• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Rewriting The History Of The First World War

G

garrick92

Guest
(I'm not sure which folder this should go in, but I've chosen 'folklore' for reasons that will hopefully become clear).

Have you noticed that on the Centenary of WWI, history seems to be in the process of being revised?

I was brought up in the 'pointless bloody waste' school of thought, but several times on this historic anniversary, I've heard WWI referred to in terms of 'protecting our democracy' and 'saying "Thank you" to our heroes'.

WTF? They don't deserve our thanks -- they deserve our sympathy and outrage, surely?

Suddenly, WWI has become to some people the moral equivalent of WWII -- a Manichean "good-vs-evil" conflict.

This is bollocks surely? Where has this sudden whitewashing come from? Do many people believe it?

OK, so the history you learn depends on when you learn it. I can accept that for instance, the 'Tommy's eye perspective' that was the prevailing view a decade or two ago was largely the result of the advent of domestic tape-recorders in the 1960s fuelling a boom in oral histories from survivors. I can accept that that perspective might be modified over time.

But what's currently taking place seems to me to be the creation of, to put it bluntly, an affront to the truth.

Thoughts?
 
I think the "Lions led by donkeys"/"O What a Lovely War" interpretation of WWI has been under attack by historians for some time. The current view as I understand it is that the generals were not as incompetent or as heartless as they have been portrayed. The class angle may have been overplayed in the past as well and the highest death rates were in fact amongst the upper/upper middle class junior officers.

Historians are also much more critical of German aggression/expansionsim than they were previously.

I don't see much of a conspiracy here TBH; more a growing realisation that, however horrible the conflict was, it was probably unavodable. This sort of revisionism is pretty common especially as the past recedes into the distance and eyewitnesses/survivors die out. It allows a more dispassionate look at events.
 
I agree. I hadn't really ever heard of people talking about WW1 with regard to it "protecting us" until very recently. I had always thought/been taught the same as you - young men being used as cannon fodder.

I'm not sure where this has come from & I'm sure that it will only continue -mores the pity.
 
Quake42 said:
I don't see much of a conspiracy here TBH; more a growing realisation that, however horrible the conflict was, it was probably unavodable. This sort of revisionism is pretty common especially as the past recedes into the distance and eyewitnesses/survivors die out. It allows a more dispassionate look at events.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting a conspiracy behind it. I was looking at it as a social phenomenon, and wondering what had sparked it off and why so many believed it.

As I said, I accept that history is a never-ending argument, but the idea that Britain's entry into WWI was about protecting our democracy is utterly false by any historian's standards.

I'm not even sure that it was about protecting Belgium's democracy, and the entry of the Kaiser's troops into that country was the reason we declared war in the first place.
 
As I said, I accept that history is a never-ending argument, but the idea that Britain's entry into WWI was about protecting our democracy is utterly false by any historian's standards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it would be more accurate to say it was about preventing aggression and German dominance of Europe.

WWI *did* result in the collapse of the absolute monarchies and it helped usher in proper democracy in Britain and other parts of Europe (it's often forgotten that not only did women have no vote until 1918, but neither did 40% of men). But that wasn't why it was fought.
 
Quake42 said:
As I said, I accept that history is a never-ending argument, but the idea that Britain's entry into WWI was about protecting our democracy is utterly false by any historian's standards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it would be more accurate to say it was about preventing aggression and German dominance of Europe.

WWI *did* result in the collapse of the absolute monarchies and it helped usher in proper democracy in Britain and other parts of Europe (it's often forgotten that not only did women have no vote until 1918, but neither did 40% of men). But that wasn't why it was fought.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Its also worth remembering though that "Little Belgium" was an Imnperial Power with colonies in Africa.
 
ramonmercado said:
Its also worth remembering though that "Little Belgium" was an Imnperial Power with colonies in Africa.
Click to expand...

WWI certainly didn't put a stop to that. Nor did WWII. IIRC Belgium had an Empire until the 1960s.
 
Its also worth remembering though that "Little Belgium" was an Imnperial Power with colonies in Africa.
Click to expand...

