Jambos in WW1 TV drama

[Dan Sarf]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a612887/bbc-launches-interactive-world-war-one-football-drama-footballers-united.html#~oWTDrCjHZzCTMS

"Footballers United... follows the Heart of Midlothian team during the years of the First World War, and will involve viewers using an interactive timeline to look at the wider historical context of the story."

:rolleyes:

[Brizo]

Fair enough I suppose .. it must be a bit galling for them though that they won WW1 but haven't won a fight since:take that:devil:

[lyonhibs]

Sounds really interesting. Can't see any good reason to find it otherwise.

Unless we are concocting some childish point-scoring scenario from this that isn't there in the 1st place................ :rolleyes:

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

What I hate about them is they have claimed this all to themselves, other clubs including us had volunteers but they just don't see it that way.

They actually bumped the charity in that name as well, a shameless action that was only rectified after it became public knowledge, they constantly bang on about this and I really wonder if any of the money raised by the sale of the shirts they are wearing now will actually go to the charity, I think not given their past form.

Disgusting arrogant club.

[Hermit Crab]

What I hate about them is they have claimed this all to themselves, other clubs including us had volunteers but they just don't see it that way.

They actually bumped the charity in that name as well, a shameless action that was only rectified after it became public knowledge, they constantly bang on about this and I really wonder if any of the money raised by the sale of the shirts they are wearing now will actually go to the charity, I think not given their past form.

Disgusting arrogant club.

No point in getting upset about that! Most people are aware that other teams players were involved. I don't agree with all this arguing and bickering about men who gave their lives for others to live freely.

[Pretty Boy]

No point in getting upset about that! Most people are aware that other teams players were involved. I don't agree with all this arguing and bickering about men who gave their lives for others to live freely.

Agreed.

It's an interesting story, it's the centenary of the outbreak of war and football is a massively popular sport. The story was always going to find it's way into the mass media.

The constant point scoring about this, from both sides, is starting to wear thin.

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

No point in getting upset about that! Most people are aware that other teams players were involved. I don't agree with all this arguing and bickering about men who gave their lives for others to live freely.

That's just the point I'm making HC, they never mention other teams due to the deluded arrogance that emits from the rust bucket arena, no one, especially me would disrespect the war dead, just give credit where it's due to ALL who gave their lives, they don't seem to want to do that and never will in my opinion, it's just another way of them claiming to a big team, which of course they are not.

[Just Alf]

Agreed.

It's an interesting story, it's the centenary of the outbreak of war and football is a massively popular sport. The story was always going to find it's way into the mass media.

The constant point scoring about this, from both sides, is starting to wear thin.

with you 100% on that.

[CropleyWasGod]

That's just the point I'm making HC, they never mention other teams due to the deluded arrogance that emits from the rust bucket arena, no one, especially me would disrespect the war dead, just give credit where it's due to ALL who gave their lives, they don't seem to want to do that and never will in my opinion, it's just another way of them claiming to a big team, which of course they are not.

Who is "they" though? The club acknowledge it, don't they? I thought that Hibs (and others) were represented at the Contalmaison ceremony, and are regularly at the clock ceremony. (or have I got that wrong?)

By "they", are you meaning the supporters? All of them, or just the rabid ones who would paint their grass maroon? :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

with you 100% on that.

:aok:

[HIBERNIAN-0762]

Who is "they" though? The club acknowledge it, don't they? I thought that Hibs (and others) were represented at the Contalmaison ceremony, and are regularly at the clock ceremony. (or have I got that wrong?)

By "they", are you meaning the supporters? All of them, or just the rabid ones who would paint their grass maroon? :greengrin

Yes Crops but "they" hog it all to themselves don't they? or is it just me who thinks that?

I don't do point scoring when it comes to things like this but you know as well as I do as soon as we don't do what they consider "right" i.e. wearing a proper poppy on our strips they rip us up, I honestly think it's a sectarian thing with them but then again that's my opinion.

Anyway, the last thing Hibs would do is to steal charity money and not let on we were doing it. :wink:

[God Petrie]

Sentimental drivel romanticising the exploitation and death of young men.

[superfurryhibby]

Sentimental drivel romanticising the exploitation and death of young men.

I agree. You can add "in a pointless, brutal war that had nothing to do with liberty or any other justifiable basis for conflict".

The whitewashing of the disgrace that is WW1 is sickening. The footage of and stories from those that took part is heartbreaking and it still cuts me up to watch and read. People were treated as expendable and it remains a matter of shame that there is still some kind of public perception that this was part of any noble cause or had a higher purpose.

WW2 was a battle for survival, WW1 was a battle for power. Ironically, it ****ed the old European powers up big time-no winners.

God bless the poor *******s who took part. Lions led by donkeys is putting it mildly.

[jacomo]

Sentimental drivel romanticising the exploitation and death of young men.

You can see it in the euphemisms such as describing dead soldiers as 'the fallen' and describing their 'sacrifice'. Sacrifice is normally described as the conscious act of giving up something valuable in consideration of others. I am not sure being butchered and buried alongside millions of others quite covers it.

[Beefster]

The constant point scoring about this, from both sides, is starting to wear thin.

Absolutely.


Sentimental drivel romanticising the exploitation and death of young men.

A bit like Flower of Scotland.

[Dan Sarf]

More here:

http://www.footballersunited.co.uk/

Hibs reference on the page headed, "Young Men of Edinburgh"...

"... Mr McMichael, representing the Hibernian Club, gave the assurance that no obstacles would be placed in the way of any of their players enlisting."

[K-Zazu]

Did we have any players that were involved ? Or any other teams in Scotland ?

[Pretty Boy]

Did we have any players that were involved ? Or any other teams in Scotland ?

Raith Rovers had a large enlistment.

A lot of men from Leith, and I think a couple of Hibs players, were lost in the Gretna rail disaster.

[Just Alf]

Did we have any players that were involved ? Or any other teams in Scotland ?

Yup, there were Dunfermline, Raith Rovers as well as Hibs players involved.

Those teams had already lost some of their players to enlistment in previous recruitment drives so obviously don't have the same story to tell of "the whole team enlisting as one"

[jdships]

Agreed.

It's an interesting story, it's the centenary of the outbreak of war and football is a massively popular sport. The story was always going to find it's way into the mass media.

The constant point scoring about this, from both sides, is starting to wear thin.

:top marks

The story has been told and retold and for me I just accept it as part of WW1 history - end of !

[Sprouleflyer]

Raith Rovers had a large enlistment.

A lot of men from Leith, and I think a couple of Hibs players, were lost in the Gretna rail disaster.

According to this http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/dark-period-of-history-still-hidden-in-shadow.25871729

8 of the dead were believed to have been on the Hibs books at one time or another.

[Bostonhibby]

What I hate about them is they have claimed this all to themselves, other clubs including us had volunteers but they just don't see it that way.

They actually bumped the charity in that name as well, a shameless action that was only rectified after it became public knowledge, they constantly bang on about this and I really wonder if any of the money raised by the sale of the shirts they are wearing now will actually go to the charity, I think not given their past form.

Disgusting arrogant club.

Hope no one mentions the Macraes Battalion trust in the same breath...........they might just get away with it.......hopefully this wont be spun as something where no other clubs players signed up and fought on the same basis..............

[big gogs]

According to historians,between 8 million and 23 million people died during the First World War,between the armed forces and civilians of all the countries involved.for hearts and the media to glorify the fallen injured and maimed of that club is sickening,don't misunderstand me ,I respect everybody who fought and died during that useless slaughter,but to ignore the others is disgusting.

[EastCalderHibby]

[/B][/I][/U]
:top marks

The story has been told and retold and for me I just accept it as part of WW1 history - end of !

:agree: BUT WHEN you write a story like this you don't just talk about the one teams courage what does that say about
hibs , falkirk ,dunfermline, ect players and fans alike. they were all courageous and heroic
god bless EVERY one of them

[monktonharp]

Sentimental drivel romanticising the exploitation and death of young men.this is the bit that gets me. It is glorifying a war, that some half-wits are prepared to say was a war to make us free! when the hell did the first world war start, just to make us free? millions were slaughtered, a few made millions of pounds on it, some got their peerage on the back of it. when will people really look back and find out how this war actually started? a Serbian seperalist, assassinated an Austro-Hungarian Prince, possibly connected as a half cousin to our own glorious monarchy. The first world war should be remembered, as the darkest days of mankind, with all respect going to the young men who were cajoled, and probably threatened to fight for their country, or they would be looked upon as cowards if they refused to join the droves of men who thought it would be an adventure, and over by christmas. the poppy stealers along gorgie way are almost making a business sideline of it, and it makes me boak.

[monktonharp]

Did we have any players that were involved ? Or any other teams in Scotland ?don't be silly. hearts did it all:rolleyes:

[Bostonhibby]

don't be silly. hearts did it all:rolleyes:

So are you saying they were entitled to the poppy money?

[monktonharp]

So are you saying they were entitled to the poppy money?of course. its their war, they can do what they want with the proceeds :cb

[--------]

According to this http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/dark-period-of-history-still-hidden-in-shadow.25871729

8 of the dead were believed to have been on the Hibs books at one time or another.


This is true.

Best book on the crash - Richards and Searle, "The Quintinshill Conspiracy: The Shocking True Story behind Britain's Worst Rail Disaster", available from Amazon. It's not conspiracy theory - it's solid history, BTW.

There's also "The Ill-Fated Battalion - the Story of the 7th (Leith) Royal Scots at Quintinshill and Gallipoli" by Sain Ley Berry (that's his name) also from Amazon. (Not quite so sure of this one.)

