Monday, 3 March 2014

The Great War, a Common Meadow, and the Ukraine

There is a Spanish proverb that says: "History is a common meadow in which everyone can make hay". In this centenary year of the outbreak of the First World War (WW1), we are seeing just how true that is, with two leading historians, Max Hastings and Niall Ferguson, presenting two separate BBC programmes giving opposing views on whether or not Britain should have gone to war in 1914. Interestingly, both these pundits are men of the Right, which gives the lie to Michael Gove's recent claim that all opponents of WW1, past and present, were people of the Left. Personally, I watched both programmes with great interest, although I do not wish to express my own opinion here.
Instead, I would like to give some guidance, for those interested, through the plethora of information that is coming our way in the next four years. It will come as a surprise to many friends and acquaintances of mine to learn that I take an interest in WW1, and have quite a good selection of books that give insight into various aspects of this huge disaster that claimed so many lives and shaped the modern world.
A good general history of the conflict that I have is "The First World War" by Sir Martin Gilbert, and there is another book with the same title by John Keegan. Gilbert's book is the better narrative, and provides some fascinating snippets of information. I gave the Keegan book to a charity shop.
Anyone who wishes to learn more about the beginning of the war can do no better than read two new books on the subject: "Catastrophe" by Max Hastings, in which he lays the blame for the war on German militarism and there is "The Sleepwalkers", by Christopher Clark, which is an exhaustive (and exhausting!) account of the events leading up to the war. For Clark, the statesmen of 1914 were: "sleepwalkers...blind to the horror they were about to bring into the world". Whatever we think of Hastings' politics (Private Eye calls him "Hitler"), he writes interestingly; I am still wading through Clark's book.
Most people already have a view of WW1 as a futile exercise, in which young men were sacrificed in their thousands by callous, bungling generals safely ensconced behind the lines in luxurious chateaus. To reinforce this view, there is the well-known "Blackadder Goes Forth" series and the lesser known book by John Laffin : "British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One". Added to this, of course, is the incomparable war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosenberg, Rupert Brooke and many others. "The Penguin Book of First World War Verse" provides a good selection of their poems, but there are many such selections. It needs to be said, though, that not all WW1 poems were anti-war in the modern sense. For me, the most distressing book - although not meant as polemic by the author - is "The First Day on the Somme", by Martin Middlebrook, which describes, in harrowing detail, the destruction of Lord Kitchener's "New Armies" on July 1st, 1916. I first read it nearly 20 years ago, and found it so upsetting that I have not been able to bring myself to read it again. I still have it, and intend to reread it in July, 2016. The individual general usually targeted for opprobrium by holders of this viewpoint is Earl Douglas Haig, who commanded the British troops in France from 1915 to 1918. As the Liverpool poet, the late Adrian Henri, puts it:
"Don't be vague - blame General Haig".
For those interested in a different point of view, there is Hasting's "Catastrophe", in which he refutes what he calls the "poets' war" perspective by arguing that Britain was right to go to war to prevent German domination of Europe. Hastings also mounts a defence of WW1 generals, which may be of interest. Niall Ferguson, opposed to the view that Britain should have entered WW1, provides a cold, critical analysis of British generals in his book "The Pity of War". Ferguson is no proponent of the "Poets' War" theory, however. One of his conclusions in the book, and the recent TV programme of the same name, is that British generals were less professional than the Germans, who were better at killing their enemies. I leave readers to form their own conclusions on that view. For those interested in the strictly military side of WW1, there are the books of John Terraine, who, incidentally, was a staunch defender of Earl Haig.
For the human interest angle on the war, there is Middlebrook's book on the Somme, mentioned above. There is also "Death's Men", by Denis Winter, which depicts the ordinary Tommies as just that - passive, fatalistic, cannon fodder. More positive, and much more moving, are the books of Lyn Macdonald, all marvellously told, largely in words of veterans of the conflict, most of whom Macdonald interviewed personally. Another outstanding writer who uses first hand accounts from veterans is Max Arthur. His "Forgotten Voices of the Great War" is essential reading for anyone seeking eyewitness statements of the conflict. For books on the Home Front, there is "Blighty", by Gerard J. DeGroot and, though much less detailed, "Great Britain's Great War", by Jeremy Paxman. Both these authors refute the "Lost Generation" view of the (British) casualties of WW1, although acknowledging the impact upon British life by the conflict - especially the change in the role of women in society. They both play down the importance of British conscientious objectors in WW1. Paxman caused controversy recently by describing the "conchies" as cranks.
I am the first to admit that my selection is not comprehensive and is heavily slanted to the British experience of WW1. There are many authors on this massive subject that I have not read, but I hope I have given a good account of those I have read, and that my insights may prove useful. As for the British angle, I recognise that WW1 was a disaster for the whole of mankind, in which ten million died. Other nations lost far more men than Britain. Germany lost 2, 037 000, while Britain lost 723 000 (Ferguson, p295, "The Pity of War").
I know that some people will dismiss an interest in WW1 altogether. After all, it was a long time ago, and what does it matter now? So runs the "argument". Hopefully, most of us will dismiss that view. The world we know arose from the aftermath of WW1. From the ashes of destroyed empires, other quarrels grew, leading to WW2 and many other post-war, post-imperial conflicts. And WW1 taught some very hard lessons, one of which is being remembered now.
The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, July 28, 1914, happened in a so-called "backwater" of Europe. 37 days later, Europe was plunged into war. The grave situation in Ukraine at present has the potential to escalate into something more serious. Wisely, our politicians are not reacting like the politicians and potentates of 1914, and are seeking to bring about a peaceful solution. We can only hope they succeed.
Remembrance Day - Today- 11th November