World war 1

[suavegav]

Just been watching the news, they are reporting that the westminster government are planning to commemorate the start of the 1st world war next year in 2014. I understand why we remember the dates when wars ended, but this must be a first, remembering the day the was started.

[Haymaker]

Probably is yes. I can see why though, WW1 starting was the most defining moment of the last 100 years, the knock on effect it had is incredible. And also very, very sad. :agree:

[Hibs Class]

I expect there will be a lot of individual battles and events that are commemorated between 2014 & 2018, so on that basis it probably makes sense.

[lapsedhibee]

Just been watching the news, they are reporting that the westminster government are planning to commemorate the start of the 1st world war next year in 2014. I understand why we remember the dates when wars ended, but this must be a first, remembering the day the was started.

Nothing to do with the westminster government. The people who should decide what is and isn't commemorated are the winners of the event, HOMFC.

Agree with your general point though - bizarre to celebrate the beginning of a war.

[Beefster]

Nothing to do with the westminster government. The people who should decide what is and isn't commemorated are the winners of the event, HOMFC.

Agree with your general point though - bizarre to celebrate the beginning of a war.

It's a commemoration, not a celebration.

[Geo_1875]

Why shouldn't it be "celebrated"? It was a Great War by all accounts.

[lapsedhibee]

It's a commemoration, not a celebration.

Bizarre either way, but if - as is likely - it turns into a nostalgiafest with 8-page pullouts and themed TV programming, I'll be content with describing that as a celebration.

[Hainan Hibs]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.

[Hibs Class]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.

Assume this is tongue-in-cheek?

[Beefster]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.

Aye, no-one ever cared about the First World War until the referendum came up...

[lyonhibs]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.

One rather hopes this is a piss take of a comment...................

[EuanH78]

Aye, no-one ever cared about the First World War until the referendum came up...

I think you know what was meant there. I'm undecided whether this is a cynical Union Jack waving exercise around the time of the independence referendum or not. But I am certain the beginning of a (brutal and bloody)war has never been 'celebrated' before.

[McHibby]

Probably is yes. I can see why though, WW1 starting was the most defining moment of the last 100 years, the knock on effect it had is incredible. And also very, very sad. :agree:

Very true. I think people underestimate just how devastating this war was and the impact it had on British society (and no doubt all the other countries involved). Although it seems to be the popular opinion that Chamberlain was a coward to try 'appeasement' with Hitler; one of his main motivations in this was that he had lost relatives himself in WW1 and he knew the public were still so scarred by that conflict.

But it does seems a bit odd to mark the beginning of it. Surely Remembrance Day is enough. If we start commemorating the start and end of wars then the main remembrance day will lose its poignancy.

[Just Alf]

Very true. I think people underestimate just how devastating this war was and the impact it had on British society (and no doubt all the other countries involved). Although it seems to be the popular opinion that Chamberlain was a coward to try 'appeasement' with Hitler; one of his main motivations in this was that he had lost relatives himself in WW1 and he knew the public were still so scarred by that conflict.

But it does seems a bit odd to mark the beginning of it. Surely Remembrance Day is enough. If we start commemorating the start and end of wars then the main remembrance day will lose its poignancy.

Devastating on society is pretty accurate.

I'm 40 odd (cough) and I remember as a kid going to see my "aunt" .... Actually my Gran's sister.

She'd lost her husband and all three sons ....... They had worked and lived on a farm before going off to War... and at least the farmer let her stay in the farm cottage until she died.

I don't have the words to describe the sadness I feel when I think about her life.......

[lapsedhibee]

Surely Remembrance Day is enough. If we start commemorating the start and end of wars then the main remembrance day will lose its poignancy.

:agree: Remembrance Day commemorates the end of WW1 and that's quite enough.

[Beefster]

I think you know what was meant there. I'm undecided whether this is a cynical Union Jack waving exercise around the time of the independence referendum or not. But I am certain the beginning of a (brutal and bloody)war has never been 'celebrated' before.

I don't think there has been a centenary of a war even remotely as devastating as the First World War.

Some folk really don't get the difference between celebration and commemoration, huh?

