Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The subject of how to commemorate the anniversary of the First World War is something that has dominated the British media recently, with various historians, politicians and media personalities weighing in on either side of the debate. Put simply, the two arguments are as follows:

A) We should celebrate the war to an extent, moving away from the 'Blackadder' view that the whole thing is a colossal waste of time and human life. Supporters of this view include Education minister Michael Gove and PM David Cameron. The former blasted the 'Blackadder myths' as being unpatriotic' while the latter called for 'street parties' to celebrate the war.


B) The Blackadder view: the war was a huge and futile waste of human life and should never have occurred, and as a nation we should be ashamed of our part in it. Supporters include former Blackadder star and labour supporter Tony Robinson, who argued that his former show, as well as the poetry of the likes of Wilfred Owen and visits to the battlefields were enough to suggest that the war was a futile event and one that was a mistake.

C) 'Quiet Reverence': The more moderate of the views, supporters of this argument suggest that there should at least be a recognition of the war, its nature and our role in it. To suggest it was futile would be to disrespect those that gave their lives, to celebrate it would be an over-glorification of what is undoubtedly a great human tragedy.

So, with that in mind, my question is this: what's your view on the subject? If not British, then how is your nation commemorating/remembering the war?

My own view on the matter falls broadly in line with the third viewpoint mentioned above. I think that to disregard the war as futile and pointless would be not only a hugely disrespectful act to those who died during the conflict, but also a blatant mistake. The war was, in my opinion, perfectly just, in that the dangers to democracy, freedom and world order were in essence as grievous as those posed by the Nazis in 1939; Germany and Austria-Hungary were being similarly expansionist and oppressing minorities.

I do not at all agree with glorifying the war, my visits to the battlefields and research on the subject area makes it pretty clear it was nowhere near as jingoistic and patriotic and 'glorious' as Gove/Cameron would have us believe. The conditions were appalling, the warfare was brutal, and the sacrifice on both sides massive. However, to be nationally ashamed of that sacrifice is simply a disrespect to it.

So, what are your thoughts?

I agree with B. There was no point to the war, it was just powerful countries fighting to the detriment of everyone else.

B is the right choice.

The whole thing was a enormous blunder caused by decrepit empires trying to maintain power in their respective spheres of influence while being utterly oblivious to the consequences of warfare being fought with state of the art killing machines combined with obsolete battlefield tactics.

Trying to paint it as some sort of fight for freedom and democracy is simply re-writing history. The biggest accomplishment to come out of WWI, was that it created the conditions and sort of paved the way for WWII and that isn't something that should be commemorated in any way...

AFAIK, commemorations in my country will be restricted to the usual ceremony of the President depositing some flowers in the memorial. As it should be, remember the soldier's sacrifices but don't celebrate anything else.

I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.

In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.

I do enjoy a bit of Paxo and it's interesting to hear him not verbally bludgeoning a moronic MP.

 Paradigm wrote:

So, what are your thoughts?

I like to compare the first world war to a bar fight.

Kronk just won the thread.

A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.

The correct reaction is to study it and understand its significance. Then you can decide how you as an individual want to react to it.

Edit: I would like to commermorate it by hosting a WWI demo game at my local history center.

However, I probably won't get around to it.

I'm with Albatross when he says a little from all three.

In essence all war is tragic, but to act like its a waste of time is unrealistic and disrespectful. The war certainly mattered a lot and was not a waste of time for the people who had to live through it. Given that it set the stage and shaped the 20th century and its ramifications are still very much alive today. The B point of view strikes me as markedly inhuman.

There's nothing wrong with celebrating heroism and sacrifice, but overcelebrating it what gets us into conflicts like WWI/II in the first place. Reactions should be tempered with understanding of why it happened and what it meant to those who were there as well as appreciation for those who fought in a conflict they had no say in starting.

Easy E wrote:The correct reaction is to study it and understand its significance. Then you can decide how you as an individual want to react to it.

Have an exalt.

