Lectures on First World War

[Ariete!]

There's a lot of interesting material in this thread (as well as a boatload of potential books to be read).

 

One socio-demographic observation about a potential source of early opprobrium at the WW1 slaughter (besides its sheer scale, of course): WW1 is a modern war fought by people with still a largely 19th century outlook (including romanticism). The narrative (literally) of the ‘war poets’ and “all quiet on the western front” type novels had a huge influence.

 

It is no accident (besides the WW2 interlude) that the 19760s, with their revival ad nauseam of extremely romanticized ideologies saw the revival of strong ”anti-WW1” feeling. In addition to the risible “oh what a lovely war” I would point out the more serious ”paths of glory”.

[Guest aevans]

Of course. WW I represented a serious end to innocence -- viewed through a lense of Victorian/fin de ciecle/Gilded Age romanticism, it was both a comfirmation and repudiation of everything most people believed. It has become a vehicle for whatever one wants it to be a vehicle for.

[Colin Williams]

Of course. WW I represented a serious end to innocence -- viewed through a lense of Victorian/fin de ciecle/Gilded Age romanticism, it was both a comfirmation and repudiation of everything most people believed. It has become a vehicle for whatever one wants it to be a vehicle for.

 

But it's important to recognize the difference in the British POV relative to most other combatants. Wars with heavy losses and significant disruptions to civilian life were not alien to continental European experience, either in large scale (e.g., Napoleonic Wars, War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession, Thirty Years War) or in smaller/regional scale (e.g., Balkans Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Russo-Turkish War, Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War, Crimean War). Revolutions and political unrest were also familiar (and feared). With possible exception of the English Civil War, nothing of similar magnitude had happened in Britain since the Wars of the Roses. The various colonial wars were toughening experiences for the professional British military but had little impact on the sensibilities of society as a whole.

[Colin Williams]

It is more than arguable that the "backlash" against WW1 started much earlier, in the early 20s. The losses of WW1 were quite traumatic, both the scale and the fact that they were spread over all the country. In sheer drudgery and horrors of the trenches were very effectively spread through the photographs, silent movies, memoirs and even poetry - the effects of gas and shell-shock as well as the effect of "the loss of a generation" of young men had an effect on society at all levels. Emotive responses were found throughout society whether they had personal experience of the trenches or not. The pacifist movement took off very quickly. Remember, even the army ended up with a sincere belief that the losses were excessive.

 

.

 

Certainly all perspectives existed from an early time, and in England many people, up to and including Government ministers, recoiled at the losses in the trenches. However, very few of those appalled by trench warfare thought that the war wasn't necessary, at least to the point of accepting some degree of defeat as the price of peace. Lloyd George believed Haig was stupid and incompetent but not an evil representative of an upper class indifferent to casualties. What became a common point of view later was a concept of the war as an absolute waste of human lives, as a victory thrown away for nothing, as a course of history far worse than the option of accepting Germany hegemony and saving those millions of dead soldiers.

[Guest aevans]

But it's important to recognize the difference in the British POV relative to most other combatants...

 

In a lot of ways the First World War represented for the British the same kind of watershed experience that the American Civil War represents in the US. That's one of the big reasons it can be used to make any point one wants to make -- it's an event almost everyone recognizes and has an opinion on themselves.

[Colin Williams]

In a lot of ways the First World War represented for the British the same kind of watershed experience that the American Civil War represents in the US. That's one of the big reasons it can be used to make any point one wants to make -- it's an event almost everyone recognizes and has an opinion on themselves.

 

So are you arguing that there is no one reasonably valid set of perspectives on these events and all POVs should be treated equally?

[philgollin]

There's a lot of interesting material in this thread (as well as a boatload of potential books to be read).

 

One socio-demographic observation about a potential source of early opprobrium at the WW1 slaughter (besides its sheer scale, of course): WW1 is a modern war fought by people with still a largely 19th century outlook (including romanticism). The narrative (literally) of the ‘war poets’ and “all quiet on the western front” type novels had a huge influence.

 

It is no accident (besides the WW2 interlude) that the 19760s, with their revival ad nauseam of extremely romanticized ideologies saw the revival of strong ”anti-WW1” feeling. In addition to the risible “oh what a lovely war” I would point out the more serious ”paths of glory”.

 

Romanticism (including about war) had mostly gone in the very pragmatic Victorian industrialisation and, especially urbanisation. What was left was disolved by the Boer War.

 

Patriotism and "duty" (and their rallying call of "Empire") were the real things that were affected by WW1.

 

Anti-WW1 sentiment was very quick to arise immediately after WW1. Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s.

 

What is "risable" about "Oh, What a Lovely War!" ? It did exactly what it was meant to do.