[lapsedhibee]

Some folk really don't get the difference between celebration and commemoration, huh?

Not everyone's as bright as you, obviously.

Would you say that the yams' printing the names of their McCrae's battalion on the shirts they wore during a football match last year was commemorating their part in winning the war, or celebrating it?

[Beefster]

Not everyone's as bright as you, obviously.

Would you say that the yams' printing the names of their McCrae's battalion on the shirts they wore during a football match last year was commemorating their part in winning the war, or celebrating it?

Commemorating.

[EuanH78]

Not everyone's as bright as you, obviously.

Would you say that the yams' printing the names of their McCrae's battalion on the shirts they wore during a football match last year was commemorating their part in winning the war, or celebrating it?


Commemorating.

I dont think this discussion is going to go anywhere positive.

I think that the best way to commemorate those who fought and died in the First World War would be to maintain a healthy scepticism of any kind attempts to manipulate the public on the grounds of honour and duty in the name of the land, as they were almost certainly manipulated.

[LeighLoyal]

The Great War series narrated by Micheal Redgrave is pretty awesome, easily as good as the later Olivier World at War on WW2. Is pretty dear to buy the set though.

It's good that these things exist as video documents as all the vets are long gone, my grandad included who survived the Somme.

[suavegav]

I think you know what was meant there. I'm undecided whether this is a cynical Union Jack waving exercise around the time of the independence referendum or not. But I am certain the beginning of a (brutal and bloody)war has never been 'celebrated' before.

I agree.

[Twa Cairpets]

The Great War series narrated by Micheal Redgrave is pretty awesome, easily as good as the later Olivier World at War on WW2. Is pretty dear to buy the set though.

It's good that these things exist as video documents as all the vets are long gone, my grandad included who survived the Somme.

Agree. My granddad ( who died before I was born) was injured on the Somme. We still have the bit of shrapnel that was removed from him. It should be remembered, commemorated and studied by anyone with an interest in humanity.

[GhostofBolivar]

I think you know what was meant there. I'm undecided whether this is a cynical Union Jack waving exercise around the time of the independence referendum or not. But I am certain the beginning of a (brutal and bloody)war has never been 'celebrated' before.

In 1989, I remember the BBC doing fake news reports as if they were covering the outbreak of WW2 as it happened...

Not unlike this, in fact (https://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII)

[GhostofBolivar]

I'll be interested to see how much of the coverage of this actually examines the conduct of the war or if it'll just be another excuse to roll out the grossly inaccurate Blackadder Goes Forth.

[Peevemor]

I'll be interested to see how much of the coverage of this actually examines the conduct of the war or if it'll just be another excuse to roll out the grossly inaccurate Blackadder Goes Forth.

Next you'll be telling us that 'Allo 'Allo wasn't a true reflection of occupied, WWII France.

[hibby rae]

I'll be interested to see how much of the coverage of this actually examines the conduct of the war or if it'll just be another excuse to roll out the grossly inaccurate Blackadder Goes Forth.

Although it can be inaccurate it is great. The last episode in particular is spectacular and I still finding it moving after all these years.

[hibby rae]

In 1989, I remember the BBC doing fake news reports as if they were covering the outbreak of WW2 as it happened...

Not unlike this, in fact (https://twitter.com/RealTimeWWII)

They also did it for the anniversary of D-Day in 1994 and the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Somme was marked. It's important o mark such things, only a fool ignores their history ( and yes I am a history student!).

[lapsedhibee]

They also did it for the anniversary of D-Day in 1994 and the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Somme was marked. It's important o mark such things, only a fool ignores their history ( and yes I am a history student!).

Two completely separate things there. History could be taught in schools. Having festivals on the anniversary of battles is not essential to passing on knowledge.

Anyway, more importantly, is a new public holiday going to be declared? :dunno:

[Beefster]

Two completely separate things there. History could be taught in schools. Having festivals on the anniversary of battles is not essential to passing on knowledge.

Anyway, more importantly, is a new public holiday going to be declared? :dunno:

Who's having a festival?

[lapsedhibee]

Who's having a festival?

Ghouls.

[lapsedhibee]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.


Assume this is tongue-in-cheek?


