Jeremy Paxman is concerned.

[Onceapilot]

Reported on the BBC, Jeremy Paxman states his reservations about the style of the UK government led "celebration of WW1". I presume that details of the planned events next year are starting to leak out? I wonder if there is a little party politics involved, in the form of jingoism and "celebration", rather than sad reflection?
Surely the commemorations should centre on a memorial day parade led by the Royal Family in July? Combined with the Rememberence Day in November, that would give two sombre days for reflection.

OAP

[Basil]

Jeremy Paxman is concerned. - Jeffrey Bernard is Unwell. Meh.


The foregoing is not intended in any way to be a comment upon Mr Paxman's state of health.

[Wander00]

And people would complain if the Government did not take a lead. However, I would hope that thy would listen to, and heed, advice from RBL and other service charities and organisations.

[Pontius Navigator]

But as we already said before, why celebrate (as quoted) the beginning of the war?

It just seems to be a 'good idea' to succeed the feel good effect of 2012, the Royal Birth of 2013, now 2014, and hallelujah an election in 2015.

Cynic, moi? Oui!

[Wander00]

The centenary of the start of WW1 should not pass unmarked, but IMHO major ceremonies/commemorations would be more appropriate in 2018.

PS: What has it got to do with Paxman anyway - was he there? He is jus a "reporter", not maker of news, again IMHO

[Wrathmonk]

What has it got to do with Paxman anyway

He has just released a book on the subject of World War 1 (Great Britain's Great War). No such thing as bad publicity!

[bcgallacher]

We are going to 'celebrate' the slaughter of millions? I think Mr Cameron's use of the English language is a little unfortunate to say the least.

[Basil]

I'm inferring that he meant the following definition of 'celebrate':
<< to perform (a ritual, ceremony, etc.) publicly and formally: solemnize >>

[Wander00]

Aah, enlightened self-interest, perhaps.............

[NutLoose]

He has just released a book on the subject of World War 1 (Great Britain's Great War).

Concerned about it becoming a Celebration huh, point out to him there is nothing Great about a War.. just misery


..

[TomJoad]

PS: What has it got to do with Paxman anyway - was he there? He is jus a "reporter", not maker of news, again IMHO

Having listened to the interview on Radio 2 Paxman related the events that had moved him to write the book and his interest in how the country marks the centenary. Essentially he was motivated by concerns that we are now moving from a period of personal first hand experience of the war to one of history. He was also concerned to address some of the misconceptions regarding WW 1 that have embed in popular culture. Given that he has taken an interest then I think it has everything to do with him and anyone else who takes an interest in how the event should be marked. Not a great fan of Paxman but good on him for getting involved.:D

[racedo]

Paxman's Great Uncle died in WW1.

I agree with him and have visited Flanders and Somme in last 2 Septembers and really believe that you need it to be a sombre reflection of WW1 not a hyped up XFactor style piece of crap.

A really good idea would be to ask every single school pupil to find a name of an individual who never came back and find a little bit of history about them as a way of remembering them.

I know my littlies are interested because I have pictures to show of the visits I made and we find a bit of history about random names whose graveyard photos I have taken.

There is no glory in war and CMD I don't think will understand that.

[gr4techie]

I believe some countries (like Germany) don't celebrate the war, as there see war as a bad thing not be be glorified.

Also, it's a naive British misconception that the French are a set of surrender monkeys. In reality the French had 1.69 million deaths and 4.26 million wounded during ww1 (much more than us, so much that I got confused thinking I had put the decimal point in the wrong place) and the French do not want another repeat. Therefore agreed to an armistice with the Germans in ww2 to protect their people.

[Pontius Navigator]

I believe some countries (like Germany) don't celebrate the war, as there see war as a bad thing not be be glorified.

Not quite.

We were invited to a memorial air show at Oldenberg one November. It was an 'at home' for the local townsfolk as well.

And of the French, they had an historically low birth rate approaching WW1 so their losses were proportionally worse as well.

[St Johns Wort]

'Jeremy Paxman is concerned' So he should be, that beard makes him look 10 years older!

[TomJoad]

Also, it's a naive British misconception that the French are a set of surrender monkeys. In reality the French had 1.69 million deaths and 4.26 million wounded during ww1 (much more than us, so much that I got confused thinking I had put the decimal point in the wrong place) and the French do not want another repeat. Therefore agreed to an armistice with the Germans in ww2 to protect their people.

gr4 true, and like so many of our national stereotypes, full of crap. Paxman discussed this as an example of the WW1 misconceptions he wanted to explore. I think I'll be placing an order for his book after all.

[Shack37]

The centenary of the start of WW1 should not pass unmarked, but IMHO major ceremonies/commemorations would be more appropriate in 2018.

PS: What has it got to do with Paxman anyway - was he there? He is jus a "reporter", not maker of news, again IMHO


Agree with para 1 of your post.

Ref the PS: No he wasn't, were you?

[barnstormer1968]

Just a few observations.
Although I believe there is nothing great about a war, that does not mean that truly great things don't happen during wars. Conflict often shows not only the very worst of humanity, but also the vest best.

