"Dealing with WW1 Commemorations " Topic

Well this is it 4th August – off we go!

I wonder how many Wargamer/History Buffs are like me approaching the next four years with some caution.

OK part of this is my age. I'm old enough to have WW1 contact through actually knowing my Grandfather in person and long before a read a book or saw a TV documentary, I was aware that Trench Warfare, having your best mates killed in front of you and being severely wounded yourself, was not a laugh a minute.

So after 50 years of reading and media exposure I find myself starting to look at stock footage of veterans now long dead talking to camera and contemporary film, most of which I've seen before, while being told details I already know, with the same jaundiced view I normally reserve for a 'man in the street' documentary on Napoleon!

Its not an unfamiliar feeling and something that's been discussed on TMP before, regarding feature films and TV documentaries, which are pitched at public consumption not the likes of us but this time it feels like a betrayal and whats worse there's four more years to come!

Anyone else getting this vibe?

It is difficult to balance the personal with the bigger picture … and undoubtedly that subtle balance will be overwhelmed by the establishment version.

As historians we can try to be helpful and informative …

Phil

We can look forward to an absolute festival of concerned looking news readers, media friendly commemorations, politicians climbing over each other to comment, sound bites, events, bouncy castles, websites,primary school kids dressed up as the Kaiser (actually maybe not that…) media types looking up relatives that they din't give a toss about until now.
I grew up in the 1960/70s and my parents and their friends had all been through the Second World War and that was often talked about -the oldies didn't get so much of a look in but my Grandmother was still very bitter about losing her two brothers at Vimy Ridge -on the same day in fact.

Like Trajanus I'd just like to remember those I remember: a grandfather who got through unscathed:

An old bloke (nameless to me) who lived down the street (gassed in the trenches), who'd wheeze his way to the local:

Mr Morris who lived opposite. He'd survived the trenches, only to lose three toes from one foot to frostbite, getting back to the British lines at Archangel in 1919.

What Trajanus said.

I heard endless WW1 stories from my Grandad when I was a kid. Certainly what he talked about is not getting much airtime.

WW1 is now at the point in history where the US Civil War was when I was born. Pretty much ancient history. It is mind boggling to think of it in those terms. As for how it will be reported, these things flow with the times, sure it might be annoying to have it be all somber and sorrowful but is that really so much worse then bombastic and jingoistic as was done in times past (I'm talking about 50+ years ago or so). I've gotten to the point where I'm no longer concerned about which exact obnoxious filter is used to report on war.

For those of us who have an interest in history, especially military history, yep some of the stuff on TV will have been seen before, but we must consider the uneducated and those people who have no idea what went on 100 years ago.

Just look at society as a whole these days, I can only speak from what ive seen in the UK, no one seems particularly interested in anything unless it has a celebrity spouting some crap about their new hair do etc….

So all the commemorations will at least open some peoples eyes. Its a good thing, even if us old miserable sods think we know it all and have seen it all before.

Steve

I echo the "some caution" viewpoint. I had personal contact to the Great War through my grandfather. Looking back I remember the 60th anniversary of 1/7/16 very clearly as he was interviewed for the BBC Radio programme and also for Middlebrook's book.

I think the BBC's coverage has been very good so far. You can pick out the odd false step, but then what do you expect? It's a contentious subject. We're still fighting over the history and anyone who thinks the fight will go away has never studied the ECW.

My personal view is that this is an opportunity to acquaint people with the history not the poets. I've blogged about it and also wrote a piece in MW/BG as well that got me a personal attack from a renowned historian (although he's a medievalist , so what does he know compared to me?). I suppose my view is that I sdon't mind people disagreeing with my views on the War, as long as they're properly informed. That doesn't mean reading "Birdsong" and watching "Oh What A Lovely War" or "Blackadder Goes Forth".