Aye, no-one ever cared about the First World War until the referendum came up...


One rather hopes this is a piss take of a comment...................

No idea why the Scotch referendum reference has been met with such opprobrium. Here's from the BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19913000) of the announcement:

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson says that while Mr Cameron wanted to use his speech to talk to young people about commemorating the past, the year 2014 also has a contemporary significance.

It is when the referendum on Scottish independence will be held, so a reminder of what the nations of the UK have achieved together is seen as not unhelpful to the unionist cause, our correspondent says.


Agree. My granddad ( who died before I was born) was injured on the Somme. We still have the bit of shrapnel that was removed from him. It should be remembered, commemorated and studied by anyone with an interest in humanity.

Where can we see this artefact? :dunno:

[GhostofBolivar]

Next you'll be telling us that 'Allo 'Allo wasn't a true reflection of occupied, WWII France.


Although it can be inaccurate it is great. The last episode in particular is spectacular and I still finding it moving after all these years.

There's a big difference in what those two shows set out to do and how they're regarded by the public.

'Allo 'Allo was a parody of war films in general and Secret Army in particular. It was making fun of a genre and type of film making that had slipped into self-parody long before it came along and was never seen as anything but nonsense. Blackadder parodies World War 1 itself and it does it by flat out lying about the war and the British Army that fought it.

There isn't an episode of Blackadder Goes Forth that isn't stuffed to the gills with inaccuracy, myth and cliche, yet it's still used as a teaching aid in schools and is still widely regarded as being truthful.

[TheReg!]

Wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a Scottish referendum coming up on independence.

And we wouldn't be having the referendum to coincide with 1314 then?
WW1 should serve as a reminder to what can happen in a total war, so we should remember it. We as a nation have a knack of not learning from our mistakes, so by acknowledging 100 years since WW1 we remind ourselves that such a war in the future will surely be the end for this world we live in now.

[Glory Lurker]

I'm all for it if the "commemorations" next year entail us reflecting on how the hell the human race can inflict that sort of carnage on itself. 1914 was the start of a pointless, inhuman slaughter that achieved absolutely nothing. There were of course countless acts of bravery and compassion on the field that should be remembered, but they should have been at home living peacefully. If the events next year start from that perspective then they're on to something, but I rather suspect that's not what Cameron has in mind.

[marinello59]

I'm all for it if the "commemorations" next year entail us reflecting on how the hell the human race can inflict that sort of carnage on itself. 1914 was the start of a pointless, inhuman slaughter that achieved absolutely nothing. There were of course countless acts of bravery and compassion on the field that should be remembered, but they should have been at home living peacefully. If the events next year start from that perspective then they're on to something, but I rather suspect that's not what Cameron has in mind.

Achieved nothing? You sure about that?

[lapsedhibee]

And we wouldn't be having the referendum to coincide with 1314 then?
WW1 should serve as a reminder to what can happen in a total war, so we should remember it. We as a nation have a knack of not learning from our mistakes, so by acknowledging 100 years since WW1 we remind ourselves that such a war in the future will surely be the end for this world we live in now.

If you are not already reminded of this on Remembrance/Armistice Day, how much difference will it make to stick "100th anniversary of" on the front?

[Beefster]

The commemoration plans include school trips to important battlefields and events during 2015-2018 to remember important events of the First World War. A blatant attempt to influence the 2014 referendum result, surely?!

[EuanH78]

The commemoration plans include school trips to important battlefields and events during 2015-2018 to remember important events of the First World War. A blatant attempt to influence the 2014 referendum result, surely?!

So the commemoration plans stretch over 4 years - from the 100th anniversary of the start of the war till the end? Nope, that isnt starting to sound a bit like grief porn to me, not at all.

In fact the revelation that this is to go on for four years has just convinced me that this celebration.. sorry commemoration is in actual fact, exploitative.

Yearly remembrance is appropriate. Not just for WW1 but for those in all wars. This, however IMO, smacks of the same manipulation that convinced millions of men to go and die for their leaders bidding for, well not very much really. Cynicism of these plans is the greatest acknowledgement we can give to those who fought and died in this war IMO.