Regardless of one's view on the conflict, education is the key, hence why I vehemently disagree with those of the opinion we should just forget about the war and be ashamed or pretend it never happened. It's as much a part of our national history as Henry VIII, the formation of the C of E, the industrial revolution or the Battle of Hastings. To just brush it under the carpet (something that's become increasingly prevalent in the British education system- hardly anything is taught on the British Empire, for example) is to disrespect the sacrifice made and to risk forgetting both the horror and the nature of the war.

The war was an absolute tragedy as far as the human cost is concerned (I don't think anyone can argue with that irrespective of their stand on remembrance) and as soon as we as a nation/the human race reach a point where we forget that, we are one step closer to repeating it. Increased emphasis on WW1 is one of the few things I agree with Gove about, although I don't really agree with how he wants it presented.

All of the above have merit,

there was a huge amount of wasted life (especially where failed battle plans were carried on and on by commanders on all sides who could not envisage being wrong) which should not be downplayed

there was a load of individual heroism on all sides which does deserve celebration

and too much celebration/chest thumping on how great your countries actions were helps pander to unhelpful nationalistic tendencies (which we see being so harmful in so many countries)

 Medium of Death wrote:
I quite enjoyed the BBC documentaries that Paxman has been presenting recently, apparently based around the format of the book that he has written.

In the final episode he put forward the opinion that the typically mocked upper classes, or landed gentry suffered the worst in the war. Many historic families ending due to their heirs dying in the conflict as they would most commonly be officers, which had significantly higher mortality rates.

While certainly true I think this goes more towards the 'older' establishment selling the war as a 'great adventure' which appealed most to those who saw themselves as natural leaders (which to be fair they probably were)

 Albatross wrote:
A little from all three columns, but mostly A. A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost. Perpetuating the myth that the entire thing was a titanic ill-conceived blunder is just insulting. The British Empire was far from perfect, but it was still pretty much the best the world had to offer at that time. Kind of like the Americans are now. I mean, when you look at how the Germans carried on in their African colonies... Yeah, that's not a preferable alternative in my opinion.

You must be confused, the Germans had a better track record than any other colonial government I can think of. Yes, there was the Herrero and Maji Maji rebellions (and resultant 'genocides') but these were much smaller in scale, and much more humane (if you can call it that) in their conduct than some of the things that the Belgians, French, and Brits did, and after those incidents the German government enacted reforms and the succeeding colonial administrations were humane and actually gave natives more rights, protection, and social welfare. They were actually more effective, efficient, and stable than most of the other colonies held by other European nations (with the principal exceptions being some of the British overseas holdings like India, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada).

Anyway, I would vote for C, but I'm from one of the participants least impacted by the war.

The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.


Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.


In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.

Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.

 welshhoppo wrote:
The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.


Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.


In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.

Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.

Don't celebrate the Napoleonic Wars? What about Trafalgar Day?

None of the above? Remember and mourn the pointless waste of life but don't celebrate it. Though being irish the feeling on the war and the empire may be aomewhat different. I feel any street party would be in poor taste.

 djones520 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The fact that such a massive war began from something so small and pointless shows that Europe was a massive powder keg waiting for any reason to blow off some steam.


Should we be out in the street partying that we won the first world war? Probably not, but people only need half an excuse to get drunk these days.


In reality, this war is about as significant as the Napoleonic wars, and we don't celebrate them either. Everyone even remotely involved in the conflict has died by now, and the effects that it had are long gone.

Should we have a day where we commend the poor souls that had died in the thousands of wars that we have endured? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a celebration.

Don't celebrate the Napoleonic Wars? What about Trafalgar Day?

That's not a really big thing here, in fact I can't remember anything about it except for the bi-centennial we had in 2005.

All of them have their merits, but I personally find myself seeing the Great War in the context of option C. I had relatives that fought in the War, and at least one that didn't come home, so it is an important part of history to me. It also saddens me that my country has no national memorial for men that gave their lives. I have visited the District of Columbia War Memorial (a memorial to the residents of DC that gave their lives during the war) and it was in a sad state is disrepair; luckily, it was restored in 2011.

