English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

british and the western front 1914 - 1918

2007-09-18 07:06:04 · 6 answers · asked by danhol 1 in Education & Reference Homework Help

6 answers

Who knows?

It depends on whose version of historical events you are reading.

There has been a recent movement towards re-writing British history by academics to suit their politically correct viewpoints.

It is logical to believe the versions that were written closer to the time of the actual events. This of course would also be coloured by the viewpoints of that particular author.

So, of course, we are none the wiser. We have only read opinions.

Who decides which opinion is right?

2007-09-18 07:21:43 · answer #1 · answered by frank S 5 · 0 0

The Old Contemptables a name bestowed upon the British army in 1914 by Kaiser Bill were often said to be Lions led by donkeys. There may be some justice in that claim but it should also be remembered that a static war of that industrial nature had never been fought before. We have 20/20 vision and whilst I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THOSE POOR YOUNG TOMMIES DYING AND BLEEDING IN BODY MIND AND SOUL, I feel that that opinion was not quite fair

2007-09-18 14:22:48 · answer #2 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0 0

The problem was a combination of leaders who lacked vision and who persisted far too long with outdated tactics, who were faced with a type of warfare which had never been seen before.

In many ways, yes, the ordinary soldier was treated as an expendable unit by those higher up the chain of command. There was often also a class issue. Many rank and file soldiers were working class and showed natural deference to their "betters" who made up the officer class, even though in some cases their orders to "keep on blundering forward irrespective of the cost" - pretty much the standard method of carrying out a trench warfare assault - were plainly stupid in many circumstances.

Some generals were worse than others of course. Some, like Robertson, tried their best but were hampered by the stagnant nature of the war and the unwillingness to "think outside the box" on the part of their colleagues and allies.

2007-09-18 17:47:43 · answer #3 · answered by ramblinrollerblindrudd 2 · 0 0

Almost all wars begin with a wave of enthusiasm for the cause, and a belief in the strategies adopted by the generals.

There follows a period when the initial enthusiasm fades and the campaigns get stuck as the opposing armies struggle to find a break through strategy. It is usually at this point that the soldiers fortitude is praised while the generals' ability to end the war is criticised.

Your quote comes from comments written at this stage in the war, influenced by such poets as Wilfred Owen and Siegrfried Sassoon.

Finally, new tactics are developed and implemented by the generals to overcome the opposition. When the war is won, the generals are the ones who have statues built for them and honours bestowed for their determination to follow their instincts.

Actually, it's similar to what happens in football clubs every season - the players lose; fans blame the manager, who gets sacked; a new manager is appointed; there's a change of tactic; the team wins.

2007-09-18 17:19:36 · answer #4 · answered by Cliffe-climber 4 · 0 0

It still is true to this day meet a normal soldier and they are brave as fuk! meet a tofty officer like that idiot on Alan Sugars the apprentice and they are thick as two planks!

2007-09-18 14:14:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

YES, STILL APPLIES TODAY !

2007-09-18 14:36:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers