout Britain were crammed full of young homeless vets, almost immediately frowned upon by the general public and shunned by towns-people. Once the euphoria of victory had passed, they were generally ignored well into the 1970s. The seriously handicapped and traumatised were locked up in sanatoriums until their deaths. The workhouse here in my hometown still had twenty+ veterans when it finally closed in 1969, and they were transferred to the new NHS home. In 1969, they were still being regulated as to how long they could go outside.

Even the married or those with families found it difficult to adjust. Thousands went on the tramp, or emigrated to establish a new life.

I'm thinking of my own family involvement; one great uncle joined the Black and Tans and came home finally as a drunkard, a wife beater and a mess. Another g uncle (MID) was severe and found it difficult to lead a normal social life, and seldom left the house and garden. His wife, a VAD in F+F seldom smiled, and concentrated her activity on the BL. Another maiden aunt had her fiance killed at Pilckem, and remained unmarried for 60 years always referring to Will; and on and on it went.

The social effects of the war has largely been unrecorded, and perhaps deliberately so by the succeeding governments - a Pandora's Box - better left unopened.

[redorchestra]

Yes, I don't wish to downplay the impact of the Great War. In no way do I wish to be seen as some kind of revisionist counter-factual historian and I'm sorry if I came across like that.

All I was originally trying to achieve by posting in this thread was to make people think twice before imagining how their relatives were affected by the war and to tread carefully when imagining what they were like as people. More than almost any other war, the armed forces of the Great War were a reflection of the societies from which they were drawn, and therefore contained every conceivable variation in character from fearless heroes to thieves and currs.

Again this comes from my own personal experience. I have no contemporary pictures of any of my blood relatives who served in the war. The only pictures I have are of the man who married my great-nan after my grandad was born. Consequently I was guilty of building him up a bit up in my own mind as he looked like such a strapping handsome man, until my dad said that he was a real git and everyone hated him!

The differences between yours and mine ancestors experience after the war just shows how differently people coped with its aftermath.

[geraint]

.The differences between yours and mine ancestors experience after the war just shows how differently people coped with its aftermath.

You are absolutely right!

[Heid the Ba]

I don't wish in anyway to downplay the horrors of war but let us not forget what we would regard the horrors of everyday life in the early 20th cerntury. I'm 46 and my generation is the first on both sides of my family not to have a child die before its 16th birthday, to have no-one killed in an industrial accident, to have no-one crippled by polio or other illness. 18 year olds had possibly (probably?) seen a sibling or cousin die, almost certainly lost at least one grandparent, would know men crippled or killed in heavy industry or farming, and had a life expectancy of 50-60.* Yes, the Great War had its moments of horror and tragedy but for many it would be the first time they were well fed and healthy. What we regard as psychological horrors were everyday life to them, they were much tougher mentally than we are.

One of my grandfathers was in the RAMC in F&F from 1915 but was a cheery pillar of the community until his death in the mid 60s, unaffected by what he had seen and done. The other had a serious headwound and was prone to dark thoughts but that was down to the intermittent pain, when painfree he was happy go lucky and the archetypal jolly grandfather.

*Like most statistics I made that up; I'm happy to be corrected but my point is that that generation did not expect to live healthy lives into their 80s.

[squirrel]

Those same thoughts were expressed in one personal memoir of WW1 that I have read but can't remember where.

[Greyhound]

18 year olds had possibly (probably?) seen a sibling or cousin die

My father was born in 1918, the youngest of his extended family, and seven of his fifteen first cousins were already dead. Two of TB at 19 & 20; one of meningitis at 4; one of diphtheria at 6; one from head injuries after a fall at 15; one of peritonitis at 12, and the other killed in the war. Looking at parish burial registers, I doubt this was unusual.

[Dragon]

What we regard as psychological horrors were everyday life to them, they were much tougher mentally than we are.

While I agree with the gist of your post - that most people would have come into contact with family tragedy from their earliest years - I'm unsure how far you're correct in generalising they were tougher than we are. Mental illness was neither properly understood nor respected as an illness. If someone was depressed, they were supposed to just get on with it. When seeing a doctor meant paying for his services, familes often chose not to. If a parent died, the support was generally for the bereaved spouse, and the children were expected to cope. Congenital mental illness was often not accepted or periodically treated by admission to a mental hospital, which became an untalked-about stigma.

Some of the people who grew up in an age of horrific farming or industrial accidents, premature loss of parents or siblings, or perhaps family memories of people who were killed in the war, are now elderly people who have had a lifetime of mental distress which has never been properly treated, prone to recurrent depression and unhappiness on top of the labile moods which tend to come with old age.

Many an external cheerfulness and stoicism conceals severe mental illhealth only seen by the immediate family, and often seriously misunderstood.

Gwyn

[Heid the Ba]

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways, they coped (or not) without the support we take for granted, and were more accustomed to tragedy in everyday life.

That said sometimes you have to take things at face value.

[MelPack]

Peter

I do not regard your opening post to be a rant. The quality of the responses from the other contributors suggests that it was a measured and thought provoking proposition.

I also dislike the mawkish sentimentality that surrounds the death cult. I also find the trite cliches of 'they died for our freedom'; 'they died so we might live'; 'they will never grow old' and the imagery of the blood ritual of sacrifice completely objectionable.

Regards

Mel

[PBI]

[Jim Clay]

...Heros in the conventional sense were relatively few and far between, but if you extend heroism to include a dogged persistence to just endure and survive, then there were many more...

Yes, indeed. As Michael Johnson in an earlier post points out, they were largely "ordinary people in an extraordinary situation". I wonder how we 'ordinary people' of today would cope in such an 'extraordinary situation'. But I have no wish to find out.

Jim

[swellal]

I also dislike the mawkish sentimentality that surrounds the death cult. I also find the trite cliches of 'they died for our freedom'; 'the died so we might live'; 'they will never grow old' and the imagery of the blood ritual of sacrifice completely objectionable.

Mel, they, and others, died so that you would have the right to have that opinion, and express it without fear of retribution.

The cliches may be over used but they still have meaning.

[Arras100]

Peter, we must be on the same wavelength because I had very similar thoughts yesterday on the way home from work. I was thinking how I tend to glorify these men when in reality they were just ordinary men, caught up in an extraordinary event.

HOWEVER, I do think that the men who fought in that war (and the war that followed) were of a generation that deserves to be held up on a pedestal because they answered a call that few would now. The values so many of them went to the trenches with (whatever social class they were from) are ones that are rare to find in this day and age, ones which have sadly been forgotten by the generations that followed.

(P.S. You haven't yet answered my message regarding Owen! )

[John_Hartley]

died so that you would have the right to have that opinion, and express it without fear of retribution.

That may be your view, Al, but it wouldnt be mine.

John

[alliekiwi]

I think the sentiments on the war memorials etc of the time were a type of necessary propaganda to help people cope with the losses of so many loved ones. If your son/husband/brother was a Hero and died for some Great Cause, that was suposedly better than him being the equivalent of one drop of blood shed in a pointless tidal bloodbath. People could fall back on the overblown sentiments and cling to them.

Of course, since then they've been handed down to us every Armistice/Remembrance/Veteren's/Anzac Day. Over time sentiment has become truth.

However, I still attend Anzac Day ceremonies every year and will continue to do so.

Allie

[swellal]

That may be your view, Al, but it wouldnt be mine.

It certainly isn't the reason why they went, but the fact remains, that is what the Great War parts 1 and 2 accomplished.

With all due respect, without the Allied victory in both parts of that war, you in the UK and probably us in North America, would all be using German in this forum today.

Then again, on second thought, with just a couple of things being different, we might all be speaking Russian.

To quote another well used cliche,

if you enjoyed your supper, thank a farmer. If you enjoy your freedom, thank a vet.

They are the ones who stood up to men with loaded guns so I wouldn't have to. I thank all of them, because when I served, there was peace throughout, and I didn't have to face an enemy with the intention of doing me harm.

[geraint]

Of course they didn't enlist, fight, die 'so that we may live'. All those horrible, mawkish memorial stone engravings are 1920s conscience epitaphs. There was nothing heroic in their joining up! They were caught up in the jingoism of the moment. Live and enjoy, bash the Boche before Christmas; then we'll get on with our real life. No soldier joined in the Kitchener army seriously thinking 'Onward Christian soldier; onward onto war; with the cross of Jesus shining on before'.

Put it in this century's perspective:

War with Iraq. Within 4 months of declaration of war, our small professional army has been wiped out. For the next year, our fighting strength is dependant on our Territorials. We recruit 1,000,000 civilians rapidly, and when the Territorials are decimated, send the new boys in. When they've been finished off in the Iraq equivalent of the Somme, we conscript men to fight the last two years of the war: killing half of them in the Iraq equivalent of Third Ypres. Then we all feel sad, and put up horrible,neoclassic and trite-sounding memorials to them.

They didn't fight and die 'so that we didn't have to'. My son in law fought in Iraq for three years. Nothing sentimental in that. Had he died, the last thing he wanted on his memorial stone is 'He died so that we may live'. Jesus H Christ, I'm aghast that there are people out there seriously thinking this. He's read this thread and is p***ing himself, and telling me - hope people won't be writing about us like this in 90 years time. We were in the army, we went there, it was a job, nothing heroic about us, we served, fought, did our bit and went out on a discharge or in a body bag.

[PBI]

People could fall back on the overblown sentiments and cling to them.

Over time sentiment has become truth.

Agreed Allie,i think it was an American Admiral,who said "They (The Enemy) Didnt Die For Their Country,We Killed Them".Not a Lot of Sentiment in that Comment,but simple hard Fact.I do get Annoyed some what when People attempt more or less to Deify the Dead of WW1.

[lassuy]

It was US General George S. Patton who was heard to remark "Now I want you to remember that no b*st*rd ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*st*rd die for his country."

Rod

[truthergw]

I have great respect for all veterans of wars. As to whether we could do what they did the answer is, we are doing what they did. In Afghanistan and Iraq, just as they did in the Falklands and Korea and Kenya and Cyprus and on and on. Make your own list of the fighting where our armed forces fought and died. Men and women still join up and go off to war, with whatever that entails. All too often, it still entails getting killed or maimed.