BTW if you haven't been downloading the excellent radio podcasts the Beeb has been doing, they're all available still: link

WW1 is now at the point in history where the US Civil War was when I was born

Thanks Dynaman8789, I hadn't thought about it like that. It does make me feel a bit antiquated, however …

Phil
P.B.Eye-Candy

I suppose my view is that I sdon't mind people disagreeing with my views on the War, as long as they're properly informed. That doesn't mean reading "Birdsong" and watching "Oh What A Lovely War" or "Blackadder Goes Forth".

Well that's jolly nice of you. But as you say its a contentious subject.

In my view "Birdsong" and watching "Oh What A Lovely War" or "Blackadder Goes Forth" do not indeed tell the whole story but rather a bottom up view. A necessary one that took far too long to surface thanks to the Depression and that Hitler chappy and his chums.

It was and is a counter to the "Glorious Dead" and "They died that we might live" view presented by the ruling class of a Nation reeling from a number of dead and disabled it could not comprehend and desperately sought solace for.

One can not deny that the light of post war German and Russian political turmoil cast a long shadow over events either.

Don't get me wrong I'm not one who goes with the Lions Lead by Donkeys stick entirely. The military establishment at the start of the war had no play book to work from but at the same time it had its share of idiots. As well as having an unavoidable share of those who were stuck in the values of the Victorian era they were born to, at the detriment of those at 'The Front'.

With undeniable hindsight, it took far to long to get its act together.Reasons there may have been but they were not the ones paying the price for the delay.

It is a matter of debate if Einstein or someone else actually said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." but there is enough truth in it to describe 1915-1917 for my money!

For what its worth, I actually am someone that "They died that we might live" applies to. The indvidual, an unknown (to me) member of my Grandfathers section, whose dying act was to fall against him during a trench raid in May 1917, thereby causing him to move to his right and only have part of his face shot away by the burst of machine gun fire, instead of his head!

The Imperial German Army medical services and two random acts of procreation where additionally require for this posting to happen this evening.

The cult of the 'Glorious Dead' was an invention of the ruling classes at the time to try to deflect criticism when the true extent of their failings became apparent and this country was heading towards revolution, and very successful it was to!

It would also have been interesting to see what may have happened to the Social Democrat movement in Germany if the War had never happened. It was little wonder that the "Prussian" element decided that they could do worse than have a quick war.

I thought this was meant to be a commemoration, not a spat?

Didn't mean to start an argument. Sorry.

I am getting a little concerned about the coverage of the great War.
It is only the 5th August and there articles and programs on the "Pals",the New Army,the war Poets and the Somme, by 2016 we may well be sick of it all.
We may miss out on others how contributed to the war, the "Old contemptibles", the Empire troops, the other fronts and other nations contribution and not forgetting the RN.
I hope they make a good job of this and not just repeat Lloyd George's history of the Great War.

Well that echoes my concerns. There is a Program on the Empire troops on Wednesday 21:00 BBC2 BTW.

Also an early evening series of those Railway programs by Micheal Portillo on the part played by Railways in the War.

The first one was yesterday (BBC2) and very informative. As usual iPlayer is your friend if you missed it.

Didn't mean to start an argument. Sorry.

Not a bit of it! Historians should always question and it is very annoying when people's views stop at received wisdom. No harm done.

I knew someone who would only ever play the Royalist side in ECW games as he considered himself a Monarchist. The fact this view came via Elizabeth Windsor rather than Charles Stuart was completely lost on him!

My point of view of the commemorations are that they allow the "establishment" which still sends off people to go and die in wars to appear like they give a damn, when in fact they still send people off to die. The lessons of history never get learnt. As Harry Patch said: -

"It wasn't worth it. No war is worth it. No war is worth the loss of a couple of lives let alone thousands. T'isn't worth it … the First World War, if you boil it down, what was it? Nothing but a family row. That's what caused it. The Second World War – Hitler wanted to govern Europe, nothing to it. I would have taken the Kaiser, his son, Hitler and the people on his side … and bloody shot them. Out the way and saved millions of lives. T'isn't worth it."