 

"Paths of Glory" IS a romantic story with a bit of pseudo-realistic action. You have a cartoon hero with a foolish commander. The executed men, merely pawns to show off the hero.

 

 

The big effect of WW1 was the effects of the war spread throughout the country, and it was almost universally seen a waste. It was seen (simplistically and wrongly) as having acheived nothing that better diplomacy SHOULD have done. The politicans got the blame for the diplomactic failings, the military for the waste. Even the military regarded it as a waste.

 

.

Edited April 18, 2008 by philgollin

[Colin Williams]

Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s.

 

Pacifism did not appear on the scene as a mass popular movement for the first time in the 1920s. From Hew Strachan's The First World War -

 

"After 1912 the German Socialists, the SPD, constituted the single largest party in the Reichstag; the 1914 French elections gave the socialists almost thirty more seats than they had held in 1910...A major plank of socialism for many, but not all, of its adherents was pacifism...the International...at its 1907 conference...proposed a formula that workers and their parliamentary representatives should hinder the outbreak of war by the most effective means available...Governmental fears of socialist strength, and specifically of the International's pursuit of pacifism, were reflected in the optimism which overtook the socialists themselves in 1913."

 

Seems the pacifist movement of the 1910s was about as effective as the pacifist movement of the 1930s, probably less so, as the Communists and their fellow travellers were committed to war as a means of advancing the revolution.

[philgollin]

Pacifism did not appear on the scene as a mass popular movement for the first time in the 1920s. From Hew Strachan's The First World War -

 

"After 1912 the German Socialists, the SPD, constituted the single largest party in the Reichstag; the 1914 French elections gave the socialists almost thirty more seats than they had held in 1910...A major plank of socialism for many, but not all, of its adherents was pacifism...the International...at its 1907 conference...proposed a formula that workers and their parliamentary representatives should hinder the outbreak of war by the most effective means available...Governmental fears of socialist strength, and specifically of the International's pursuit of pacifism, were reflected in the optimism which overtook the socialists themselves in 1913."

 

Seems the pacifist movement of the 1910s was about as effective as the pacifist movement of the 1930s, probably less so, as the Communists and their fellow travellers were committed to war as a means of advancing the revolution.

 

You will note that doesn't cover the UK. Pacificism was very much a post WW1 movement along with several others (most of which had grown up over the previous 50-odd years)

 

The basic British policy for centuries (and certainly for most of the 19th century) was to avoid major wars - it was bad for trade.

 

The Boer War on a pound-for-pound basis had a great impact (more so than, say, the Crimea) - but "Empire" was still better for trade, so it was the effect of WW1 that really affected all starta of society. There was a time in the late 20s when, if things (and personalities) had been slightly different MAYBE India could have been set on the road to independence and the Empire turned slowly (VERY slowly) into a semi-commonwealth/semi-Empire.

 

WW1 made many (but not all) realise that things had to change and the rise of the Labour Party and various schemes for alleviating the poor conditions in the urban slums were given a kick-start (and of course female sufferage - due to their war work - NOT the sufferagettes as such). The number of men killed helped in all this as there was a generation of excess women which affected work patterns.

[BillB]

Romanticism (including about war) had mostly gone in the very pragmatic Victorian industrialisation and, especially urbanisation. What was left was disolved by the Boer War.

 

Sorry but the evidence clearly shows this is wide of the mark. There is plenty of literary matrial to show that romanticism was alive and well among the educated classes, not least from some of the overrated war poets whose later work is routinely touted as evidence to support the 1960s revisionist line. There is even more compelling evidence from the denizens of Victorian industrialisation and urbanisation, in the shape of the response to Kitchener's call for 100,000 volunteers on 7 August 1914. The result was the largest single expression of mass public support in British history, with 478,893 men enlisting by 12 September 1914, and by December 1915 the figure had risen to 2.5 million. Hard to square that with your assertion even allowing for peer pressure and economic pressure, I think.

 

Patriotism and "duty" (and their rallying call of "Empire") were the real things that were affected by WW1.

Perhaps, but the effect was nowhere near as widespread or deep as you suggest.

 

Anti-WW1 sentiment was very quick to arise immediately after WW1. Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s.

 

Pacifism was hardly well established by the 1920s, apart from among a very small clique of intellectuals. This is akin to saying that the 257 Oxford students who voted for the motion not to defend King and Country in 1933 were representative of opinion across Britain as a whole. I should also be interested to see your evidence that anti-war sentiment arose quickly after the war.

 

What is "risable" about "Oh, What a Lovely War!" ? It did exactly what it was meant to do.