The Battalion was travelling in two trains, about 450 men to each train. The men in the second train, which wasn't involved in the crash, went on to Liverpool, embarked on the Aquitania, and went on to Gallipoli. There were only about 100 of the original 900 or so men left by the end of 1915 - the rest were either dead or so seriously wounded or injured that they could n longer serve in the Army.

That's a 91% casualty rate in just over eight months.

The remnant spent the next two years in Egypt and Palestine. (The Battalion was reformed with replacements, of course.) In early 1918 they were sent to the Western Front. VERY few of the originals survived the War.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not in any way about taking anything from the 16th Battalion. My gripe is that somehow or other the only battalion that ever seems to get a mention in regard to Edinburgh and the Lothians in any discussion of the Great War is the 16th - McCrae's.

Well, work it out - if McCrae's was the 16th Battalion, that means there were 15 other battalions from the Royal Scots fighting as well. And some of them (like the 7th) were actually in the war, in action, ahead of McCrae's. And the 7th were Territorials - volunteers, not conscripts, not Regulars, volunteer workingmen and boys from Leith and the Lothians.

[Dashing Bob S]

It's pretty ludicrous to see the Gretna rail incident as that much of 'disaster', when those who died in it were being carted off to the killing fields to be gassed and blown to pieces anyway.

[Thecat23]

If you talk to any hearts fan older than 70 I've found they speak fondly about Hibs and the players who went to war. My grandad did anyway and couple others who used to drink in my local.

It seems the young fans now who attend the games know nothing at all about the history of what went on from lots of teams in Scotland not just Hearts! They just see this as point scoring. I personally have no gripe that they honour these brave men, but what bothers me is when you try to explain we also had a fair few of our men out there it's dismissed.

But I'm glad we don't gloat about it because it's not something to gloat about. We pay our respects like everyone else and leave it at that.

[Colr]

WW1 Christmas football.

Make of this what you will:-

Games played between teams of opposing armies include that of 133rd Royal Saxon Regiment against "Scottish troops".[24] Some accounts of the game bring in elements of fiction by Robert Graves, a British poet and writer who reconstructed the encounter in a story published in 1962.[24] In Graves's version, the score was 3–2 to the Germans.[24]

Another match was played in the sector of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, "recorded that a game was played in his sector "between the lines and the trenches," and according to a letter home published by the Glasgow News on 2 January, the Scots" won by 4–1.[24]

[Colr]

This is true.

Best book on the crash - Richards and Searle, "The Quintinshill Conspiracy: The Shocking True Story behind Britain's Worst Rail Disaster", available from Amazon. It's not conspiracy theory - it's solid history, BTW.

There's also "The Ill-Fated Battalion - the Story of the 7th (Leith) Royal Scots at Quintinshill and Gallipoli" by Sain Ley Berry (that's his name) also from Amazon. (Not quite so sure of this one.)

The Battalion was travelling in two trains, about 450 men to each train. The men in the second train, which wasn't involved in the crash, went on to Liverpool, embarked on the Aquitania, and went on to Gallipoli. There were only about 100 of the original 900 or so men left by the end of 1915 - the rest were either dead or so seriously wounded or injured that they could n longer serve in the Army.

That's a 91% casualty rate in just over eight months.

The remnant spent the next two years in Egypt and Palestine. (The Battalion was reformed with replacements, of course.) In early 1918 they were sent to the Western Front. VERY few of the originals survived the War.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not in any way about taking anything from the 16th Battalion. My gripe is that somehow or other the only battalion that ever seems to get a mention in regard to Edinburgh and the Lothians in any discussion of the Great War is the 16th - McCrae's.

Well, work it out - if McCrae's was the 16th Battalion, that means there were 15 other battalions from the Royal Scots fighting as well. And some of them (like the 7th) were actually in the war, in action, ahead of McCrae's. And the 7th were Territorials - volunteers, not conscripts, not Regulars, volunteer workingmen and boys from Leith and the Lothians.

I am quite interested in this since I discovered that my grandfather fought in WW1. I've found his war records online but it doesn't say which battalion he fought with or exactly where. He was from Musselburgh and joined up in 1916 and was gassed in France 4 days before the end of the war. I've always assumed he was with the Royal Scots. He was a Hibby, obviously.

[emerald green]

As far as I'm concerned, it's not in any way about taking anything from the 16th Battalion. My gripe is that somehow or other the only battalion that ever seems to get a mention in regard to Edinburgh and the Lothians in any discussion of the Great War is the 16th - McCrae's.

Well, work it out - if McCrae's was the 16th Battalion, that means there were 15 other battalions from the Royal Scots fighting as well. And some of them (like the 7th) were actually in the war, in action, ahead of McCrae's. And the 7th were Territorials - volunteers, not conscripts, not Regulars, volunteer workingmen and boys from Leith and the Lothians.