Regardless of my comments on "Talking Heads" in my OP Harry was one of my favorites.

I think it was great that he was one of those who towards the end of his life changed his view on talking about the War and left a really valuable commentary.

I confess I'm also starting to worry about the way the 'meja' is portraying the centenary.

Like some of the other posters, it's a real war for me as well. My grandfather was gassed (but survived) in 1918 and my great uncle is listed on the memorial wall as one of the missing in the summer of 1916.

My father served in Palestine, North Africa and Italy, so when we holidayed in Europe, visits to CWG cemeteries and the great mausoleum at Verdun left a significant impact on me. I never served myself, but I still attend Rememberance Sunday services as a civvy when I can.

1914-18 was a great disaster for the whole of Europe, and respectful commemoration of all those who fought for their way of life is something we should applaud.

However, the current media circus has me feeling slightly uneasy.

World War I was a huge tragedy for Europe and well beyond

My personal tie to it was knowing my wife's great-uncle, a wonderful gentleman who served King and Country as a fitter in the Royal Flying Corps – I have his discharge certificate framed in my office

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the title of this thread (especially the "dealing with" part) seemed to suggest that this is all being imposed on us in some way and there is no escape from it. It is possible to be selective and ignore any parts that seem tacky, disrespectful, or just irrelevant. I suspect what will happen is that certain key events (eg Gallipoli) will be commemorated around the relevant dates, but otherwise it will stop from time to time – and let's be fair, it has hardly been wall-to-wall already, has it?

Two things strike me from this thread:

1) Many posters seem to have bought into the "WW1 was worse than any other war" myth – one of the 10 that Dan Snow says we really should ditch. There seems to be a completely different attitude towards the first war for some reason – until recently, it was almost as taboo as a subject for the wargames table as recreating Bloody Sunday might have been. Why? People died in much the same way as they did in 1815, 1715 or 1415 – yet these events are so much more "acceptable".

Individually, WW2 veterans suffered just as much, and were/are just as reluctant to talk about it; yet WW2 games were looked upon as "fun" whilst WW1 brought the inevitable "I can't see the point of gaming senseless slaughter " (as if Charles XII's, Napoleon's, or Hitler's Russian campaigns were acts of enlightened genius). The main difference between the two world wars was that we did much less fighting proportionately, hence our losses were less – and a greater proportion fell upon the civil population. The rest of the world, however, and particularly the civilian part of it, saw much (much) more conflict and its suffering was far greater in WW2 than in WW1. The national self-pity over WW1 (our "national wooden leg" as John Terraine called it), has been used as an excuse for many failings, and more sinisterly as an excuse for class-war bigotry and stereotyping (not on here, so much, where there is knowledge) – usually grossly inaccurate – that would land you in court if you did it to any other ethnic or social minority in the UK today.

2) The near-deification of Harry Patch and every word he uttered. By all means extend to him the respect we should show to all who did their bit in WW1, but please can we stop endowing him with some sort of Yoda-like insight into the human condition, for no other reason than that he happened to live a bit longer than the other Tommies? I can understand he became a sort of symbol for all of them, but that does not automatically qualify him as some sort of intellectual giant on whose every word we should hang.

As any social historian will tell you, the minds and memories of veterans become less reliable with time – you have to cross-reference them extensively in order to get an accurate picture of what people were doing/saying/thinking many years ago. And these ageing memories can be heavily influenced by outside factors that the person thinks are their own thoughts or experiences, but actually aren't. The quote above was as likely the result of the last 50-60 years of "senseless slaughter" message (propaganda if you prefer), as it was the product of his own experience – all 3 months of it – in France (Churchill actually spent twice as long in the trenches as Harry Patch, btw; his view on the pointlessness, or otherwise, of the war doesn't seem to get as much airing for some reason). I'd be more interested in what the 18-year-old Harry Patch thought of it all than a 108-year-old former plumber who, let's be honest, wasn't always lucid in his final years.