[hibby rae]

Achieved nothing? You sure about that?

Depends what stance you take in your argument. I would argue that it led to the Russian Revolution and the following civil war which caused the deaths of millions of Russian civilians. Furthermore, as a result of the Treaty of Versailles Hitler was seen by many in Britain to be justified in his aggressive policies in the thirties leading to Appeasement and the eventual Second World War. Which in turn gave us the Iron Curtain and the Cold War.

It's been said that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was "the shot that was heard around the world". Quite an understatement.

[marinello59]

Depends what stance you take in your argument. I would argue that it led to the Russian Revolution and the following civil war which caused the deaths of millions of Russian civilians. Furthermore, as a result of the Treaty of Versailles Hitler was seen by many in Britain to be justified in his aggressive policies in the thirties leading to Appeasement and the eventual Second World War. Which in turn gave us the Iron Curtain and the Cold War.

It's been said that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was "the shot that was heard around the world". Quite an understatement.

And if we had stood back and done nothing?
The bit in bold confuses me somewhat.

[hibby rae]

And if we had stood back and done nothing?
The bit in bold confuses me somewhat.


There were many (such as Churchill and Duff Cooper) who were against Appeasement. They wanted action taken earlier instead Hitler got away with the Anschluss with Austria and the Germans were handed Czechoslovakia on a plate (the last democracy in Eastern Europe). It was only in March 1939 that the policy of Appeasement was ended and Britain gave guarantees to Poland to defend her. My point is, that because of the horrors of the Great War many couldn't face another war and used the unfair terms given to Germany at Versailles to back their stance. However, Hitler could have been stopped earlier and with far less destruction. For example, when German troops moved into the Rhineland in 1935 (which was a breach of Versailles) they were ordered to withdraw at the first sign of French troops.

[Twa Cairpets]

Where can we see this artefact? :dunno:

It's in my folks house. Apparently came from a grenade. Evidence. :wink:

[Glory Lurker]

Achieved nothing? You sure about that?

I think so? :dunno: I'm pretty down on the whole thing!

[--------]

If we're going to 'commemorate' or 'celebrate' (whatever) each major event of the 20th century throughout the 21st, aren't we all going to end up with a terminal case of deja vu?

And how will the media find the time or space to cover the major events of the 21st century as THEY happen?

Or will we just 'commemorate/celebrate' THEM 100 years on, too?

[Twa Cairpets]

I think so? :dunno: I'm pretty down on the whole thing!

Well, at the very least the outcome of the war stopped the expansion of a Prussian/Germanic Empire in the West in particular. Whether or not the avoidance of the fall of France was a good thing or not, the action by the allies once the war started and the Germans went all Schlieffen on them was inevitable unless the act of aggression was to be accepted. The conduct of the war itself is a different matter, but to say the war itself achieved nothing is demonstrably untrue.

[--------]

Well, at the very least the outcome of the war stopped the expansion of a Prussian/Germanic Empire in the West in particular. Whether or not the avoidance of the fall of France was a good thing or not, the action by the allies once the war started and the Germans went all Schlieffen on them was inevitable unless the act of aggression was to be accepted. The conduct of the war itself is a different matter, but to say the war itself achieved nothing is demonstrably untrue.


I would suggest that the real tragedy of the Great War was that the politicians and people signally failed to learn the right lessons from it.

As you say, it was necessary to resist the expansion of the Prussian Reich (the Second one, IIRC), and for Britain to have failed to honour her treaty obligations to Belgium would have been as gross a betrayal and as cowardly an act of appeasement as Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich. And would probably have led to a similar chain of events over the subsequent 5-10 years.

Whatever one thinks of the way the War was conducted, the truth is that by September-October 1918 the British Army had totally defeated the Germans on the Western Front; Hindenburg and Ludendorff were jointly in the throes of massive Teutonic nervous breakdowns at the prospect of being strung up for the thugs they were; and only the Armistice prevented Germany from invasion by the Allied French/British/US Armies.