Good post. I read with interest your points above about other battalions from The Royal Scots.

My grandmother's brother (my great-uncle) was killed in action serving with 2nd battalion, The Royal Scots.

[Keith_M]

A bit like Flower of Scotland.


Very different circumstances.

Flower of Scotland is about the fight for freedom from English tyranny:

WWI was pure national jingoism when our country was under no threat whatsoever.

[AndyM_1875]

Did we have any players that were involved ? Or any other teams in Scotland ?

Yes we did.
Sandy Grosert who played for Hibs in the 1914 cup final was I believe in MacRaes. He survived the war although he was injured and gassed in the War. Something like 150 Hibs supporters joined that battallion too.

The Hibs family would no doubt have been horribly affected by the Gretna train disaster as that was a Leith regiment. Hibs lost 2 players in the Great War I think.
By 1916 Hibs had most of their team involved in either the Armed Forces or in reserved occupations. The list of former players who made the supreme sacrifice included former captains Paddy Hagan and Bobby Atherton the last Hibs captain to lift the Scottish Cup.

My great grandfather lived on Drum Terrace and according to my Dad he mentioned all the men who had been injured or crippled in France used to sit in wheelchairs at the front of the old Eggbox stand. That would be the early 1920s I think.

Some of their fans won't like to admit it but Celtic also suffered too losing players, fans and former players. As for their old firm pals, I believe the expression "hiding in the shipyards" was coined for their players. Ironic considering the militaristic bull**** Rangers peddle on Armed Forces Day.

[Hibbibri]

There is a good non biased account in the link below :-

http://www.edinburghs-war.ed.ac.uk/system/files/PDF_hibs_FC_WW1.pdf

[--------]

Very different circumstances.

Flower of Scotland is about the fight for freedom from English tyranny:

WWI was pure national jingoism when our country was under no threat whatsoever.


Really? I think most contemporary historians of WW1 would take serious issue with you on THAT one.

Do you really think that the domination of Europe from the Scheldt to the Don and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean (not forgetting Turkey and the Middle East) by Germany and her allies wouldn't have constituted a threat to this country?

Because that's what the outcome would have been if France had been beaten in 1914.

The men of the British Army 1914-1918 weren't dumb animals stumbling blindly into a meaningless slaughter. To portray them as such is an insult to their memory and deny them the reasons they had for fighting. The Blackadder Theory of the Great War is bull****.

It mattered who won the war; it mattered a lot that it shouldn't be the Hohenzollern Second Reich. What sort of a peace do you think the Kaiser and his pals would have enforced on France and Belgium and Serbia if they had won in the late autumn of 1914. (I don't have to ask what they would have done to Russia - just check out the terms and conditions inflicted on the Bolshevik government in 1918 at Brest-Litovsk.)

The early conduct of the war by the British government and the British commanders was appallingly incompetent and wasteful of human life. But the fact is that in 1918 the British and Commonwealth armies on the Western Front held and totally defeated the German Army under Hindenburg and Ludendorff - who strangely enough offered no opinion after the war on the fact that they were soundly outfought and out maneuvered by men they had called 'donkeys' only a couple of years earlier. Claimed they had been 'stabbed in the back' - then supported Hitler and helped set up Europe for Round Two in 1939. By which time both the sods were dead.

Nowadays we tend to see the Great War - most of us, anyway - through the eyes and words of the War Poets like Owen and Sassoon. Maybe it's time we wakened up and started listening to the historians whose re-assessment of the war has been going on now for 20 years and more - people like Michael Hart, Walter Reid and Max Hastings.

I often wonder how many of those poets' comrades in the lines would have agreed with their point of view? I actually doubt that there were many who did. If they had, the war would have probably been lost by 1917. WW1 was an immense tragedy costing millions of lives. But so was WW2 - and its 'butcher's bill' was actually higher and more painful than that of the first conflict, yet we have an entirely different attitude to its war-dead.

If you look carefully, I think you'll see that the two wars were the halves of the same war, about the same issues, and fought over the same battlefields. And you'll also see that this country was indeed under threat from German ambition both in Europe and on the high seas.

The myth is that the arrival of the Americans turned the tide. This isn't true - there weren't enough Yanquis to make a real difference; it was primarily the British Army along with the Canadians and the ANZACS who kicked the Kaiser's arse all the way back through Belgium and Northern France to the Rhine.

[Kato]

Really? I think most contemporary historians of WW1 would take serious issue with you on THAT one.

Do you really think that the domination of Europe from the Scheldt to the Don and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean (not forgetting Turkey and the Middle East) by Germany and her allies wouldn't have constituted a threat to this country?

Because that's what the outcome would have been if France had been beaten in 1914.

The men of the British Army 1914-1918 weren't dumb animals stumbling blindly into a meaningless slaughter. To portray them as such is an insult to their memory and deny them the reasons they had for fighting. The Blackadder Theory of the Great War is bull****.