It did indeed do what it was intended to do, and prolly much more effectively than Joan Littlewood dared dream. It is risible when it is presented as or considered to be anthing other than a piece of emotionally driven propaganda, but that has not stopped it being widely considered as an accurate portrayal of WW1. Like most propaganda, it tells you more about the views of the writer(s) and the times in wnich it was written than the actual subject portrayed. Rather like Blackadder Goes Forth.

 

"Paths of Glory" IS a romantic story with a bit of pseudo-realistic action. You have a cartoon hero with a foolish commander. The executed men, merely pawns to show off the hero.

 

Not at all. Paths of Glory is based, albeit loosely, on real events, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paths_of_Glory . On my wanderings across Europe I have come across two French TV films about very similar incidents that featured the names, dates and units of those involved and the efforts to rehabilitate the executed by their families. The kind of thing portrayed in Paths of Glory was by no means unusual. They actually decimated an Algerian unit in December 1914, and an officer and underofficer were shot without trial after withdrawing from a position at Verdun in June 1916, for example.

 

The big effect of WW1 was the effects of the war spread throughout the country, and it was almost universally seen a waste. It was seen (simplistically and wrongly) as having acheived nothing that better diplomacy SHOULD have done. The politicans got the blame for the diplomactic failings, the military for the waste. Even the military regarded it as a waste.

 

I see the bit about simplistically and wrongly in there, but you are still peddling the line put out by the 1960s revisionists. I'd like to see some evidence for this alleged widespread feeling that it had been a waste, as there is evidence to show the precise opposite.

 

BillB

[philgollin]

Sorry but the evidence clearly shows this is wide of the mark. There is plenty of literary matrial to show that romanticism was alive and well among the educated classes, not least from some of the overrated war poets whose later work is routinely touted as evidence to support the 1960s revisionist line. There is even more compelling evidence from the denizens of Victorian industrialisation and urbanisation, in the shape of the response to Kitchener's call for 100,000 volunteers on 7 August 1914. The result was the largest single expression of mass public support in British history, with 478,893 men enlisting by 12 September 1914, and by December 1915 the figure had risen to 2.5 million. Hard to square that with your assertion even allowing for peer pressure and economic pressure, I think.

 

Perhaps, but the effect was nowhere near as widespread or deep as you suggest.

Pacifism was hardly well established by the 1920s, apart from among a very small clique of intellectuals. This is akin to saying that the 257 Oxford students who voted for the motion not to defend King and Country in 1933 were representative of opinion across Britain as a whole. I should also be interested to see your evidence that anti-war sentiment arose quickly after the war.

 

It did indeed do what it was intended to do, and prolly much more effectively than Joan Littlewood dared dream. It is risible when it is presented as or considered to be anthing other than a piece of emotionally driven propaganda, but that has not stopped it being widely considered as an accurate portrayal of WW1. Like most propaganda, it tells you more about the views of the writer(s) and the times in wnich it was written than the actual subject portrayed. Rather like Blackadder Goes Forth.

Not at all. Paths of Glory is based, albeit loosely, on real events, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paths_of_Glory . On my wanderings across Europe I have come across two French TV films about very similar incidents that featured the names, dates and units of those involved and the efforts to rehabilitate the executed by their families. The kind of thing portrayed in Paths of Glory was by no means unusual. They actually decimated an Algerian unit in December 1914, and an officer and underofficer were shot without trial after withdrawing from a position at Verdun in June 1916, for example.

I see the bit about simplistically and wrongly in there, but you are still peddling the line put out by the 1960s revisionists. I'd like to see some evidence for this alleged widespread feeling that it had been a waste, as there is evidence to show the precise opposite.

 

BillB

 

You are mixing up "romanticism" with "patriotism" and "duty" - the Boer war and its after effects showed that the "romance" of war had died. Romanticism died a long slow death through the second half of the 19th century. It was NOT a major movement or belief by WW1.

 

I said pacificism was established by the late 20s, you seem to have misread.

 

You are modifying what you said about "Oh What A Lovely War" - good.

 

The fact that Paths to Glory was, or was not, based on true events doesn't stop it being a romanticised story. Do you think it shows life in the trenches as it was ? Do you think that the Kirk Douglas figure (remembering especially his pre-war profession) was that naive about the power-plays amongst his superiors ?

 

The loss of men in WW1 was a major driver in WW2 British senior staff actions.

 

.

[Ariete!]

Philgolin; I think you misinterpreted my reference to romanticism. I did not mean that disillusion with the war stemmed from the dashing of romantic notions about the war (though there was some element of that, especially among German youth) but rather that a romanticist (as oppo. to 'romantic') world-view and a very humanist-based education of the upper classes meant that the writings/poetry of people like the "war poets" had an impact on public opinion in the late teens/early twenties that would not be possible today.