The Guardian recently had an editorial entitled "The Wisdom of Harry Patch". Basically the article reproduced the same quote you can see above, and on that basis suggested he knew more than the politicians (obviously, if he'd been one of the others, like my great-uncle Joe [Irish Guards] who said the war had to be fought because the Germans were a rotten lot (he met them first-hand in two wars), and who had many positive memories of WW1, they'd probably have called him a war-mongering, jingoistic idiot). Patch spent 18 of the 1,300 months of his life in uniform; his military education consisted of basic training and a few weeks learning to be a Lewis gunner. I suspect his view that "no war is worth it" might ring a little hollow in the homes of those French and Belgian civilians who spent four years under German occupation (which, for the men, included building the Hindenburg Line as slave labour), or the survivors of the Nazi death camps 20 years later. Sorry, but sometimes it is necessary to fight; and not everything old people say is gospel.

"one of the 10 that Dan Snow says we really should ditch."

Really Dan Snow?

My Grandad and for that matter my Great Uncle Willie both fought from 1914 to 1918. Grandad was at Mons and Vimy Ridge and many other battles on the Western Front. Both survived the war. Tough lads both they did quite a bit of killing some of it at very close quarters. They saw WW1 as a huge and unnecissary slaughter and would say so when the topic came up. Neither of them were pacifists indeed had the opportunity presented they would have quite happily bayonetted the local Coal Owners.

Nor did they have any particular animus against Germans. My Grandad did have a definite prejudice against Indian Army Officers and against the Manchus who policed the Chinese labour contingents in both cases he thought they were brutal clowns.

I can honestly say that listening to their contempoaries I never heard any of the veterans say it was a war that had to be fought. I did hear a lot of bitterness about broken promises when they returned home.

WW2 was a different matter and of course a different war the two should not be conflated.

OK lets start with the "Dealing with" bit.

My original thoughts were around how to maintain some respect for the subject matter in what is and will be, a sea of programming. Of course I don't have to watch all of it an neither will I do so.

The point was that there is no personal attachment for me in a crap documentary about something like Waterloo – watch for a glut of those next year – whereas there is in one on WW1 so that's a new twist for me.

Also, as already mentioned, I and others have a wary attitude to the BS that covers War Memorials with phrases like "Glorious Dead"! So there is a balance to be struck between commemoration and jingoism over the coming period.

Moving on. Harry Patch was Harry Patch any Yoda like status was bestowed on him as one of the final eye witnesses. Dissecting his career is not necessary, just because he was a media highlight. If I wanted to be picky about such matters I could point out my Grandfather spent far longer in the line of fire than either Harry or Churchill, was Mentioned in Dispatches, badly wounded and survived in a German PoW Camp for 18mths and then spent several years under treatment by plastic surgery pioneer Dr Harold Gillies, at Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup.

Playing 'My Dad is Bigger than Your Dad' is pointless. The thing they now have in common is that they are all dead.

As for John Terraine, I wouldn't expect any other kind of comment from a Daily Telegraph contributor. Whoops, bit of the old "class-war bigotry and stereotyping" slipping in there!

From an obituary:

"Critics pointed out that he relied too heavily on standard publications as distinct from archival research, and was inclined to repeat himself; that his tone became increasingly polemical on some critical issues; and that his deterministic overview of the nature of war on the western front was inconsistent with his stress on the British army's tactical and technological innovation under Haig's direction."

Perhaps he might have reflected on the fact that neither before or since did this Nation lose so many killed, or have so many wounded in any war, as part of the explanation. Not to mention the financial impact – some of the interest on War Bonds still being paid by the Government right up to the present day.

Perhaps he would have preferred the American position where the conflict is pretty much forgotten, despite the fact that they lost 116,500 men between 06/04/17 and the end of the War – twice the number killed in Vietnam!

However, in the interest of fairness, it has to be said that where Haig is concerned, most professional historians are more in agreement with his views than are against them. Something that was certainly not the case in years gone by!

Just close.

