Do you think the soldiers(WW1) would have stopped supporting the war if known the reality as depicte of war?

Question

Do you think, the soldiers, would have stopped supporting the war if he had knokwn the reality as depicted in this information? Explain.

Information( diary of a British soldier during WW1 ):

Rates bred by the tens of thousands and lived on the fat of the land. When we were sleeping in the fuk holes the things ran over us, played about, copulated and fouled our scraps of food, their young squeaking incessandtly. There was no proper system of waste disposal in trench life. Empty tins of all kinds were flung away over the top on both sides of the trench. Millions of tins were thus available for all the rats in France and Blegium in hunderds of miles of trenches. During brief moments of quiet at night, one could hear a continuous rattle of tins moving against each other. The rats were turning them over. What happened to the rats under heavy sheel-fire was a mystery, but their powers of survival kept place with each new weapon, including poison gas.

Bullets skimming the top of the brick wall took on a lighting changes of direction after they had ricocheted. In a crowded trench it was not uncommo for two or even three men to be hit by a ricochet. Jarvis was shot clean through the neck by a ricochet when standing close beside me. He bled severely, and when carted off we felt sure he was a goner, but, far from pegging out, he never got beyond the base hospital. The bullet had passed through his neck without rendering a vital part and, the wound quickly healing, he was back in the front line in a few weeks, This was tough luck really, as he deserved a spell in Britain.

Yes. I have recieved your previous answer.^^
----------------------------------
I want MORE AND MORE explanations!
If you answer yes, why you said this answer?
If no, why you said that they wouldn't stopped supporting?

Thanks for answering

Answer 1

Yes, they would have still supported the war. In fact, they experienced this first hand, and still fought for their country. Today, our society is so soft to the ugliness of war that we cannot stomache it.

We are such wimps today that we cannot even stand to be made fun of without filing lawsuits. We consider someone making $12,000/year as living in poverty (uh... try going to south Africa or India, or China... you'll see real poverty).

The fact is that the generations before us were much less concerned about life and limb as they were concerned about liberty. Sure, war is ugly, but Liberty and freedom always comes at a cost. If the Allies had not fought as hard as they did in WW2, the world today would be ten times worse than it is. Can you imagine if Hitler had won? How many more races would have been wiped out? After the Jews, who would he have targeted next? Remember, he only liked the blond-haired, blue eyed race (although he had black hair... go figure). The world would have seen genocide on an unthinkable scale.

So again, I say 'Yes', they would have still served, and served proudly.

Answer 2

Yes they would, largely because the of the Patriotism and indoctrination into what was expected from young adult men during the early part of the Twentieth Century, which was far greater than that of their-modern contemporaries.
As for the Horrors of War, the media coverage and analysis that exists today of any conflict around the Globe is covered twenty four seven, during and prior to the First World War the only real Media coverage was in written form by the tabloids and these would have reflected the Patriotism and Government Ideology of the time. Any realistic accounts would have been communicated verbally or in a personal written account like you have presented here and would have had a limited audience.
The full impact and appalling conditions of the First World War would not have been apparent until experienced first hand.

Answer 3

No, they wouldn't have (stopped supporting?) become less patriotic about the fight for freedom. Back in WW1, people expected hand to hand combat in war and that's what they were trained for. It was never going to be pretty. Warfare has become far more computerised and remote controlled today - a bit like a deadly computer game. In WW1 the trench conditions must have been unimaginably horrible, but most of the foot soldiers were ordinary working class lads from quite poor backgrounds - they would have experienced precious little luxury in their lives so would have been expecting no favours. At home they would have lived with vermin in their houses (probably overcrowded slums), certainly parasites such as lice and fleas, and had a very poor quality of food. So, if the trenches were no better, they were certainly only made worse by the shelling.

For me the greatest injustice of WW1 was the way the poor broken, disfigured men who had fought so bravely and survived were just hidden away. The government of the day didn't want people to see the reality of war - just the glorious victory. I suspect those men may have felt less patriotic at that point.

Answer 4

Good question - I do think that a lot would have still gone, even if they had of known the truth.

They were young (many under the actual under age), and a lot of would have felt, even if they were told, that they were 'indestructible' and someone else would be killed, not them.

Also it was an 'opportunity' for them. You have to remember that many of these people would never have had the chance to travel anywhere, let alone abroad if war had not broken out. They (in some cases) were now getting REGULAR meals, were being paid (in some cases more than the job they were doing).

