When I was a kid, people in their 70s had fought in the First World War. You'd hear fascinating stories. Each one a different account, a different opinion.

History and historians can only take into account what they know to be true. Though they can chose to ignore or distort written contemporary accounts. Anything other than that gets rubbished. The point being one of those old fellas would perhaps give a different account as to what was written in a company's journal/diary. But history can be proven by the written word. Does that mean the old fella's lying? Nope.



Here's an interesting thing I was told on WW2 when I was a kid. In the North Africa campaign, Montgomery used to put Indians outside the armoured vehicles and walk. None were put inside. These Indian infantrymen were from the 4th? Indian division and not to be confused with the First Indian National Army who fought for Indian Independence with the support of Japan. Even fighting against the British and Commonwealth forces in places like Burma.

Oh and American History, taught in America is one of the funniest things you'll hear.

Cheers!





One of the things that struck me from one article (it may be one I've linked to or not) was that someone who was coming from pretty much this position was arguing that the reason that soldiers had been ordered to march slowly on German lines was to keep them together.

Okay, that's a reason, but being mown down with machine gun fire would possibly occur as a reason not to go down this route. Machine guns were hardly new – the Gatling gun, for instance, was first active in 1861. It cannot have been that much of a surprise. So with the best will in the world, it's hard to consider such things and not think that there was an element of the Tommies being disposable.

I think you're right about warfare evolving, but some things, like that, could have been worked out. tb was noting earlier that British troops had very old-fashioned rifles at first because it was thought that, if you gave them something more modern, they'd just fire off (waste) a load of ammunition at one go.

As I noted via another link, the historian who is credited with the popular view of the military leadership was the late Alan Clarke, also a Conservative politician – hardly Gove's raving lefty – who wrote a book, [iThe Donkeys[/i, on the subject in 1961. That's not to declare Clarke historically right, but it does show up the idiocy of Gove and his claims.

My own suspicion, if you will, is that the causes of WWI were manifold – as you say – including but not limited to the imperial ambitions of all the Great Powers, military build up, a general feeling that war was coming. And then these were combined with a belief that it wouldn't last beyond a few weeks.

I've ordered Christopher Clark's [iThe Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914[/i: a really good and interesting historian (his [iIron Kingdom[/i is superb), I'm looking forward to this. I gather that he also goes far more to town on the aspect of what led up to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and the role that that – and the wider importance of what that part of – played.

I've no doubt that many (if not most) people did feel that it was a war worth fighting – they could not have known the ramifications and nor should people pretend they could and should.

However, there's been a habit, since WWII, to try to read history as a backwards timeline, as though historic figures could see into the future and see what would happen and whether or not their actions would influence that – before making decisions. It's a nonsense way to read history, but it's been part of the whole: 'what caused Hitler?' question.

Equally, we have to (as you mention) understand that times were different and attitudes were different. And also that propaganda played its part – on all sides – in what people believed about the war.

I think class influences our views today – for instance the war poets, who are seen as so central to how we perceive the conflict, were all middle class and seemed (on the basis of some of what I've read) to have been more shocked by what they saw than some other troops.

To add, it was also one of the first conflicts to be photographed and filmed and reported as widely: I'm sure that too has had an impact on our cultural memory.

Commemoration and celebration are not synonyms.

I had a friend, years ago, who had fought (and been injured) in North Africa. Of the very little he'd say, he noted that the troops hated Monty, because they felt he didn't care an iota for the ordinary soldiers. I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the senior officer he said they loved though.



An American acquaintance has been in Europe working for about three years now. Started reading some history and has been absolutely staggered by what he discovered. This guy's a nuclear engineer (not quite Homer Simpson), but was absolutely stunned at what, in effect, he hadn't been taught.

And thanks for the link earlier.

Just goes to show how personal history can really differ from written history.





Thing is, if you point out real history to an american, you'll get labelled something. I'm not a fan of people who are labellers as a defence mechanism.

But American History is riddled with lies, to conceal and distort what happened. When they wanted to kill Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq and the French weren't with them they did things like change the term French Fries to Freedom Fries in fast food outlets. You wouldn't exist in the form you are if it wasn't for the French who joined the War in 1778. You would not have been granted your independence to each of the 13 colonies if it wasn't for the French. Oh and Spain and then the Dutch. The statue of Liberty is a gift from France. The list could go on. Best not even mention that George Washington fought with the British in the Franco-Indian wars with the likes of General Wolfe, whose statue s in Greenwich Park.