On the matter of "class-war bigotry and stereotyping" WW1 occurred when these matters were a way of life, it also brought together in close proximity unprecedented numbers of the class stratified Victorian/Edwardian society for first time.

Is it any wonder therefore that for good and bad, the experience left its mark on all layers of society and the 'lower orders', who were in the numerical majority, formed opinions of their "betters" that lasted a lifetime.

Or that the new 'middle class' who formed the first line of writers coming from the War, showed both "General Melchett" and "Private Baldrick" from their own perspectives be they to the Left or Right of contemporary views, politics and society.

There appears to be some drift in this thread.

I'm content to apply the same dispassionate approach to WW1 commemoration as I do to those for Hastings, Crecy, Agincourt, Minden, Waterloo, Balaklava or Spion Kop.

Brave men on both sides fighting for their monarch or ideals, almost invariably led by a command class for whom the risk was considerably smaller than for the average fighting man, and I worry that the modern drive to justify it all in 21st terms hides that simple fact.

All those who died in 1914-1918 did so KNOWING they were fighting as part of the Good Guys, and it was the others who were the bad ones.

Now we are 100 years on from those events, it is as wrong for us to cast blame on anyone involved then as it is to blame William the Conquerer or The Dauphin. To keep blaming the Germans is so patently wrong as to be laughable.

Moving on. Harry Patch was Harry Patch any Yoda like status was bestowed on him as one of the final eye witnesses. Dissecting his career is not necessary, just because he was a media highlight. If I wanted to be picky about such matters I could point out my Grandfather spent far longer in the line of fire than either Harry or Churchill, was Mentioned in Dispatches, badly wounded and survived in a German PoW Camp for 18mths and then spent several years under treatment by plastic surgery pioneer Dr Harold Gillies, at Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup.

Well, it's a good job you're not being picky then, isn't it?
;^))

Playing 'My Dad is Bigger than Your Dad' is pointless.

Well, no it isn't actually in this case. When you are looking for someone to give an informed view, surely the more varied and prolonged their experience, the more useful it is in gauging what actually happened? I would value your relative's experiences more than those of Patch or Churchill. In fact, do you know whether his views on the war were formed during/immediately after (eg letters/diaries), or did they slowly evolve as we "lost the peace" – as seems to be the case with WW1 veterans generally, according to folk like Sheffield and Neillands.

Perhaps he [Terraine] might have reflected on the fact that neither before or since did this Nation lose so many killed, or have so many wounded in any war, as part of the explanation.

Well, if you read "The Smoke and the Fire" he goes into some detail on that very matter. In fact, he points out that (a) it's actually the biggest war we have ever fought (in terms of numbers deployed), (b) we spent the entire war fighting the main army of the main enemy – which we only did once, for a few weeks (1940) in WW2, (c) we were forced on several occasions to take an increasingly disproportionate burden (in relation to our numbers) of the war, and (d) that several of the more costly offensives occurred not at a time or place of the British high command's choosing, as a result of having to prop up a collapsing ally.

However, in the interest of fairness, it has to be said that where Haig is concerned, most professional historians are more in agreement with his views than are against them. Something that was certainly not the case in years gone by!

According to Neillands, Haig was very well thought of by his contemporaries – including Pershing, Currie and Monash (usually cited as the complete antithesis of Haig and far more talented) – his enemies, and even the French. The revisionism seems to have come in the 1930s – after he'd died – when Lloyd George tried to distract from the failure of the politicians to create the promised "land fit for heroes" (hence my inquiry as to your relative's views) by blaming the generals for the losses. It wasn't until the late 1950s that he was called "Butcher Haig".

Would just add on the grandparent's reminiscences front I have my grandfather's and have gone through them and cross checked them. Written 50 years + afterwards his memory is good, but not perfect. Looking through his papers I think that he was heavily influenced by the 1960s anti-war backlash, and probably changed his views during that time.