 

As to the notion that romanticism was on the wane in Edwardian England, I could not disagee more. It was on the wane (indeed thoroughly obsolete) as an intellectual/avant-garde viewpoint but among the mainstream upper middle class it ruled. I would say that aspects of romanticism are very much in evidence in today's gestalt (communitarianism, environmentalism, remnants of exoticism, exoticism, spiritualism)

 

As

[BillB]

You are mixing up "romanticism" with "patriotism" and "duty" - the Boer war and its after effects showed that the "romance" of war had died. Romanticism died a long slow death through the second half of the 19th century. It was NOT a major movement or belief by WW1.

 

Straw man at the end there, nobody said anything about the strength of romaticism as a movement by 1914, except for you here. As I said there is plenty of romanticised writing from participants on all sides dating from the beginning of the war, and the British public and possibly others retained a romaticised view of what was happening at the front up until the end - IIRC Sassoon had a lot to say on this, and Remarque makes similar points in his sequel to All Quiet on the Wester Front. I'd also argue you are making a false distinction that the men at the time would not have recognised; the memoirs of New Army volunteers show that they saw duty and patriotism as indivisible, and that they had a romantic idea of what war was all about. Plus your analysis contradicts a lot of the stuff put out by the 1960s revisionists about the death of innocence. You are trying to have your cake and eat it I think, and you should also be honest enough to stick to the point instead of erecting strawman arguments and trying to move the goalposts.

 

I said pacificism was established by the late 20s, you seem to have misread.

I didn't misread anything. What you said was, and I quote with a cut and paste from your own post "Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s.". Note the bolded bit, which is at serious odds with what you have just claimed to have said and the evidence. Your comment is therefore disingenuous at best and plain dishonest at worst.

 

You are modifying what you said about "Oh What A Lovely War" - good.

 

I beg to differ, I have modified nothing, given my comment echoes what I have posted above. In what way have I modified? Some exact details, please, not more misrepresenation as above.

 

The fact that Paths to Glory was, or was not, based on true events doesn't stop it being a romanticised story. Do you think it shows life in the trenches as it was ? Do you think that the Kirk Douglas figure (remembering especially his pre-war profession) was that naive about the power-plays amongst his superiors ?

The story was in no way romanticised, it was based on an amalgam of real events. The portrayal of life in the trenches was more realistic than Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth.

 

The loss of men in WW1 was a major driver in WW2 British senior staff actions.

 

And? What has this to do with my response to your original comment that had nothing to do with this. What you said was and I quote with a cut and paste again "The big effect of WW1 was the effects of the war spread throughout the country, and it was almost universally seen a waste. It was seen (simplistically and wrongly) as having acheived nothing that better diplomacy SHOULD have done. The politicans got the blame for the diplomactic failings, the military for the waste. Even the military regarded it as a waste." Nothing at all in there about WW2 or staff actions, and the latter does not really address my point either, does it.

 

No surprise to see you have not changed your style of "argument" since the last time, Phil.

 

BillB

[philgollin]

Straw man at the end there, nobody said anything about the strength of romaticism as a movement by 1914, except for you here. As I said there is plenty of romanticised writing from participants on all sides dating from the beginning of the war, and the British public and possibly others retained a romaticised view of what was happening at the front up until the end - IIRC Sassoon had a lot to say on this, and Remarque makes similar points in his sequel to All Quiet on the Wester Front. I'd also argue you are making a false distinction that the men at the time would not have recognised; the memoirs of New Army volunteers show that they saw duty and patriotism as indivisible, and that they had a romantic idea of what war was all about. Plus your analysis contradicts a lot of the stuff put out by the 1960s revisionists about the death of innocence. You are trying to have your cake and eat it I think, and you should also be honest enough to stick to the point instead of erecting strawman arguments and trying to move the goalposts.

 

I didn't misread anything. What you said was, and I quote with a cut and paste from your own post "Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s.". Note the bolded bit, which is at serious odds with what you have just claimed to have said and the evidence. Your comment is therefore disingenuous at best and plain dishonest at worst.

I beg to differ, I have modified nothing, given my comment echoes what I have posted above. In what way have I modified? Some exact details, please, not more misrepresenation as above.

 

The story was in no way romanticised, it was based on an amalgam of real events. The portrayal of life in the trenches was more realistic than Oh! What a Lovely War and Blackadder Goes Forth.

And? What has this to do with my response to your original comment that had nothing to do with this. What you said was and I quote with a cut and paste again "The big effect of WW1 was the effects of the war spread throughout the country, and it was almost universally seen a waste. It was seen (simplistically and wrongly) as having acheived nothing that better diplomacy SHOULD have done. The politicans got the blame for the diplomactic failings, the military for the waste. Even the military regarded it as a waste." Nothing at all in there about WW2 or staff actions, and the latter does not really address my point either, does it.