In fact the last time the British and the Americans fought against each other during the 1812 war, whiilst we we still fighting the French (again) in Europe, we gave them a sound leathering after they tried to get lands in Canada. The war ended with a peace treaty with all the borders going back to how they were, but not before we set fire to the White House and Washington in 1814.

One of the most striking things I have retained in my memory of watching numerous documentaries and reading various accounts over the years on WW1 was the sad tale of one particular British Army Captain who on receiving his orders for the forthcoming attack worked out that given the positions of the enemy and line of attack he was being ordered to take, he and his men were all going to get killed. What is more he also worked out some sort of alternative flanking approach that would achieve the objective which would not have meant certain death (though I am sure he didn't think it was risk free either!).

On presenting all this to his commander he was ordered to stick to the original plan and do his duty. He did and was killed.

It is things like that and there are too many similar documented facts such as how many died on the last day of WW1 as idiotic commanders tried to get in one more attack before the armistice they new was coming came into force that undermines the revisionists who want us to view WW1 as a great crusade or whatever. There is just too much documented ineptitude you just can't sweep under the carpet.



Exactly. Let's not forget there were literally thousand's of volunteers who rushed to join up. That doesn't mean once they experienced the front line and experienced the great loss of life they still felt the war was worth fighting. It also doesn't mean the civilian population back home were not scared stiff of defeat and so supported the continued fighting despite the losses.

Nor does the surge of patriotism that led to all those volunteering mean Gove has a justification for revising [iwhat[/i is taught about [ihow[/i the war was executed by those in charge once it was under way.

Even if every soldier out there retained their volunteering enthusiasm there are too many examples of rank stupidity for them to be ignored.

If he thinks the cynicism and bravery depicted in the last episode of Black Adder is left wing propaganda and so is not a valid teaching vehicle how does he deal with the facts surrounding the tale of the British Captain I mentioned above? A very similar outcome and scenario which for all I know could be what that script was based on.

Absolutely.

And as I think I linked to above, the historian who is credited with much of the stereotype of the idiot officer – via his book, [iDonkeys[/i – was one Alan Clark, also a Conservative politician.

May have been mentioned before but Gove seems to have latched onto Max Hastings who basically took on the view of some German historian that German militarism was to blame for WW1. Therefore it was a "just" war, so those volunteering felt it was and the fact it was executed very badly was just a consequence of the era.

The trouble is even if Hastings is right (he isn't IMO as he ignores what all the other powers were up to at the time) then letting militarism of one state escalate to a war that cost so many millions of lives isn't exactly the basis for celebrating the eventual victory and so offering an opposing view that the war wasn't a just war isn't unpatriotic either. It was a screw up from start to finish including why it happened in the first place.

As I said before you can't excuse the incompetence seen far too often and neither is it down to us adopting 21st century values. I mean no one thinks burning "witches" at the stake was right and in the same vein neither was launching an attack 10 mins before the Armistice came into effect.

Absolutely.

Christopher Clark largely nails the Prussian/German militarism argument in his excellent [iIron Kingdom[/i in very much the way you're indicating here: that militarism was rife across the Great Powers, so it can hardly logically and coherently be used as a stick to beat just one of them with.

I think the victorious powers knew this that they were as much culpable, hence the insertion of a clause placing absolute blame on germany into the Versailles Peace Settlement – something that had never happened before or since.

As a child I was always fascinated by war and this continued as an adult.
WW2 fascinated me more as a child, but WW1 more as an adult.
I was fascinated by the German army to the almost exclusion of other armies.
They seemed much more professional and had most of the funkiest war equipment.
I always wanted the German army to win in all battles.
I didn't want Germany to win, but their army was different,they looked the part, they were special.
Even their troops and equipment 'sounded' more dangerous, more potent.
I always felt sorry for the German army in defeat.
As I say this was formulated in a child's impressionable mind.
Am I alone in these strange thoughts?

Same here.



Similar. I never wanted them to win the battles but often wondered how they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As I grew older I learned about the strategic blunders and how Hitler was one of the Allies greatest assets in that regard.

What also used to cross my mind regularly was how on earth did the British ever win any battles v the Germans given the rubbish kit we had in comparison. Driving a tank with 2 pounder gun on the front towards German 88mm anti-tank huns was a total mismatch and probably defined the term out-gunned! I think I read something fairly recently when the British tank crews first clapped eyes on the new Cromwell tank there was virtually a mutiny as they new it was already totally outclassed by the German armour.

With me it was WWII as a child – but much more pre-20th century as an adult – particularly anything to do with Prussia, but also Napoleon.