Personally, I lean towards B. I don't wish to insult the heroism of the men on both sides who found themselves thrust into the hell of trench warfare and who died for something they believed in, but the fact is that the cause they were dying for wasn't worth anyone dying over. The war was a regional conflict that exploded into a much larger conflict. Every nation in Europe had a hand in that war ballooning out of proportion. It wasn't Germany's fault. It wasn't Britain's fault. It was everybody's fault. A lot of good people on both sides died and the only result was that we got to do it all over again twenty years later (at least in WWII, the cause was worth the blood spilled). To celebrate that war, in any way, would be a travesty. It would be saying that it is perfectly OK for governments to act like belligerent gak-heads and engage in penis-measuring contests that result in the deaths of millions of soldiers for absolutely no gain whatsoever, as long as you tell the poor bastiches getting shot that it's all for "freedom".

To honor the bravery of the dead, but not mention the fact that the war was pointless, misses the point of that war. WWI was a human tragedy. It was a greater human tragedy than WWII (hear me out before you throw things) because, even though far, far more people died in WWII, the fact remains that WWII had a positive outcome. The Nazis were toppled, the Holocaust was stopped, and the global balance of power was set up in such a way that no major wars were fought between major powers for a fifty year period (the Cold War, despite its tensions, was less violent than most other half-centuries in modern history). The only result of WWI was a lot of people died, then the survivors got the flu and a lot more of them died, then after two decades, their kids got to do it all over again.

As for how the U.S. remembers WWI, I think it's already been said that the President will lay a wreath or something on a memorial and then go home. WWI doesn't get a lot of air time in this country anymore. Not since we single-handedly won WWII (or at least, that's what our school books taught us during the Cold War). Talk about WWI to a non-wargaming crowd and you will likely get responses of:
"WWI? Yeah, we TOTALLY kicked Hitler's butt!"
or
"WWI? Yeah, we TOTALLY kicked... somebody's butt!"
or
"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"

Those last two were from my old high school history class...

"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"

Those last two were from my old high school history class...

You just want to make me cry, don't you?

Of course, America really didn't play much of a role in WWI. Compared to the second World War that followed, WWI was completely overshadowed. Far more men fought and died for us in that war, and the war was much more personal. In the 1920's and 1930's, WWI probably meant more to Americans. Today though it's completely overshadowed.

 Albatross wrote:
A celebration of the heroism of the people who fought and died for the British Empire is entirely appropriate, whilst still remembering that victory came at a great human cost.

Quite right, I'd say.

The problem with popular thinking about WW1 is popular thinking about WW2. Wars are not actually fought against bad guys to save the world, which is the story that Hollywood has always told us about WW2. (To be clear, I'm not saying the Nazis weren't bad guys or that the world would be just fine with them; just that them being bad and us altrustically saving the world were not our motivations for fighting WW2.)

It seems like contemporary people think the only reason a war is anything but a waste is if it could be a good guys versus bad guys save the world movie. But thinking about all wars in history, including WW2, people fought to advance and protect the interests of their group.

Now perhaps people don't want to celebrate that vision of war but that's different from singling out WW1 as paricularly futile.

I will say, WW1 was certainly not a fight to preserve good (us) versus evil (Germany). The sides were pretty equivalent. But again, that's pretty much how all wars are -- absent atrocity, which never actually causes the wars we fight anyhow.

 LordofHats wrote:

"WWI? Were we even in that one?"
or, even worse
"WWI? Was that the one about slavery?"

Those last two were from my old high school history class...

You just want to make me cry, don't you?

We had an American lecturer talk to us about how the First World War began in 1917. I didn't attend any lectures after that funnily enough.

For the Brits, I just recently read "The Somme: The Darkest Hour on the Western Front" by Peter Hart. Pretty great book, definitely pro-British, but in that "up and at 'em" type of national pride I find admirable / tear inducing. He also gives very worthy praise to the German defenders, but it's written with a lot of first hand accounts from the Tommies.

Still isn't as good as "The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916" by Sir Alistair Horne though. In my mind that book is the seminal piece of WW1 writing. Truly encapsulates the utter futility, utter horror, and ultimate "triumph of the human spirit" of the Great War.

Does the average American even know we were in WW1?

God I want a Springfield 1903. Not for 1500 bucks though. I can pick up an Enfield for ~6-700 but still, dunno if i will.

 motyak wrote:
I didn't attend any lectures after that funnily enough.

Smart man.