It mattered who won the war; it mattered a lot that it shouldn't be the Hohenzollern Second Reich. What sort of a peace do you think the Kaiser and his pals would have enforced on France and Belgium and Serbia if they had won in the late autumn of 1914. (I don't have to ask what they would have done to Russia - just check out the terms and conditions inflicted on the Bolshevik government in 1918 at Brest-Litovsk.)

The early conduct of the war by the British government and the British commanders was appallingly incompetent and wasteful of human life. But the fact is that in 1918 the British and Commonwealth armies on the Western Front held and totally defeated the German Army under Hindenburg and Ludendorff - who strangely enough offered no opinion after the war on the fact that they were soundly outfought and out maneuvered by men they had called 'donkeys' only a couple of years earlier. Claimed they had been 'stabbed in the back' - then supported Hitler and helped set up Europe for Round Two in 1939. By which time both the sods were dead.

Nowadays we tend to see the Great War - most of us, anyway - through the eyes and words of the War Poets like Owen and Sassoon. Maybe it's time we wakened up and started listening to the historians whose re-assessment of the war has been going on now for 20 years and more - people like Michael Hart, Walter Reid and Max Hastings.

I often wonder how many of those poets' comrades in the lines would have agreed with their point of view? I actually doubt that there were many who did. If they had, the war would have probably been lost by 1917. WW1 was an immense tragedy costing millions of lives. But so was WW2 - and its 'butcher's bill' was actually higher and more painful than that of the first conflict, yet we have an entirely different attitude to its war-dead.

If you look carefully, I think you'll see that the two wars were the halves of the same war, about the same issues, and fought over the same battlefields. And you'll also see that this country was indeed under threat from German ambition both in Europe and on the high seas.

The myth is that the arrival of the Americans turned the tide. This isn't true - there weren't enough Yanquis to make a real difference; it was primarily the British Army along with the Canadians and the ANZACS who kicked the Kaiser's arse all the way back through Belgium and Northern France to the Rhine.


Still amounts to the same thing as far as I can see. Millions of people dead because of the imperial ambitions of a few dozen. Chuck in the pig-headedness of the repeated mistakes of the tactics and it's no wonder people look back on that war and round two with disdain.

[monktonharp]

Really? I think most contemporary historians of WW1 would take serious issue with you on THAT one.

Do you really think that the domination of Europe from the Scheldt to the Don and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean (not forgetting Turkey and the Middle East) by Germany and her allies wouldn't have constituted a threat to this country?

Because that's what the outcome would have been if France had been beaten in 1914.

The men of the British Army 1914-1918 weren't dumb animals stumbling blindly into a meaningless slaughter. To portray them as such is an insult to their memory and deny them the reasons they had for fighting. The Blackadder Theory of the Great War is bull****.

It mattered who won the war; it mattered a lot that it shouldn't be the Hohenzollern Second Reich. What sort of a peace do you think the Kaiser and his pals would have enforced on France and Belgium and Serbia if they had won in the late autumn of 1914. (I don't have to ask what they would have done to Russia - just check out the terms and conditions inflicted on the Bolshevik government in 1918 at Brest-Litovsk.)

The early conduct of the war by the British government and the British commanders was appallingly incompetent and wasteful of human life. But the fact is that in 1918 the British and Commonwealth armies on the Western Front held and totally defeated the German Army under Hindenburg and Ludendorff - who strangely enough offered no opinion after the war on the fact that they were soundly outfought and out maneuvered by men they had called 'donkeys' only a couple of years earlier. Claimed they had been 'stabbed in the back' - then supported Hitler and helped set up Europe for Round Two in 1939. By which time both the sods were dead.

Nowadays we tend to see the Great War - most of us, anyway - through the eyes and words of the War Poets like Owen and Sassoon. Maybe it's time we wakened up and started listening to the historians whose re-assessment of the war has been going on now for 20 years and more - people like Michael Hart, Walter Reid and Max Hastings.

I often wonder how many of those poets' comrades in the lines would have agreed with their point of view? I actually doubt that there were many who did. If they had, the war would have probably been lost by 1917. WW1 was an immense tragedy costing millions of lives. But so was WW2 - and its 'butcher's bill' was actually higher and more painful than that of the first conflict, yet we have an entirely different attitude to its war-dead.

If you look carefully, I think you'll see that the two wars were the halves of the same war, about the same issues, and fought over the same battlefields. And you'll also see that this country was indeed under threat from German ambition both in Europe and on the high seas.

The myth is that the arrival of the Americans turned the tide. This isn't true - there weren't enough Yanquis to make a real difference; it was primarily the British Army along with the Canadians and the ANZACS who kicked the Kaiser's arse all the way back through Belgium and Northern France to the Rhine. don't forget to mention Kichener's comment when told we lost 40,000 today. yes, but they lost 50,000 so we're winning
:rolleyes:

[monktonharp]

Really? I think most contemporary historians of WW1 would take serious issue with you on THAT one.