 

No surprise to see you have not changed your style of "argument" since the last time, Phil.

 

BillB

 

IF you pick and choose "romanticism", "classicism", "cynicism" and almost any other "-ism" still rears its head now in almost any utterence or piece of writing (certainly "sentimentality" is a common modern fault, particularly in US films and US/UK TV). The romance of war in the UK was dealt a big blow by the Boer War. The news reels during WW1, despite being censored showed the generally bad conditions (as well, of course, as the propaganda cheerly camping life). Where are these "romantic views" of the recruits, as opposed to patriotism and duty ? I love the idea that you are now usingthe 1960s revisionists to support your idea of romanticism !

 

You carefully quote my words ("late 20s") but "forget" yours ("Pacifism was hardly well established by the 1920s") - who is being disingenuous ? So would you now like to answer your own question :- "..... I beg to differ, I have modified nothing, given my comment echoes what I have posted above. In what way have I modified? Some exact details, please, not more misrepresenation as above."

 

If you don't think "The Paths of Glory" wasn't romanticised - which would you have preffered to fight in, the nice clean trenches with nice clean quarters, or the real world ? Which is more realistic a presentation of a high powered society lawyer, Kirk Douglas's or real life ?

 

What "change in style of argument" ? What has "style" got to do with it - it is the substance of the argument - you are confusing.

 

.

[BillB]

IF you pick and choose "romanticism", "classicism", "cynicism" and almost any other "-ism" still rears its head now in almost any utterence or piece of writing (certainly "sentimentality" is a common modern fault, particularly in US films and US/UK TV). The romance of war in the UK was dealt a big blow by the Boer War. The news reels during WW1, despite being censored showed the generally bad conditions (as well, of course, as the propaganda cheerly camping life). Where are these "romantic views" of the recruits, as opposed to patriotism and duty ? I love the idea that you are now usingthe 1960s revisionists to support your idea of romanticism !

 

No acknowledgement of the fact that you are setting up a false division to suit your own narrow purposes the, Phil. The three are indivisible, and the fact that the vast majority of Kitchener volunteers had a romanticised view of war and military service is clear in works about Kitchener Volunteers and in their papers and memoirs. For example, take a look at John Jackson Private 12768: Memoir of a Tommy (Glos: Tempus, 2005) especially pp. 254-255 (this was written in 1926 and the indicated pages deal with his feelings at the end of the war); John Harris' novel Covenant with Death which was based on memoirs and interviews with Kitchener volunteers; and Martin Middlebrook's The First Day on the Somme, especially pp.1-15. There are plenty more. You can't get much more romatic than naming your unit "Pals" or "Chums", or honorifics like "Scottish" and "Irish" from units raised miles away from either. So, lets stick to the point and have some evidence from you now shall we, instead of your usual dissembling and drawing the discussion off track to avoid having to justify your assertions.

 

You carefully quote my words ("late 20s") but "forget" yours ("Pacifism was hardly well established by the 1920s") - who is being disingenuous ? So would you now like to answer your own question :- "..... I beg to differ, I have modified nothing, given my comment echoes what I have posted above. In what way have I modified? Some exact details, please, not more misrepresenation as above."

 

The first bit is yet another example of your disingenuousness, this time by playing semantics to camouflage the fact that you have been caught out trying to pretend that you did not say something that is clearly evident in the thread. 1920s, late 1920s, it makes no difference in context and you well know it - unless you are grasping desperately for straws to avoid admitting you've been caught out, of course. Again, let's have some proper evidence to back up your assertions instead of irrelevant waffling.

 

If you don't think "The Paths of Glory" wasn't romanticised - which would you have preffered to fight in, the nice clean trenches with nice clean quarters, or the real world ? Which is more realistic a presentation of a high powered society lawyer, Kirk Douglas's or real life ?

I think you are confusing romanticism with dramatic license. The film was about the brutal and inhuman treatment of French front-line troops by their senior commanders, something that is a well acknowledged matter of historical fact. The film was *not* a documentary on how awful the conditions were in the trenches - although there is film and photographic evidence to show that in some instances, places and times the trenches were indeed as clean and uncluttered as those portrayed in Paths of Glory. Given you proven inability to stick to the point I can see how you were easily confused, however.

 

What "change in style of argument" ? What has "style" got to do with it - it is the substance of the argument - you are confusing.

 

I think you might need help with your comprehension and quoting skills, mate. I dodn't say there'd been a change in your style of argument, I said the precise opposite. As for what style has got to do with it, it is the key when attempting to engage you in "discussion" for the simple reason you rarely produce anything of substance. Making unsupported assertions and then ignoring reasonable requests for supporting evidence while deliberately obfuscating matters by misquoting and introducing irrelevancies does not constitute argument or substance as far as I am aware. It is, however, your standard operating procedure and I agree, it is confusing. As one would expect from a deliberate ploy to sow confusion to avoid defending your unsupported assertions...