When I took my Recent US History class, my professor gave the entire class a day 1 pop quiz. The questions were very simple and clearly just a test to see if we actually knew anything about history. One of them was "Why did America enter World War 1?" To my expectation, only eight in a class of forty-two actually knew the correct answer.

Im with B
There was no reason for the war, although it was bound to happen.
One can but hope that it taught us a lesson

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Does the average American even know we were in WW1?

I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would venture to guess that the average American is aware that their country participated in the Great War, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they would the extent in which we were involved or any of the major dates (when the war started, when America entered, and when the war ended).

I would say that the average American definitely doesn't know that November 11 used to be called Armistice Day and what it originally was a tribute to.

Personally I feel a mix of B&C. The war was exceptionally stupid and horribly fought but we should still not disrespect the fallen: they may have not died for the noble cause ever but the hell they went through should not be forgotten nor disrespected. It is especially tragic when you consider how many young people caught up in patriotism signed up to fight despite being far to young to emotionally survive such a thing
Personally I feel having a street party or celebrating it in any way is to spit in the face of anyone who fought in that war and their descendants

We have ANZAC day once a year. We are meant to both mourn the loss and take notice of the changes the world saw because of it.

The change of world powers, civil rights sparking, technological innovations and so on. Its all basic stuff we learn in social studies. Everyone in NZ learns about the prelude and consequences of both the world wars.

So im in group A. But also partly B. Yes it was wasteful, but what wars arent? Mistakes where made and all but I dont think anyone in the world at the time really knew what was to come. "That escalated quickly" really comes to mind. Unfortunately we can only speculate how those in charge felt about the war afterwards but I wouldnt go as far to call it a giant mistake and waste of life. More of a learning mistake in which through a lot of pain and suffering brought much benefit and shaped the world we live in today.

Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.

I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?

There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.

 Paradigm wrote:
Interesting discussion so far, and fascinating to hear some American views on it, which is something I've not really looked into before.

I would just ask, though: All those of you who are saying the war was 'pointless' or 'should never have happened' or 'was not for a good cause', are you saying that Britain should have just let Germany bully whoever it wanted into submission? Should we not have aided Belgium and France as they were mercilessly invaded? In all honesty, with the notable exception of the holocaust, the acts of Germany in WW1 were very similar to those in WW2, an unprovoked and brutal expansionist policy with the sole aims of oppressing others and gaining territory. Are you saying that Britain should have just stood by and let that happen?

There seems to be a popular revisionist view that the Allies only went into WW2 to put an end to Hitler's humanitarian atrocities, which were in fact largely unknown to the West at the time war was declared. We declared war on Germany because they were being aggressive and expansionist, and guess what? So was Germany in 1914. I don't see how you can argue WW2 was just and WW1 wasn't, considering we entered both wars for practically identical reasons; the defence of an ally unable to effectively defend itself in the face of an aggressor.

You are dismissing a lot of Britains role in starting the war. Germany was trying to create an empire just like britains really. So in effect what germany was doing, was exactly what britain had already done. Thats why the naval race was happening simply because germany was aspiring to be like her rivals France and britain. To put it very simply. It was a power struggle is another way to say it. No heroes and villains, not right and wrong. Just an empire or 2 clinging to its power against an ambitious empire. Japan needs mention here too. The story of japan is pretty important to seeing the views and actions of the time right up till the end of the second world war.

But ww2 is more complicated and you will have a lot more disagreements about when it started, how it started and why. There are far more political and emotional issues in regards to the second world war at play. But there are many differences between the two (in respects to how and why they started). I find it annoying to discuss in text so I wont go there.

As a Canadian, my fist reaction would be option B. Our motivations for going to war were "Britain told us to" and many Canadians died for politics we were not involved in. Just look up "the Blue Puttees".

But there are some things to celebrated about WW1 as a Canadian. The war helped forge much of Canada's identity and gave us both reputation and individuality. Before the war, Canada was just another colony. It was also during the war that the imagery of the maple leaf gained popularity, being carved into bunkers, trenches and buildings as Canadian regiments moved around.

So I'm not sure what section it should be in, we mostly just celebrate by building a bunch of statues of soldiers.