Re: Remembrance Sunday.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:59 am
andy at handiwork wrote:
> I have to agree. There is so much said that is
> well-intentioned, but misinformed, about WW1. I can recomend
> Gordon Corrigan's book 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock'
> ()
> as a good place to start to demolish many of the myths
> surrounding the conflict. I'm not going to rehash his many
> arguments here, but as he makes clear, it was not the war but
> the peace that caused people to look back on it as a futile
> waste. At the time and for some years after, it was regarded
> as a struggle that had to be fought to prevent an autocratic
> and militarist Germany from controlling Europe. And if it had
> been seen at the time as so terrible, with the rank and file
> being forced at gun-point to fight against their will, how was
> it that the British army in 1918, alone amongst the combatants
> not to suffer mutinies, was able by force of arms and
> professionalism, (with increasing help from the US, and an
> exhausted France), to finally advance and defeat the German
> army in a series of stunning victories?
Too true, I've read that book with great interest. "Oh What a Lovely War" was a musical, not a work of historical fact. Remember that even at the Battle of the Somme, when 20,000 were killed on 1st July 1916, there was a one week artillery barrage before the attack, which was meant to destroy the German defences. Obviously it didn't work, but it is wrong to suggest the General Staff didn't care about casualities, and just sent men over the top to be chewed up by machine guns without caring what happened to them.
> I have to agree. There is so much said that is
> well-intentioned, but misinformed, about WW1. I can recomend
> Gordon Corrigan's book 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock'
> ()
> as a good place to start to demolish many of the myths
> surrounding the conflict. I'm not going to rehash his many
> arguments here, but as he makes clear, it was not the war but
> the peace that caused people to look back on it as a futile
> waste. At the time and for some years after, it was regarded
> as a struggle that had to be fought to prevent an autocratic
> and militarist Germany from controlling Europe. And if it had
> been seen at the time as so terrible, with the rank and file
> being forced at gun-point to fight against their will, how was
> it that the British army in 1918, alone amongst the combatants
> not to suffer mutinies, was able by force of arms and
> professionalism, (with increasing help from the US, and an
> exhausted France), to finally advance and defeat the German
> army in a series of stunning victories?
Too true, I've read that book with great interest. "Oh What a Lovely War" was a musical, not a work of historical fact. Remember that even at the Battle of the Somme, when 20,000 were killed on 1st July 1916, there was a one week artillery barrage before the attack, which was meant to destroy the German defences. Obviously it didn't work, but it is wrong to suggest the General Staff didn't care about casualities, and just sent men over the top to be chewed up by machine guns without caring what happened to them.