The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #156088   Message #3686439
Posted By: Jim Carroll
17-Dec-14 - 04:22 AM
Thread Name: WWI, was No-Man's Land
Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
Keith is now a standing joke on this forum - count the number of "I am not a..." threads he has inspired - I'm thinking of stating an "I am not a plumber" one!
World War One was a war of attrition and the 'skill' of military leadership was based on how many young men each leader was prepared to send to their deaths.
Terrytoon and his monkey have shown how well it was conducted by painting a picture of the military and the government busy stabbing each other in the back while the men doing the fighting were dying in their thousands in the mud of Europe.
Each of Keith's half dozen historians have made it clear that they had no doubt it was an Imperial war (it was even recognised as such by being called that at the time) - so basically, the men who fought and died did so in order to win political and economic power for the Empire, which collapsed as a result of the obscenity.
One of Keith's historians adds a new Imperialist perspective to the war by dealing with Tsarist Russia's part in starting it.
On Keith's claim for support for the war, Paxman's programme dealt fully with the jingoistic recruiting campaign persuading young men to fight on the basis of a short war, glamour and adventure, confirmed by a number who returned and said just that "the "liars and attention-seekers"), employers forcing their workers to join up under the threat of dismissal and women blackmailers handing out white feathers to those who refused to voluntarily join - that's the kind of support the war had.
Eventually, the support was so 'overwhelming' that 18 months into the war the government introduced compulsory conscription
The programmes also covered leading recruiter, Horace Bottomley, who speculated and became a millionaire as a result of sending so many to their deaths and was eventually jailed as a criminal - war means profits - doesn't it always?
The jingoistic crap about the war being about opposing German tyranny has been dismissed by historians, Keith's handful included - Germany was no more tyrannical an Empire than was any other (as Terrytoon pointed out - those days weer a different world), just a little more anxious to go for the big prizes at that particular time.         
Far from those who fought returning to "a land fit for heroes to live in", they actually returned to mass unemployment and starvation, more war in Ireland and Russia, and a government that was prepared to rearm Germany, stand by and do nothing while Hitler and the Fascists rose to power, and actually criminalise those who protested.
THe British leadership appeased German Fascism when it started to persecute Jews, the end result being six million massacred human beings, this appeasement continued to be the case till the point was reached when Britain had no alternative but to fight - so "we started all over again".
The world is still dealing with the after-effects of the fall of the Empire, in Ireland and in Palestine in particular, and has recently been forced to pay compensation to victims of British torture in the form of castration in Kenya.         
They are the facts of the "war to end all wars" and the only way this jingoistic pair have been ably to defend them is to invent a small band of phantom historian and to call the heroes who fought "liars".
Land of hope and glory, eh?
Jim Carroll