It was - and its rule in the Congo was particularly brutal - but I'm not sure that is relevant in terms of Germany's aggression towards Belgium.
 
Quake42 said:
Its also worth remembering though that "Little Belgium" was an Imnperial Power with colonies in Africa.
Click to expand...

It was - and its rule in the Congo was particularly brutal - but I'm not sure that is relevant in terms of Germany's aggression towards Belgium.
Click to expand...

But the British also contemplated breaching Belgium's neutrality, Germany got there first.

The idea that the war was fought for the freedom of "little " nations like Belgium is wrong.
 
Apologies for interrupting this thread's topic. I'm not normally a conspiracy theory enthusiast but something else struck me about last night's lights out action (which we observed out of respect). I'm aware that a comment was made at the outbreak of WW1 along the lines of when this war starts, the lights will go out over Britain. Fast forward to today and our current nation, media and politicians have been quite vocal about our major electricity suppliers, to put it bluntly, 'taking the piss' when it comes to our current pricing situation on electricity bills. I can't help wondering how much money companies like Eon lost last night and if maybe there was a double agenda in the decision to tell the nation to switch out our lights for an hour? ... at least, I hope that was the case :twisted:
 
I'm aware that a comment was made at the outbreak of WW1 along the lines of when this war starts, the lights will go out over Britain.
Click to expand...

Edward Grey, who was foreign secretary at the time. "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime". Yesterday's "turn the lights out" exercise was a reference to that. Don't think there was any double agenda.
 
Thanks for the correct quote Quake42 and even if there wasn't a double agenda, it was the first time in ages I've had to go to the loo by candle light. It was almost romantic! ... plus the energy companies were put back in their place ;)

Sorry again to interrupt all .. as you were please ..
 
ramonmercado said:
But the British also contemplated breaching Belgium's neutrality, Germany got there first.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. But I don't know how to google the subject. Or at least, my present googling isn't turning up a clear answer. Could you provide a source, please?

NB: I'm not challenging you, I'd just like to read about this aspect out of personal curiosity.
 
plus the energy companies were put back in their place
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people turned the TV off though! It would be interesting to see how many people did the "turning the lights off" thing though. I must confess I didn't. :oops:
 
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and suggest that this nonsense about WWI being a battle for democracy is American in origin and has somehow seeped into British popular culture.

I don't know how that might have happened and I doubt it would be traceable anyway (although in the internet age, it's more likely than not).

But it's just the sort of daft oversimplified myth that might have been peddled stateside.

This isn't an insult to Americans in general, but if the White House can sell the US public the myth that toppling Saddam Hussein was done in the name of democracy, then I suspect that the same 'exporting the revolution' myth might have been applied to WWI.

(Much the same 'exporting the revolution' myth was behind widespread US support for the IRA pre-1998, and was kept on the boil by the large Irish-American population)
 
Well, well -- look what I've found:

American public opinion was strongly divided, with most Americans until early 1917 strongly of the opinion that the United States should stay out of the war. Opinion changed gradually, partly in response to German actions in Belgium and the Lusitania, partly as German-Americans lost influence, and partly in response to Wilson's position that America had to play a role to make the world safe for democracy.[6]
Click to expand...

So, is this the origin of the current nonsense? An early PR exercise by the White House to sell US entry to the US public, just like Bush's confabulations over Iraq 90 years later?

OK, so Wikipedia generally isn't worth the paper that it's not written on, but the source it provides looks legit.
 
garrick92 said:
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and suggest that this nonsense about WWI being a battle for democracy is American in origin and has somehow seeped into British popular culture.

I don't know how that might have happened and I doubt it would be traceable anyway (although in the internet age, it's more likely than not).

But it's just the sort of daft oversimplified myth that might have been peddled stateside.

This isn't an insult to Americans in general, but if the White House can sell the US public the myth that toppling Saddam Hussein was done in the name of democracy, then I suspect that the same 'exporting the revolution' myth might have been applied to WWI.