Do you really think that the domination of Europe from the Scheldt to the Don and from the Baltic to the Mediterranean (not forgetting Turkey and the Middle East) by Germany and her allies wouldn't have constituted a threat to this country?

Because that's what the outcome would have been if France had been beaten in 1914.

The men of the British Army 1914-1918 weren't dumb animals stumbling blindly into a meaningless slaughter. To portray them as such is an insult to their memory and deny them the reasons they had for fighting. The Blackadder Theory of the Great War is bull****.

It mattered who won the war; it mattered a lot that it shouldn't be the Hohenzollern Second Reich. What sort of a peace do you think the Kaiser and his pals would have enforced on France and Belgium and Serbia if they had won in the late autumn of 1914. (I don't have to ask what they would have done to Russia - just check out the terms and conditions inflicted on the Bolshevik government in 1918 at Brest-Litovsk.)

The early conduct of the war by the British government and the British commanders was appallingly incompetent and wasteful of human life. But the fact is that in 1918 the British and Commonwealth armies on the Western Front held and totally defeated the German Army under Hindenburg and Ludendorff - who strangely enough offered no opinion after the war on the fact that they were soundly outfought and out maneuvered by men they had called 'donkeys' only a couple of years earlier. Claimed they had been 'stabbed in the back' - then supported Hitler and helped set up Europe for Round Two in 1939. By which time both the sods were dead.

Nowadays we tend to see the Great War - most of us, anyway - through the eyes and words of the War Poets like Owen and Sassoon. Maybe it's time we wakened up and started listening to the historians whose re-assessment of the war has been going on now for 20 years and more - people like Michael Hart, Walter Reid and Max Hastings.

I often wonder how many of those poets' comrades in the lines would have agreed with their point of view? I actually doubt that there were many who did. If they had, the war would have probably been lost by 1917. WW1 was an immense tragedy costing millions of lives. But so was WW2 - and its 'butcher's bill' was actually higher and more painful than that of the first conflict, yet we have an entirely different attitude to its war-dead.

If you look carefully, I think you'll see that the two wars were the halves of the same war, about the same issues, and fought over the same battlefields. And you'll also see that this country was indeed under threat from German ambition both in Europe and on the high seas.

The myth is that the arrival of the Americans turned the tide. This isn't true - there weren't enough Yanquis to make a real difference; it was primarily the British Army along with the Canadians and the ANZACS who kicked the Kaiser's arse all the way back through Belgium and Northern France to the Rhine. funny that you seem to be re-writing history, by your comments from 3 men who have a totally different slant on things and all produced over the last 20 years. by the way, the ANZACS were led into a slaughter by a man revered in this country after the 2nd WW, and mowed down by the turks.

[whiskyhibby]

I really don't want to get into any sort of discussion that denigrates the sacrifice that people of all persuasions and backgrounds made in the First World War, but I do have sympathy for the view that the Jumbos hog the high ground when it comes to this issue and it grates with me

[--------]

funny that you seem to be re-writing history, by your comments from 3 men who have a totally different slant on things and all produced over the last 20 years. by the way, the ANZACS were led into a slaughter by a man revered in this country after the 2nd WW, and mowed down by the turks.


Gosh - I didn't know that. :rolleyes:

But after that the original ANZAC corps was dissolved and re-formed as 1st and 2nd Anzac Corps. I ANZAC served in the Middle East through the early part of 1916 before being transferred to the Western Front in the March; II ANZAC arrived in the July, just as the Somme was boiling up. Both ANZAC corps served on the Western Front until late 1917 as Australian/NZ combined corps, but in December 1917 they were broken up; the Australians formed their own Australian Corps, and the New Zealand Division became part of the British XXII Corps.

Technically, therefore, in December 1917 the ANZAC corps ceased to exist; however, Australian and New Zealand troops serving on the Western Front continued to be referred to collectively as ANZACs by the British and Canadian troops fighting alongside them.

Anzac Day (25th April) began as a commemoration of those who fought at Gallipoli, but very quickly expanded to include all Australians and New Zealanders who fought in the First World War, and now comemorates all Australians and New Zealanders "who (have) served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations".

I was using the term inclusively.

And I'm well aware that the three writers I mentioned (I didn't quote from them) write from different perspectives; however, what they do have in common is the willingness and ability to look at the events of 1914-18 with fresh eyes and sometimes come to new and differnet judgements about events and the people involved in them.

However, it's nearly midnight and I'm working tomorrow, so I'll close here and bid you Good Night.