 

BillB

[philgollin]

No acknowledgement of the fact that you are setting up a false division to suit your own narrow purposes the, Phil. The three are indivisible, and the fact that the vast majority of Kitchener volunteers had a romanticised view of war and military service is clear in works about Kitchener Volunteers and in their papers and memoirs. For example, take a look at John Jackson Private 12768: Memoir of a Tommy (Glos: Tempus, 2005) especially pp. 254-255 (this was written in 1926 and the indicated pages deal with his feelings at the end of the war); John Harris' novel Covenant with Death which was based on memoirs and interviews with Kitchener volunteers; and Martin Middlebrook's The First Day on the Somme, especially pp.1-15. There are plenty more. You can't get much more romatic than naming your unit "Pals" or "Chums", or honorifics like "Scottish" and "Irish" from units raised miles away from either. So, lets stick to the point and have some evidence from you now shall we, instead of your usual dissembling and drawing the discussion off track to avoid having to justify your assertions.

The first bit is yet another example of your disingenuousness, this time by playing semantics to camouflage the fact that you have been caught out trying to pretend that you did not say something that is clearly evident in the thread. 1920s, late 1920s, it makes no difference in context and you well know it - unless you are grasping desperately for straws to avoid admitting you've been caught out, of course. Again, let's have some proper evidence to back up your assertions instead of irrelevant waffling.

 

I think you are confusing romanticism with dramatic license. The film was about the brutal and inhuman treatment of French front-line troops by their senior commanders, something that is a well acknowledged matter of historical fact. The film was *not* a documentary on how awful the conditions were in the trenches - although there is film and photographic evidence to show that in some instances, places and times the trenches were indeed as clean and uncluttered as those portrayed in Paths of Glory. Given you proven inability to stick to the point I can see how you were easily confused, however.

I think you might need help with your comprehension and quoting skills, mate. I dodn't say there'd been a change in your style of argument, I said the precise opposite. As for what style has got to do with it, it is the key when attempting to engage you in "discussion" for the simple reason you rarely produce anything of substance. Making unsupported assertions and then ignoring reasonable requests for supporting evidence while deliberately obfuscating matters by misquoting and introducing irrelevancies does not constitute argument or substance as far as I am aware. It is, however, your standard operating procedure and I agree, it is confusing. As one would expect from a deliberate ploy to sow confusion to avoid defending your unsupported assertions...

 

BillB

 

There is no "acknowledgement" as it didn't happen. YOU wish to think they are "indivisible" which shows a complete misunderstanding of the term "romantic/romanticism" (and also patriotism and duty - but strangely enough that is why they are different words). If you wish to re-organise the English language, you may do so on your own.

 

The rally calls for the volunteers were duty and patriotism - not romanticism.

 

Having asked for my (wrongly accused) "lying" re. the 20s, you merely gloss over your invention by saying "1920s, late 1920s, it makes no difference" - if you can't see that inventing words and then accusing people of lying by quoting those invented words is wrong, then you really have no idea of what words do mean. I can't be lying over words invented by you.

 

No, I am not mistaken over the romantic storyline of "Paths of Glory". The hero is a romantic hero. The "baddies" are real moustache twirling moustaches, and the soldiers are pawns used to highlight the good and bad points.

 

Where are these misquotes (are they akin to your inventing phrases ?

 

.

[BillB]

There is no "acknowledgement" as it didn't happen. YOU wish to think they are "indivisible" which shows a complete misunderstanding of the term "romantic/romanticism" (and also patriotism and duty - but strangely enough that is why they are different words). If you wish to re-organise the English language, you may do so on your own.

 

The rally calls for the volunteers were duty and patriotism - not romanticism.

 

That's right Phil, when someone points out that you are wrong, move the goalposts and simply ignore the evidence and pretend it hasn't been raised. Pathetic. Ariete has already cited evidence to show that romaticism was alive and well in the class from which the wartime Army drew its officers despite your assertions to the contrary, and I've provided references complete with page numbers to support my side of the argument that the volunteers had a largely romatic understanding of the realities of war despite the Boer War. You, in response, have provided jack shit apart from obfuscation and evasion, in line with your usual SOP. In addition you might also want to take a look at the romaticised manner in which the war was portrayed at the time by the likes of Caton Woodville or in the cheap popular histories of the war that abounded at the time and can be found as multi-volume sets even today. You might also want to examine how the war was portrayed in mass-market popular fiction in the inter-war period, which largely mirrors the popular wartime treatment. All of which undermine your assertion that romanticism and romantic perception played no part in the motovations of Kitchener's volunteers alongside a sense of patriotism and duty.