For him the War brought great friendships and he organised his battalions reunions for many years, until the declining numbers got too upsetting. I think that gave him cause to reflect as well. He also read DLG's memoirs, (I have his copy) which are notoriously self serving.

Funnily enough much as he raged at times about high command he had a lot of time for the officers of his own battalion.

In fact, do you know whether his views on the war were formed during/immediately after (eg letters/diaries), or did they slowly evolve as we "lost the peace" – as seems to be the case with WW1 veterans generally, according to folk like Sheffield and Neillands.

No I don't and I wouldn't want to second guess that but its not rocket science for any veteran of any war to be in a negative place.

The collapse of the British economy 100 years earlier and sizable unemployment made it pretty much the same for Napoleonic veterans.

Peterloo didn't happen as the result of a happy Nation enjoying the fruits of victory!

Besides, I don't think a man who was permanently disfigured, struggled for employment and was receiving medical treatment into the 1920's while raising a family, was likely to need convincing of his views on the War, or its Commanders, whatever they were, do you?

As for Haig. I couldn't think of a marriage more made in Hell than him and Lloyd George. 'Jumped Up Taffy v Upper Class Twit' you can hear the vitriol even now! LG may or may not have done a hatchet job on Haig but I think it was a broader issue. He wasn't exactly an admirer of French either.

My view is Haig copped the ire of authors who were reacting to the "Glorious Dead" view of history which they felt (with justification) had gone unchallenged before WW2 and he was the obvious figurehead for it, being the man whose Drinks Cabinet everyone was trying to move closer to Berlin!

My grandfather was in the Salonika campaign. I know very little else – I was quite young when he died but I don't think he talked much about it at all. What I do know is that a list of the great uncles on both sides of our family reads dead, POW, wounded, survived, gassed, wounded, survived, dead (sunstroke). And my other grandad who was unfit for service the lucky bloke but I imagine those dear ladies with the white feathers had something to say about THAT. So it's no surprise that it left such a scar on society if that was a more or less typical experience across Britain. And that should be remembered.

But what makes me uneasy is the prospect of politicians posturing on the matter. No doubt many are sincere but already one Tory has criticised Miliband over how a card for a wreath was written. Next it will be that so and so didn't stand to attention or didn't mention such and such or didn't attend whatever. And those points will be raised to score off of each other and have nothing to do with remembrance.

As for the Glorious Dead concept, I have to admit I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "gave their lives" – It suggests an element of choice. I think "had their lives savagely ripped from them" is more accurate.

Trajanus-
I live about an hour plus from Gettysburg, PA. Watching what they did to the battle history presentation and having just survived their 150 year celebration, I get where you are coming from.

I watched them change from an old and musty display of the actual battle to a new fluff and sizzle but very boring presentation of the era in general rather than the battle itself. For me this has much less draw as a history buff and wargamer.

Don't get me wrong. The facilities and battlefield restoration are absolutely fantastic. But to me it is a lot of flash without the big bang. I get the dumb and dumber-downed routine because it is just scary what kids aren't taught and what people in general don't know about our history.

I expect anyone with access to film and photo stock will be selling a presentation on WWI as the months roll along. There is the hope in watching, listening and seeing that something new will surface and make it worth the effort of sifting through the mountain of stuff presented as people try to cash in on the theme.

2 things …

1. Play games: link

2. Continue to go to Remembrance Ceremonies on 11th November.

"That'll do pig"

For me personally, the Ceremonies in 2018 are the most important, when the war ended and then again, Ceremonies in 2045 (although 2041 has an important personal significance) and if health and life goes well, I hope to be still standing at all three…

Of course, we still seem to keep starting new wars… so humanity is never learning the lessons or the reasons for the Ceremonies.

However, like many of the above posters with direct links to family involved in both wars, we will never forget them.

And, there has been some decent TV programming, I hope it continues, I am also enjoying my wargaming in the period, check the Scarab forum here link for more on that

Kind regards

Rob
scarabminiatures.com
warandconquest.co.uk