[lord bunberry]

Still amounts to the same thing as far as I can see. Millions of people dead because of the imperial ambitions of a few dozen. Chuck in the pig-headedness of the repeated mistakes of the tactics and it's no wonder people look back on that war and round two with disdain.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the great war. There's no doubt the reasons for going to war were questionable, but if you look at the facts from the time there's no way Britain could have stayed neutral. The biggest sin as far as I'm concerned in the first world war was the treaty of Versailles which laid the blame on Germany and left them with a huge chip on their shoulders.

[.Sean.]

The 'Hearts won the war' chat is chronic, not to mention tasteless and disrespectful.

[Kato]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the great war. There's no doubt the reasons for going to war were questionable, but if you look at the facts from the time there's no way Britain could have stayed neutral. The biggest sin as far as I'm concerned in the first world war was the treaty of Versailles which laid the blame on Germany and left them with a huge chip on their shoulders.

It is, I agree. But simple is valid. It's simple to look to modern historians and say they are looking at it new ways and coming to new conclusions when all they are doing to going round the academic houses - i.e. if the fashion is to say the war was avoidable then sooner or later someone will bring up evidence/arguments to say it was not. That is how the academic world turns, on fashion and counter-argument. Doesn't harm book sales either to take a "fascinating new outlook" on things.


Anyway I know Britain could never stay neutral. What I was saying, millions died for a few dozen people's avarice/ambition, stays true and I mean in that it applies to both sides. Those in power could not give a monkies about how many died, or the fact that the mechanisation of warfare meant people suffered in a way they never had before, there was profit to be made and even if politically Britain could have stayed out they never would have when all that money was to be made.

As to Versailles there's evidence of the avarice.

[--------]

It is, I agree. But simple is valid. It's simple to look to modern historians and say they are looking at it new ways and coming to new conclusions when all they are doing to going round the academic houses - i.e. if the fashion is to say the war was avoidable then sooner or later someone will bring up evidence/arguments to say it was not. That is how the academic world turns, on fashion and counter-argument. Doesn't harm book sales either to take a "fascinating new outlook" on things.


Anyway I know Britain could never stay neutral. What I was saying, millions died for a few dozen people's avarice/ambition, stays true and I mean in that it applies to both sides. Those in power could not give a monkies about how many died, or the fact that the mechanisation of warfare meant people suffered in a way they never had before, there was profit to be made and even if politically Britain could have stayed out they never would have when all that money was to be made.

As to Versailles there's evidence of the avarice.


'Simple' doesn't mean the same as 'simplistic'. There are no 'simple' answers to the questions relating to the origins of the First World War, and to suggest that there are is to be 'simplistic' in the extreme. So I would consider 'simple' in the context you're using the word as very far from valid.

And if the process of studying and writing history is nothing more than a matter of fashion - a sort of academic musical chairs if I understand you aright - then we may as well all call it a day and give the whole process up as nasty, cynical and pointless. If that's true then we can learn nothing from the study of the past - indeed, all historians are interested in is concocting new theories regardless of truth with no other end in view than earning royalties. Isn't that a fair paraphrase of your first paragraph?

I'm not quite clear about this, but are you suggesting that there was some sort of conspiracy among the prominent financiers of Europe to 'have a war' in order to make money? If that was the case, they were pretty stupid. The War pretty well wrecked the European economies and left Germany bankrupt, Britain and France deep in debt to the US, and Austria-Hungary and Russia in ruins.

If you want a 'simple' resaon for war breaking out, try the bone-headed intransigence of the three Imperial autocracies of Central and Estern Europe. Austria-Hungary wanted a war to put the Serbs in their place - for some reason totally obscure they thought this would also unite the many nationalities within the Empire and distract them from the shortcomings of the Hapsburg regime. Russia wanted a war to distract the people from the shortcomings of the Romanov regime and show support for their brother-Slavs the Serbs. And as far as I can make out Germany wanted a war because the Kaiser thought it would be fun. All the evidence shows that the British and French governments tried to stay out of it as long as they could - Britain more than France, admittedly - but eventually had to honour treaty obligations to Russia and Belgium.

How's that for 'simple'?

And while you'll get no argument from me about the foolishness and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty, again the evidence suggests very strongly that it wasn't so much avarice that led the Allies to put the boot in so hard, it was hatred and a deep desire for revenge - to make the Central Powers suffer for starting the war. (That's their view, not necessarily mine.)

[alnewhaven]

Mud blood and poppycock by Gordon corrigan is worth a read . Debunks a lot of assumed "truths" about ww1. Indeed he echoes Doddies comment about it being viewed thro the eyes of Owen and Sassoon.

[Kato]

'Simple' doesn't mean the same as 'simplistic'. There are no 'simple' answers to the questions relating to the origins of the First World War, and to suggest that there are is to be 'simplistic' in the extreme. So I would consider 'simple' in the context you're using the word as very far from valid.

“Simple” can mean simplistic, it can also mean synopsised or distilled.