 

Having asked for my (wrongly accused) "lying" re. the 20s, you merely gloss over your invention by saying "1920s, late 1920s, it makes no difference" - if you can't see that inventing words and then accusing people of lying by quoting those invented words is wrong, then you really have no idea of what words do mean. I can't be lying over words invented by you.

I'm quite happy to accuse you of talking shite Phil, and the above provides irrefutable evidence. Despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend otherwise, I pointed out that you had said one thing and them tried to claim you'd said something else entirely and cut and pasted your own post as proof. To obfuscate that you are playing semantic games over the difference between "1920s" and "late1920s" which is a pedantic irrelevance in the context of the discussion. Let's just recap shall we. You initially claimed that "Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s", which within a few posts morphed into "I said pacificism was established by the late 20s". The two are not the same, and the inclusuion or exclusion of the word "late" does not impact on the erroneous nature of your original assertion, as pacifism was never any more than a narrow view espoused by a handful of intellectuals at any time in the 1920s. So tell me, Mr Evasion, who exactly has been telling fibs here?

 

No, I am not mistaken over the romantic storyline of "Paths of Glory". The hero is a romantic hero. The "baddies" are real moustache twirling moustaches, and the soldiers are pawns used to highlight the good and bad points.

 

Ah, so we've decided to quietly abandon the state of the trenches argument then. The glaring flaw in your assertion is that the incidents and portrayals are based on real people and real events, not fictional examples.

 

Where are these misquotes (are they akin to your inventing phrases ?

 

No sweetheart, that would be you. As I've proven with words taken from your own posts, the only one inventing things here would be you. The last refuge of the exposed charlatan - point at the other bloke and shrilly accuse him your own misdemeanour. How about using the quote function properly so it is clear what bit of your obfuscation applies to what in my posts. But that would mean facing up to the fact that your assertions are provenly insupportable, and anything is better than just admitting you were wrong, eh Phil. Again, pathetic.

 

BillB

[philgollin]

That's right Phil, when someone points out that you are wrong, move the goalposts and simply ignore the evidence and pretend it hasn't been raised. Pathetic. Ariete has already cited evidence to show that romaticism was alive and well in the class from which the wartime Army drew its officers despite your assertions to the contrary, and I've provided references complete with page numbers to support my side of the argument that the volunteers had a largely romatic understanding of the realities of war despite the Boer War. You, in response, have provided jack shit apart from obfuscation and evasion, in line with your usual SOP. In addition you might also want to take a look at the romaticised manner in which the war was portrayed at the time by the likes of Caton Woodville or in the cheap popular histories of the war that abounded at the time and can be found as multi-volume sets even today. You might also want to examine how the war was portrayed in mass-market popular fiction in the inter-war period, which largely mirrors the popular wartime treatment. All of which undermine your assertion that romanticism and romantic perception played no part in the motovations of Kitchener's volunteers alongside a sense of patriotism and duty.

 

I'm quite happy to accuse you of talking shite Phil, and the above provides irrefutable evidence. Despite your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend otherwise, I pointed out that you had said one thing and them tried to claim you'd said something else entirely and cut and pasted your own post as proof. To obfuscate that you are playing semantic games over the difference between "1920s" and "late1920s" which is a pedantic irrelevance in the context of the discussion. Let's just recap shall we. You initially claimed that "Pacificism was a well established public sentiment by the late 20s", which within a few posts morphed into "I said pacificism was established by the late 20s". The two are not the same, and the inclusuion or exclusion of the word "late" does not impact on the erroneous nature of your original assertion, as pacifism was never any more than a narrow view espoused by a handful of intellectuals at any time in the 1920s. So tell me, Mr Evasion, who exactly has been telling fibs here?

Ah, so we've decided to quietly abandon the state of the trenches argument then. The glaring flaw in your assertion is that the incidents and portrayals are based on real people and real events, not fictional examples.

No sweetheart, that would be you. As I've proven with words taken from your own posts, the only one inventing things here would be you. The last refuge of the exposed charlatan - point at the other bloke and shrilly accuse him your own misdemeanour. How about using the quote function properly so it is clear what bit of your obfuscation applies to what in my posts. But that would mean facing up to the fact that your assertions are provenly insupportable, and anything is better than just admitting you were wrong, eh Phil. Again, pathetic.

 

BillB

 

You really are just blustering to cover your mistakes and your FALSE accusation of lying, which you backed up by inventing words supposedly from me and now you claim "you are playing semantic games over the difference between "1920s" and "late1920s" which is a pedantic irrelevance" - always nice to know that basing an accusation of lying on words made up by the accuser is an irrelevance ! You really do need to keep your feet on the ground and comment on what someone writes, not what you want to imagine. And making up false accusations based on your imaginings is about as low as you can get.