I know the phrase cheese eating surrender monkey very well, and also know the French people have fought on both sides in a world war, but I also know the French soldier to be as brave as any other. The French had some major successes in the Great War, and often out performed the Brits.

Also, I feel the French military has been shown to be a capable force in recent times, and has demonstrated a willingness to get involved where others have steared clear.

[Pontius Navigator]

He is jus a "reporter", not maker of news, again IMHO

Many 'reporters' are also authors. The first man into Port Stanley was a journalist and author. Sandy Gaul was a reporter par excellence but made as much news reporting Afghanistan as anyone.

Why, one journalist reported even became Prime Minister, he certainly made news.

[goudie]

One has only to visit to the war graves at Ypres to realise what a dreadful waste of good men...from both sides, WW1 was. Nothing to celebrate next year but it should be an occasion for thoughtful reflection and remembrance.

[SilsoeSid]

A good precursor to Paxmans book is;

Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War
Gordon Corrigan

http://www.damianflanagan.com/uploaded_images/Mud,-Blood-and-Poppycock-703049.jpg

"The popular view of the First World War remains that of 'Blackadder': incompetent generals sending brave soldiers to their deaths. Alan Clark quoted a German general's remark that the British soldiers were 'lions led by donkeys'. But he made it up. Indeed, many established 'facts' about 1914-18 turn out to be myths woven in the 1960s by young historians on the make. Gordon Corrigan's brilliant, witty new history reveals how out of touch we have become with the soldiers of 1914-18. They simply would not recognize the way their generation is depicted on TV or in Pat Barker's novels. Laced with dry humour, this will overturn everything you thought you knew about Britain and the First World War. Gordon Corrigan reveals how the British embraced technology, and developed the weapons and tactics to break through the enemy trenches."


IMHO, it's about time we opened up the history and put to bed the myths.

[SilsoeSid]

Also, it's a naive British misconception that the French are a set of surrender monkeys.

Hats off to the French for the first day of the Somme etc, however correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the French mutiny in the summer of 1917?
The actions of further mutiny would have allowed the German Army to break through the rapidly diminishing French lines at Aisne. In order to divert the German attention, this in turn led to the launch of Third Battle of Ypres/Passchendaele. (Where my Great Uncle fought in the Battle of Polygon Wood)

Naive misconception or historical fact?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

On topic, it seems right to commemerate the start of the first lot; not celebrate,

It's always puzzled me how few lessons we learnt from the American Civil War and the 2nd Boer War.

[Pontius Navigator]

On topic, it seems right to commemerate the start of the first lot; not celebrate.

How about quiet, sombre, and a short 'news' item (without editorial spin) for the days leading up to the lights going out all over Europe. Although did Fellowes do that in Downton a couple of years ago?

[Union Jack]

The first man into Port Stanley was a journalist and author.

On a point of order, PN, Max Hastings is credited with being the first journalist into Port Stanley.

On a lighter note, my understanding is that one of the very first service personnel to arrive in Port Stanley was a young officer from one of the trawlers taken up from trade, who shinned up a ladder on one of the jetties there, put his hand up on to the jetty, called out something on the lines of "I reclaim Port Stanley!", only to discover that he had in fact got a handful of something rather nasty since the Argentinians were using the jetty as a latrine ....:eek:

Jack

[TomJoad]

Hats off to the French for the first day of the Somme etc, however correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the French mutiny in the summer of 1917?
The actions of further mutiny would have allowed the German Army to break through the rapidly diminishing French lines at Aisne. In order to divert the German attention, this in turn led to the launch of Third Battle of Ypres/Passchendaele. (Where my Great Uncle fought in the Battle of Polygon Wood)

Naive misconception or historical fact?

Naive misconception if your aim is to use it to inform a national stereotype and reinforce prejudice. Historical fact if your aim is to state that it happened and it had. Rather dangerous precedent though to assign a national character based on a single action - wonder what your way of looking at things would say about us:ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Thank you, but don't shot the messenger pigeon.

SilsoeSid is court-martialled (http://youtu.be/1BxFlmb6S6E)

[PapaDolmio]

As a general rule the British Armed Forces have always gone into it's next conflict prepared to refight the previous war (Waterloo-Crimea, Crimea-South Africa, South Africa- WW1 etc..). One wonders if we'll turn up for the next one and find it won't be a rerun of Afganistan?

The BEF of 1914 was probably the best trained, best equipped (apart from a lack of machine guns compared to continental armies) and most professional army this country has ever put into the field. In open warfare it was well able to hold it's own and punch well above it's weight. It's performance at Mons, Le Cateau, the Great Retreat and the Race to the Sea provide ample of evidence of this.

Once the front stablised, the German Army largely remained on the defensive (apart from one major offensive at Verdun in 1916 and some local attacks around Ypres) placing the onus on the Allies to attack and retake occupied France and Belgium where the advantage would always lie with the defender. The essential point is that this was a type and scale of warfare never experienced before by any combatant on either side and the technology and tactics to overcome the defences took many years to develop and perfect while at the same time expanding ten-fold to meet the demands of modern war, regretably with much loss of life along the way.