It was also a chance to escape, sometimes, boring jobs eg down a mine or in a factory day in & day out.

The 'Pals' system of recruitment also had a part to play. Groups of men, especally in rural areas joined up together and were put in the same unit. Fathers, sons, friends - It would be hard for a male, seeing his peers go off together not want to join them.

You also have to look at the role of propaganda - if you did not fight you were made to feel that you were a coward (white feathers).

I do think that the middle & upper classes would have reacted differently & not gone though. A lot of emphasis has been put on the poets such as Sasson & Graves, however, one aspect that puts their poetry in perspective was that Yes, they were suffering, it was hell. However, they had a lot more to leave behind (social position & wealth)

Answer 5

Not a chance. History has given each generation ample opportunity to learn of the horrors of warfare, and yet each generation finds some source of inspiration or motivation to repeat the past.

Based upon your excerpt, you seem to be particularly suggesting that had the average Brit known of the lice, rats, and general horror that was trench warfare, they would have refused to serve. While the War Office certainly went to great lengths to conceal the realities of the Western Front (among others) from the citizenry, they were not wholly successful. Each ensuing crop of enlistees believed that they could make the difference and turn the tide.

Furthermore, "For King and Country" has/had a strong appeal, one that cannot be overlooked as merely jingoistic. Note the Oxford Union resolution of 1933, wherein the Union (young college age men who all had the benefit of seeing the aftermath of WWI) resolved to that "we will in no circumstances fight for king and country." Needles to say, scarcely 6 years later nearly all of these men answered the call against fascism.

Answer 6

It is possible to *call* yourself Pro-Life if you support war and/or the death penalty, but it doesn't erase the fact that the person doing so either concludes that a "possible life" is more significant than an ACTUAL person OR they really haven't given the matter much thought at all.... which, in my opinion, makes their assertion quite weak. I feel the need to address this notion of: "soldiers are adults who choose to go to war, so that makes it okay, while abortion is still wrong". Clearly the person making such a statement has either forgotten or completely ignored the fact that there are plenty of people (children and adults) who did not choose war but who suffer from it or die from it anyways. So this arguement is terribly flawed and closed minded. It seems to me that many people take a stand due to "emotional" reasons and fail to access if there is any substantial, coherent reasoning behind their "cause".

Answer 7

Hey there, History Lover. Some soldiers absolutely did become disillusioned by the war after spending time on the battlefields during WWI. I'd be interested to learn more about your source of this British vet's diary if you could message me (or cite it further in your question). I highly recommend you check out "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque; I had to read this book @20 years ago for high school World History (and there is also an old black and white movie out there based on the book). The author was served as a German soldier during WWI and the book is semi-autobiographical as it chronicles a group of young eager, nationalistic/patriotic men who join the German army who become totally disillusioned and horrified during their time on the battlefield. As for the rest of your WWI-related questions, I'll try to link you up with my generic response to a similar question to yours asking why so many people from all countries originally had such "zeal" for WWI.

Hey, Shevek- good answer. My grandfather also fought in WWI and basically expressed the same sentiment to my father; I barely knew this grandfather as he died when I was like 4 or 5. My grandfather fought on the German side (immigrated to the US a few years after the war due to the post-war political and economic conditions in Germany that then greatly led to the rise of the Nazi's and WWII). I do remember my father also telling me his father ended up as POW in a British-run camp and he developed a strong dislike of the British as a result of his captivity.

Answer 8

No they were too patriotic. Fighting for, and defending ones country was an honour. The youngsters today have no idea of the horrifics of battle, front line fighting, the slaughter, stench, sights, and conditions of battle. A lot of them are also not as patriotic, and probably wouldn`t go to war because they`d be too chicken or have other "reasons" to opt out.

Answer 9

I think not really, what ive seen about the World War 1 was even though it was very very bad, they men were brave and the companionship got those whom survived through it - god bless em , admittedly Germany wasnt as bad as when the second came around but the Men who thought for UK and allies were very heroic.
Some may have got scared ( I would ) but you cant take away how much we owe them - who gave so we could be free.

Answer 10

My Grandfather fought in WW1. He very rarely spoke about his experiences in the trenches. One of the few times he did speak about it was when I was very young and made a comment about soldiers being patriotic. His response was that soldiers don't fight for King and Country, politicians or political ideals. That nonsense is soon knocked out of them. They fight, and keep on fighting, for their mates.