Haqving defeated the Central Powers, the Allies should have learned the lesson that the only way to deal with a regime of militaristic thugs is to make sure that one's own military is clearly and unequivocally stronger than that of the thugs. And to be unmistakeably prepared to use it to keep the thugs down. If Baldwin and Chamberlain had born THAT in mind, and confronted Hitler effectively the first time he flexed his muscles, history might have taken an entirely different course. Or not, of course, as the case might be.

[wpj]

Personally I feel a week of remembrance around November 2018 would be more fitting

[Twa Cairpets]

I would suggest that the real tragedy of the Great War was that the politicians and people signally failed to learn the right lessons from it.

As you say, it was necessary to resist the expansion of the Prussian Reich (the Second one, IIRC), and for Britain to have failed to honour her treaty obligations to Belgium would have been as gross a betrayal and as cowardly an act of appeasement as Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich. And would probably have led to a similar chain of events over the subsequent 5-10 years.

Whatever one thinks of the way the War was conducted, the truth is that by September-October 1918 the British Army had totally defeated the Germans on the Western Front; Hindenburg and Ludendorff were jointly in the throes of massive Teutonic nervous breakdowns at the prospect of being strung up for the thugs they were; and only the Armistice prevented Germany from invasion by the Allied French/British/US Armies.

Haqving defeated the Central Powers, the Allies should have learned the lesson that the only way to deal with a regime of militaristic thugs is to make sure that one's own military is clearly and unequivocally stronger than that of the thugs. And to be unmistakeably prepared to use it to keep the thugs down. If Baldwin and Chamberlain had born THAT in mind, and confronted Hitler effectively the first time he flexed his muscles, history might have taken an entirely different course. Or not, of course, as the case might be.

All of the above is why it is vital to remember this war, and a centenary is a natural point to do so. A knowledge of history is, for me critical, and while I have no doubt that some of the stuff we see will be maudlin sentimentality or jingoistic nonsense, some of it will be good, and all of it will serve to raise awareness of the conflict in the minds of people. some may even go off and learn about it, which would be a good thing.

[--------]

All of the above is why it is vital to remember this war, and a centenary is a natural point to do so. A knowledge of history is, for me critical, and while I have no doubt that some of the stuff we see will be maudlin sentimentality or jingoistic nonsense, some of it will be good, and all of it will serve to raise awareness of the conflict in the minds of people. some may even go off and learn about it, which would be a good thing.

Yup.

To my mind, the "millions of lives thrown away for nothing" line dishonours the men who fought in the Great War. They weren't fighting for nothing - they were fighting to stop a thoroughly vicious and nasty Prussian Imperial regime from dominating Continental Europe for the decades to come. The recent process of re-assessment that has taken place - historians like Walter Reid and Peter Hart, for instance - has been good; Reid's biography of Douglas Haig is a very useful book, and one that unfashionably suggests that Haig wasn't the brainless donkey he's been too often portrayed as being.

It was Ludendorff who described the Tommies as 'lions led by donkeys' - well, in the end one of those donkeys gave him and his mate Hindenburg a right good kicking, and the lies that the two of them spread about a 'stab in the back' and their ludicrous claims that the German Army hadn't been defeated in the field were as significant influences in the rise of the Third Reich as anything else.

It's strange how so often British historians swallow the claims of enemy propagandists, soldiers and politicians to the discredit of their own people, I always think.

[marinello59]

Yup.

To my mind, the "millions of lives thrown away for nothing" line dishonours the men who fought in the Great War. They weren't fighting for nothing - they were fighting to stop a thoroughly vicious and nasty Prussian Imperial regime from dominating Continental Europe for the decades to come. The recent process of re-assessment that has taken place - historians like Walter Reid and Peter Hart, for instance - has been good; Reid's biography of Douglas Haig is a very useful book, and one that unfashionably suggests that Haig wasn't the brainless donkey he's been too often portrayed as being.

It was Ludendorff who described the Tommies as 'lions led by donkeys' - well, in the end one of those donkeys gave him and his mate Hindenburg a right good kicking, and the lies that the two of them spread about a 'stab in the back' and their ludicrous claims that the German Army hadn't been defeated in the field were as significant influences in the rise of the Third Reich as anything else.

It's strange how so often British historians swallow the claims of enemy propagandists, soldiers and politicians to the discredit of their own people, I always think.