And if the process of studying and writing history is nothing more than a matter of fashion - a sort of academic musical chairs if I understand you aright - then we may as well all call it a day and give the whole process up as nasty, cynical and pointless. If that's true then we can learn nothing from the study of the past - indeed, all historians are interested in is concocting new theories regardless of truth with no other end in view than earning royalties. Isn't that a fair paraphrase of your first paragraph?

No it’s not. There are serious historians and there are populist historians. Serious historians know that “the truth” in any field of history is always illusive and theories and content are always in a state of flux, populist historians can thrive on “controversy” however mild and that it can help sales to have a contrary outlook to a commonly view, some also like to be said to hold the “definitive view” which can never be reached. The “Owen/Sassoon” Anti-War view-point became a fashionable viewpoint to hold post WW2 and like all fashions someone will kick against it. I’m not saying that fashion is everything in history, don’t where you get that idea, but it plays its part. A serious historian will take every strand of evidence and attempt to include them; a populist historian may well have an axe to grind and might attempt to debunk certain strands. If your saying that fashion doesn’t play a part then that's a naïve standpoint.


I'm not quite clear about this, but are you suggesting that there was some sort of conspiracy among the prominent financiers of Europe to 'have a war' in order to make money?

You’re not clear at all as nowhere can I see in my post a suggestion of any conspiracy. Saying that there is an inherent conspiracy within financial systems which drive toward profit and the manoeuvring of the oil and gold markets for the 40 odd years leading up to WW1 could only ever lead towards war and no-one stopped to think “hang-on, maybe this a bad idea”.


If that was the case, they were pretty stupid. The War pretty well wrecked the European economies and left Germany bankrupt, Britain and France deep in debt to the US, and Austria-Hungary and Russia in ruins.

Whatever the state of a country’s economy and whatever the process that leads to that condition, someone always makes a profit, the crash of 2008 shows that to be true. If a country is in the red someone somewhere holds the debt. The Marconi Company were quick to offer the British Government help at the start of the War and quick to sue them at the end when they thought they weren’t being recompensed enough. US companies made huge profits due to the war although the Government itself ended up in debt, a debt offloaded to its’ citizens in higher taxes.


If you want a 'simple' resaon for war breaking out, try the bone-headed intransigence of the three Imperial autocracies of Central and Estern Europe. Austria-Hungary wanted a war to put the Serbs in their place - for some reason totally obscure they thought this would also unite the many nationalities within the Empire and distract them from the shortcomings of the Hapsburg regime. Russia wanted a war to distract the people from the shortcomings of the Romanov regime and show support for their brother-Slavs the Serbs. And as far as I can make out Germany wanted a war because the Kaiser thought it would be fun. All the evidence shows that the British and French governments tried to stay out of it as long as they could - Britain more than France, admittedly - but eventually had to honour treaty obligations to Russia and Belgium.

Dunno how that disproves what I’m saying:

Austria-Hungary wanted a war to put the Serbs in their place
Racial ambition.
Russia wanted a war to distract the people from the shortcomings of the Romanov regime
Ambitious to hold onto power.
Germany wanted a war because the Kaiser thought it would be fun.
Hubric ambition.

All those ambitions can be seen greed for power, power brings wealth and status. Which is exactly what I distilled the reasons for the war down to.


How's that for 'simple'?

Great.


And while you'll get no argument from me about the foolishness and stupidity of the Versailles Treaty, again the evidence suggests very strongly that it wasn't so much avarice that led the Allies to put the boot in so hard, it was hatred and a deep desire for revenge - to make the Central Powers suffer for starting the war. (That's their view, not necessarily mine.)

That’s your interpretation but the fact remains their hatred and revenge manifested itself in the shape of financial recompense. Funny that.

[superfurryhibby]

"The early conduct of the war by the British government and the British commanders was appallingly incompetent and wasteful of human life. But the fact is that in 1918 the British and Commonwealth armies on the Western Front held and totally defeated the German Army under Hindenburg and Ludendorff - who strangely enough offered no opinion after the war on the fact that they were soundly outfought and out maneuvered by men they had called 'donkeys' only a couple of years earlier. Claimed they had been 'stabbed in the back' - then supported Hitler and helped set up Europe for Round Two in 1939. By which time both the sods were dead"

When I attended the two big games at Celtic Park recently I was moved to imagine what 60,000 men lost, killed or severely wounded in a single day (on the British side alone) must be like. The truth was that it was too much to contemplate. The Battle of the Somme took place in the middle years of the war and the reckless disregard for the lives of their own men had not abated one iota amongst the British high command. These sick, callous and cynical *******s could have changed tack much sooner. Once there was a general realisation that the bombardment hadn't worked it should have been abandoned. As it was these military geniuses carried on regardless. Four months later and many tens of thousands of lives lost, they halted the offensive having gained only a few miles of territory!

There was no cause, it was about power. Can anyone really argue that British Imperial interests were any more moral or righteous than those of the Germany, Turkey or Austria-HUngary?