 

I like the way you try to ignore the romantic basis of the film by imagining that the state of the trenches argument has been "abandoned" - why imagine that. I made the point, you never answered it, so the person who "abandoned" it was you.

 

You still haven't shown any instances of obfuscation, nor acknowledged you false accusation - why ?

 

.

[Richard Lindquist]

I think that all young soldiers who have not been in combat have a "romaticized" view as to what combat would be about. The real driver in 1914 was an extreme nationalism on the part of all of the combatant nations. Socialist parties and their pacifist notions got swept up in the nationalist fervor in 1914 to such an extrent that all of the mainstream European socialist parties supported the declarations of war and the "call to the colors". Later they would blame the disaster on the politicians and the "war profiteering industrialists" rather than on their own enthusiastic support based on extreme nationalism.

[Ken Estes]

I think that all young soldiers who have not been in combat have a "romaticized" view as to what combat would be about. The real driver in 1914 was an extreme nationalism on the part of all of the combatant nations. Socialist parties and their pacifist notions got swept up in the nationalist fervor in 1914 to such an extrent that all of the mainstream European socialist parties supported the declarations of war and the "call to the colors". Later they would blame the disaster on the politicians and the "war profiteering industrialists" rather than on their own enthusiastic support based on extreme nationalism.

Well put, Richard, succinct and accurate; but I am advised that you were there at the time, so perhaps it is easier for you to recall. Ironically the only blip on the screen was the assassination of Jean Jaures, the Fr socialist leader, on 31 July by a crazed nationalist, who beat the rap in the postwar trial. WTF have you been? Cheers, Ken

[Ariete!]

I think that all young soldiers who have not been in combat have a "romaticized" view as to what combat would be about. The real driver in 1914 was an extreme nationalism on the part of all of the combatant nations. Socialist parties and their pacifist notions got swept up in the nationalist fervor in 1914 to such an extrent that all of the mainstream European socialist parties supported the declarations of war and the "call to the colors". Later they would blame the disaster on the politicians and the "war profiteering industrialists" rather than on their own enthusiastic support based on extreme nationalism.

 

Well put!

 

One such "socialist" was a stout fellow by the name of Benito Mussolini... Look how THAT ended up

[Richard Lindquist]

Well put, Richard, succinct and accurate; but I am advised that you were there at the time, so perhaps it is easier for you to recall. Ironically the only blip on the screen was the assassination of Jean Jaures, the Fr socialist leader, on 31 July by a crazed nationalist, who beat the rap in the postwar trial. WTF have you been? Cheers, Ken

 

I have been doing less and less computer time lately, Ken. Just a wide variety of other things that have been going on and I haven't been posting as much. Health and wealth good. Just spent a ten day cruise in company of another couple we recently met. He is a former MACV-SOG type so we had some interesting conversations.

[Ken Estes]

I have been doing less and less computer time lately, Ken.

....

Well, that's all to the good, and I suspected you were cruising. Do carry on! Ken

[glenn239]

Not that the invectives of this thread aren’t fascinating stuff, but I had a question more along the lines of the original topic –

 

On the opening day of the Battle of the Somme, it’s my understanding that British tactics were woefully deficient in comparison to either those of the French or Germans. My question is twofold. (1) Is this true and (2) who if not Haig was ultimately responsible for any lack of sound tactical doctrine?

[Richard Lindquist]

Not that the invectives of this thread aren’t fascinating stuff, but I had a question more along the lines of the original topic –

 

On the opening day of the Battle of the Somme, it’s my understanding that British tactics were woefully deficient in comparison to either those of the French or Germans. My question is twofold. (1) Is this true and (2) who if not Haig was ultimately responsible for any lack of sound tactical doctrine?

 

While John Mosier's book has been roundly criticized on this Grate Sight, it does contain some nuggets. One point that mosier made is that the way the BEF was formed caused the troops of "Kitchener"s Army" which conducted most of the early attacks on the Somme to be trained by "dugouts" from the Boer Woer (Bar War?). The cadres which would have been most useful in instructing these troops were killed or incapacitated for further service at Ypres, Nueve Chappelle, and Lens-Loos. What remaining officers and NCOs that were left were needed to reconstitute the regular army formations.

 

From the point of view of staff planning, organizations, logistics, division/corps level tactics, artillery procedures, use of engineers, etc, the BEF had made great strides from 1914. At the level of battalion and company, Kitchener's Army was young, enthusastic, well-drilled, and tactically uninstructed. As shown in the Blackadder series "the plan involves getting up out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the German machineguns".