:agree:
Well said.

[PeeJay]

Haqving defeated the Central Powers, the Allies should have learned the lesson that the only way to deal with a regime of militaristic thugs is to make sure that one's own military is clearly and unequivocally stronger than that of the thugs. And to be unmistakeably prepared to use it to keep the thugs down. If Baldwin and Chamberlain had born THAT in mind, and confronted Hitler effectively the first time he flexed his muscles, history might have taken an entirely different course. Or not, of course, as the case might be.

That's an interesting point. I've just completed reading R.K. Massie's "Dreadnought" - it gave some fascinating insights into the political machinations leading up to the outbreak of war. Britain was clearly a naval power unrivalled at the time, and it certainly seems all efforts were aimed at ensuring that the Royal Navy could not be matched by anyone else, the obvious intention being to keep the trading lanes open to the island homeland.

Britain didn't have a large standing land army, and Wilhelm and his cohorts apparently completely disregarded the British army as something the "...Prussian police force could deal with." Strangely enough, the Royal Navy seems to have held almost similar views on the land army: in its opinion the key to winning or losing any war was at sea - a fair point in many ways I guess. Britain was stretched at the time to pay for the new ships to maintain its superiority at sea: how would it have financed a large army capable of doing what you suggest I wonder and how would it have convinced the electorate of the time that such an army had to be paid for?

[(((Fergus)))]

And if we had stood back and done nothing?
The bit in bold confuses me somewhat.

What would have happened if we had stayed out of WW One? Any thoughts?

[GhostofBolivar]

Well, at the very least the outcome of the war stopped the expansion of a Prussian/Germanic Empire in the West in particular. Whether or not the avoidance of the fall of France was a good thing or not, the action by the allies once the war started and the Germans went all Schlieffen on them was inevitable unless the act of aggression was to be accepted. The conduct of the war itself is a different matter, but to say the war itself achieved nothing is demonstrably untrue.

The BEF fought the largest battles and won the greatest victories in the history of the British army. The idea that it was incompetent and failed to adapt, innovate or learn from it's experiences has been thoroughly discredited by professional historians.

But, like I said, the Blackadder effect is still prevalent in popular consciousness and so the BEF's achievements afe overlooked.

It's strange that Haig, who won the war on the Western Front has spent most of the subsequent century as a highly controversial figure while Churchill, who was entirely responsible for the war's greatest disaster at Gallipoli has received very little criticism.

[--------]

That's an interesting point. I've just completed reading R.K. Massie's "Dreadnought" - it gave some fascinating insights into the political machinations leading up to the outbreak of war. Britain was clearly a naval power unrivalled at the time, and it certainly seems all efforts were aimed at ensuring that the Royal Navy could not be matched by anyone else, the obvious intention being to keep the trading lanes open to the island homeland.

Britain didn't have a large standing land army, and Wilhelm and his cohorts apparently completely disregarded the British army as something the "...Prussian police force could deal with." Strangely enough, the Royal Navy seems to have held almost similar views on the land army: in its opinion the key to winning or losing any war was at sea - a fair point in many ways I guess. Britain was stretched at the time to pay for the new ships to maintain its superiority at sea: how would it have financed a large army capable of doing what you suggest I wonder and how would it have convinced the electorate of the time that such an army had to be paid for?


I don't think we could have prevented the Great War, to be honest, but if the British governments of the 1930's in particular had shown any backbone at all in facing Hitler down in the early days, there's a real chance he might have been stopped. Chamberlain in particular behaved in a despicable manner at Munich in 1938; his cowardice then convinced Hitler that Britain wouldn't fight in any circumstances. The conduct of the Chamberlain government during the "phoney war" period up to the invasion of France in May 1940 simply encouraged him.

It's not that we didn't spend money of re-armament in the 1930's as much as that the money we did spend wasn't spent wisely, and that the attitudes and pronouncements of the politicians in Westminster made it very clear that there was no real resolution to resist the rise of the dictatorships.

Add to that the fact that a large section of the British establishment - including members of the Royal Family - were to all intents and purposes Nazi fellow-travellers ...