(Much the same 'exporting the revolution' myth was behind widespread US support for the IRA pre-1998, and was kept on the boil by the large Irish-American population)
Click to expand...

The full might of US security services acted against the IRA and its US supporters in their attempts to secure arms. Many were imprisoned. No State support for export of revolution.
 
I hope I didn't suggest that the US as an entity supported the IRA as a foreign policy.

What I meant was that the 'myth' of the IRA being 'freedom fighters' against the tyrannical Brits gained traction in the popular psyche and was kept alive by the Irish exile community.

I can remember seeing on a news programme film of pro-IRA bucket collections happening at St Patrick's Day parades in NY.

(I've put 'myth' and 'freedom fighters' in quotes for the purposes of impartiality -- the actual rights and wrongs of The Troubles are beyond my scope for this thread).
 
garrick92 said:
I hope I didn't suggest that the US as an entity supported the IRA as a foreign policy.

What I meant was that the 'myth' of the IRA being 'freedom fighters' against the tyrannical Brits gained traction in the popular psyche and was kept alive by the Irish exile community.

I can remember seeing on a news programme film of pro-IRA bucket collections happening at St Patrick's Day parades in NY.

(I've put 'myth' and 'freedom fighters' in quotes for the purposes of impartiality -- the actual rights and wrongs of The Troubles are beyond my scope for this thread).
Click to expand...

A lot of history, 50 years of Orange Rule. UK citizens being denied democratic rights because they were Roman Catholics. Derry, with a 2/3 RC majority being run by a gerry-mandered Unionist Council. Westminster ignoring this discrimination,

But thats all for another thread.
 
The specifc rights and wrongs of the Irish conflict aside, Garrick's point stands. A lot of Americans of Irish descent (and, incidentally, Australians) appeared to miss the complexities and nuances of the conflict entirely, preferring a romanticised, manichean struggle of oppressed people vs evil foreign occupiers. This did lead to some rather foolish and naive people handing over large sums of cash to pretty unpleasant terrorist groups.

But, as you say, probably for another thread.
 
Quake42 said:
The specifc rights and wrongs of the Irish conflict aside, Garrick's point stands. A lot of Americans of Irish descent (and, incidentally, Australians) appeared to miss the complexities and nuances of the conflict entirely, preferring a romanticised, manichean struggle of oppressed people vs evil foreign occupiers. This did lead to some rather foolish and naive people handing over large sums of cash to pretty unpleasant terrorist groups.

But, as you say, probably for another thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you.

But if British Cabinets had ensured UK rights for all UK citizens in NI then there would have been no fish for the IRA to swim among.
 
... which is analogous in principle to the grievances of the American colonies -- they had the right to Parliamentary representation but it was never provided, so they did it themselves.

So, again you could say that the façade of democracy was the driver behind each conflict. Both asymmetrical wars in their respective ways.
 
WW1 was about Victoria's dysfunctional family, above all. Democracy wasn't even thought about in the UK, the propaganda was all about poor raped neutral Belgium - ruled incidentally by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family - more relatives. And which we ourselves had planned to violate if necessary.

I can see no point in commemorating the start of the war at all. Commemorating its end will be good when it finally happens, because it is still the root cause of at least half of today's conflicts. Not only was WW1 caused largely by no more than a family feud, our strategy was unbelievably bad and the treaty of Versailles vindictive and ultimately unworkable.

Millions of lives thrown away to no real purpose, and much of the world destabilised for decades.

If we got into the war - and although I agree with those who say we didn't have to in absolute terms, the spin and momentum towards war were unrelenting, the good old Daily Mail being one of the perpetrators, so probably it became inevitable. If, as I say , we got involved, we should have concentrated on what we do best - the Navy - and established a blockade. We would have sustained losses due to submarine warfare, but we would have adapted as we largely did - the distant blockade from Scapa/Rosyth. Had we been able to operate in concert with the Russian and French navies Germany could have been cut off from its empire completely. The Schlieffen plan would have failed anyway due to over-optimistic logistics (as it did anyway), although admittedly under this strategy the Germans might have gotten a little further and Paris might have fallen or have been besieged.