Nope.

Some fascinating vehicles: things like the Sd,Kfz.222 Leichter Panzerspähwagen and the eight-wheeled heavy armoured car Sd.Kfz.232: really angular design – essentially just like star forts, intended to help deflect shells/bullets.

Taken me years to give myself permission to get some German Tamiya kits: I now have a nice little selection ready to make into a diorama, once I get more used to an airbrush (Marder, Kübelwagen and motorbike & sidecar, with assorted figures. To be done in winter camo).

The uniforms were better too.

The Franco Prussian war of 1870/71 is fascinating.
For the German army to destroy their French counterparts in the efficient, ruthless way they did in such a relatively short time is unbelievable. But they were always ready, schooled in military colleges ... utterly professional.

None of which in any way is meant to justify the stupid loss of life, but nevertheless fascinating.

Completely agree.

Sort of related:

[url=http://s27.photobucket.com/user/Mintball/media/hussar_zps813ba50e.jpg.html[/url

Death's Head Hussar.

From your collection.

Yup. About four inches high. I have a range of busts to paint. This needs a mount.

You might like to rephrase that.
lol

Good point!

I was taught about that war at School. It was part of the curriculum about France and the Third Republic.

History at school for me was great.

Early on at secondary school I was taught about the Industrial Revolution which I found fascinating as I was living in the area where a lot of it took place. Later in complete contrast we spent a whole year learning about the History of Russia.

Onto "O" level and it was numerous topics including the French one mentioned above, the lead up to WW1 and then how that led to WWII.

I then studied A level which was British History from just prior to 1066 to the end of Edward I reign and European history from the end of the Carolingian Empire up to about the 14/1500's. The European stuff was mostly about The Papacy and The Holy Roman Empire finishing up with the establishment of the Swiss Canton's.

The one thing I was never formally taught was anything about the Tudor's and that was deliberate on the part of my A level history teacher as he reckoned if you understood what went before it that part of history was much easier to understand.

I wonder if Gove would give current teachers such latitude as to the syllabus they want to teach?

In contrast when my son came to do history at his secondary school it was pretty naff IMO. The A level included a huge portion on the pretty recent local history of the area around the School. OK Chester has alot of history associated with it and I think they were aiming to get the students to investigate history rather than just learn stuff as I did but I felt the stuff I learned was far more interesting!

Back on topic:

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/15/jeremy-paxman-michael-goveJeremy Paxman accuses Michael Gove of 'wilfully misquoting' historian[/url

and in case its not been linked to already, Evan's demolition of Gove:

[url=http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/06/richard-evans-michael-gove-history-education?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487Richard J Evans: Michael Gove shows his ignorance of history – again[/url

We studied it at school for O' level – as part of a course on German unification.

In general, I didn't really enjoy history at school, but I absolutely loved that course – in spite of the rabid xenophobia and anti-German sentiments I grew up with and which, I believe, subconsciously affected my application/attitude to learning modern languages.

Yet Bismarck caught my imagination and retains it to this day, and from that has grown reading and interest in older Prussian history, German history in general and European history on a far wider scale.

Mind, I would add that my mother believes I've loved the idea of 'Mitteleuropa' since my teens – maybe it was a result of that or an influence on it?

It was about 2001 when I was subbing a story at the [iGuardian[/i online about an aspect of earlier Prussian history, that I remembered this, and have been reading quite extensively since.

We also did the causes of WWI and some of the major battles (and this was at a girls' grammar school) and I remember doing some on Ireland Oo ("too little, too late"icon_wink.gif.

Back completely on topic:

[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/stanley-spencer-and-wwi-revisionism.htmlA few thoughts on the current debate, viewed through the prism of Stanley Spencer's Sandham Memorial Chapel paintings[/url.

[iHere dead we lie[/i
[iBecause we did not choose[/i
[iTo live and shame the land[/i
[iFrom which we sprung.[/i

[iLife, to be sure,[/i
[iIs nothing much to lose,[/i
[iBut young men think it is,[/i
[iAnd we were young.[/i

A E Housman

I can't recall ever wanting the Germans to win [iany[/i battle except against Patton (not because he was American, but because he was an ).

The German army was certainly well trained, for the most part well led, motivated and professional, but I wouldn't describe them as "special". I would reserve that for David Stirlings SAS.

Nice, I like that and I'm intrigued with the spray equipment you've recently obtained, I almost went down that line myself but at the time could only think that it would lead to respraying cars or painting flames on wheel arches