If the Germany Navy had then come out to fight as its propaganda implied then the war really could have been over in weeks.

Well, that's assuming our admirals were better at their job than our senior generals, who had learned nothing since Waterloo - the history of our military leadership through the rest of the 19th century was lamentable, from the Crimea through Afghanistan to South Africa.
 
I agree...the 1st WW was really caused by a squabble between the ruling classes and was driven by the money men and industrialists who supplied the instruments of war. There was really no good reason for Britain to go to war with Germany, as both countries had previously been allies.
Take the ruling classes out of the equation entirely, and there would have been peace in Europe!

The 2nd WW was perhaps more legitimate, as the various countries in Europe were simply defending themselves against the evil machinations of a conquering dictator.

Just a thought about how these wars have been named...

World War 1 should really be called World War 2, because the Napoleonic Wars involved rather a lot of nations and their colonies and there were many battles all over the world. The Napoleonic Wars should therefore be lumped together and be renamed 'World War 1'.
If we do this, we can see that we have already had World War 3.
 
I've heard Americans refer to the Cold War as WWIII and the current 'War on Terror' as WWIV!

I think that history -- if it can shake off the WWI/WWII labels -- will probably come to consider the two conflicts to be one big war, with a 21-year-long truce in the middle.
 
Actually, having thought about it, my argument would mean the Cold War would be regarded as part of the same war, wouldn't it, as the nuclear arms race began with Hiroshima. So perhaps the 20th Century will be considered as containing one great global war, punctuated with standoffs and lasting from 1914 to 1989.

Which is interesting, but a bit off-topic.

EDIT: Actually, on second or third thoughts, the nuclear arms race began with the Manhattan Project itself, because the Allies were anxious that Nazi Germany might figure out how to build The Bomb first. So, all that really changed was that as soon as the Nazis were defeated the enemy switched to being the USSR -- as per Orwell's dictum from 1984.

(I seem to remember that the Nazis had got as far as the "heavy water" stage, but I'm fairly sure they had some weird ideas about atomic structure that would have precluded fission. I'd be interested to hear more about this from someone).
 
Further thoughts: The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the Cold War led directly to the rise of Osama bin Laden and (the) Taleban and thence seamlessly into the current mess.

So perhaps one could argue that we're still effectively fighting WWII, but the enemy has changed yet again, along with the field of conflict.
 
garrick92 said:
I seem to remember that the Nazis had got as far as the "heavy water" stage, but I'm fairly sure they had some weird ideas about atomic structure that would have precluded fission. I'd be interested to hear more about this from someone.
Click to expand...
Not heard that before. But the Nazis were against 'Jewish Science', which meant Einstein's Relativity was a no-no. (Also, atomic structure at the time was based on Neils Bohr's theories; he was Danish, but had Jewish roots on his mother's side. Many of the scientists of the early 20th century were Jewish.)

Perhaps there's some cross-over of ideas there, because nuclear fission can only be understood as a huge energy source if you accept E = Mc^2 - which comes from relativity! (That must have put a twist in the Nazis' intellectual knickers!)

But in practice they must have accepted it at some level, or they wouldn't have wanted the heavy water.
 
Yes, that's what I thought too.

I'm 99.999' per cent sure that the Nazis had got to the deuterium stage, and that one of the legendary bombing raids of WWII was intended to destroy their stocks. "Norway" is ringing a faint bell. I'll have a scout after I've eaten my tea.
 
Yep, I was right. Sort of.

(I'd got the sabotage squad mixed up with some sort of "Dambusters" type aerial raid -- perhaps due to the large body of water involved in the Dambusters episode).

The DM story is journalism, so it's strong on narrative and personal interest and low on proper history and science -- in fact, quite understandably, it leaves out the science aspect altogether, which is covered in this Wikipedia article.

As far as I can see, that article (in true Wikipedia style!) misses the elephant in the room, i.e., how did the Nazis square their rejection of "Jewish science" with their bomb project?

(At least, I can't see the answer myself, but I admit I only skim-read the article).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top