By 1918 the British (and Empire) Army was a superb instrument of war and had pioneered the development of all arms tactics using infantry, armour, artillery, sappers and aviation to achieve a breakthrough. Sadly, there is very little mention ever made of the Battle of Amiens and the '100 Days' which broke the German Army on the Western Front. Much has been made of the apparent fixation with cavalry and although the full charge was obviously not a viable tactic in modern war, even in 1918 the only way to move a man and his equipment quickly across country was still by horse. Had the war carried on into 1919 further development of equipment and tactics would have continued- If you visit the Tank Museum at Bovington you can see the prototype Mark IX Tank- the worlds first armoured personnel carrier.

I agree that Gordon Corrigans book is an essential read for anyone with a passing interest in WW1 and who wishes to dispel the myths of 'Blackadder' and the like. I would also recommend Lyn Mcdonald's series of books on WW1 especially '1914' which is a fitting tribute and epitath to the BEF and the spirit of the times.

[racedo]

Hats off to the French for the first day of the Somme etc, however correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the French mutiny in the summer of 1917?
The actions of further mutiny would have allowed the German Army to break through the rapidly diminishing French lines at Aisne. In order to

1 Million French men had already died by early 1917, the second battle of Aisne where they used a creeping barrage killed many of their own men but they exhausted the German front lines and their reserves. The mutiny was caused by huge fall in morale after the Verdun and The Somme slaughter where the Veterans felt they were being used in futile battles and the top brass failed to see it.

The French dealt with elements of it harshly but also with understanding of what they were facing and removed a Senior General.

They were not the only Army to have suffered Mutiny as other Allied Armies did as well.

Petain wished to wait for AEF and introduction of more tanks as even he realised the futility of charging Machine guns across no mans land.

Given the sheer number of French casualties in WW1 the idea that they were not willing to fight is not borne by the statistics.

Petain a hero in WW1 and a devil in WW2, I recognise that after seeing 2 generations of French men wiped out in WW1 he could do it to his nation in WW2. Doesn't excuse what he did but easier to understand.

[racedo]

The BEF of 1914 was probably the best trained, best equipped (apart from a lack of machine guns compared to continental armies) and most professional army this country has ever put into the field. In open warfare it was well able to hold it's own and punch well above it's weight. It's performance at Mons, Le Cateau, the Great Retreat and the Race to the Sea provide ample of evidence of this.


They had cease to exist by early 1915 after which the Pals battalions and other shad joined.

Once the front stablised, the German Army largely remained on the defensive (apart from one major offensive at Verdun in 1916 and some local attacks around Ypres) placing the onus on the Allies to attack and retake occupied France and Belgium where the advantage would always lie with the defender.

Er Spring Offensive which wiped out gains achieved in previous years but failed because Germany was running to far ahead of its logistics and its war industry couldn't keep up.

[smujsmith]

Having read all the posts, I believe that the general opinion is that the country should commemorate the beginning of that unholy bloodbath and celebrate in 2018 the anniversary of its ending. I'm sure that Cameron had no intention to be caught out by his soft spot, that of spinning good news at all times, but he was. If it's to be a celebration, then I for one will not be joining in.

Smudge

[Pontius Navigator]

On horses and cavalry, remember the Poles used cavalry at the beginning of WW2 and the Germans also made extensive use of horse drawn waggons.

When you get in to some fine detail of WW1 some curious, to our eyes, facts emerge.

Many of the Territorial force were engaged in 1911 for 5 years. They also had to agree to serve outside the British Isles. A forebear of my wife's did this and was asked on 26 Sep 1915 if he would re-engage; he declined. I leave you to find the significance of that date.

He was no dodger however as he then returned to sea in the Naval Patrol Service and served until 1919. He rejoined in 1940 and served through to 1945.

The point is that soldiers in WW1 did not necessarily serve for 'the duration' as they did in WW2 despite the appalling loss of life.

[racedo]

A forebear of my wife's did this and was asked on 26 Sep 1915 if he would re-engage; he declined. I leave you to find the significance of that date.

Battle of Loos, 1st use of Gas by Allied forces........

[SilsoeSid]

26 Sept 1915 The Battle of Loos begins
26 Sept 1916 The Battle of Thiepval Ridge begins
26 Sept 1917 The Battle of Polygon Wood begins. (re: my previous post)
26 Sept 1918 Battle of the Argonne Forest begins (the bloodiest single battle in American history)

[teeteringhead]

26 Sept 1918 Battle of the Argonne Forest begins (the bloodiest single battle in American history) Up to a point Sid.

The Argonne Offensive lasted 47 days - up to the 11/11 Armistice in fact, but -depending on sources - there were probably only 20-30 days of actual heavy fighting. But still 117 000 casualties. :(

Pro rata I would offer two from the Civil War: Gettysburg with 51 000 over 3 days, and Chikamauga with 34 000 over 2 days.

Sadly, like the Brits (in the Wars of the Roses and the English Civil War) we seem to lose lots when we're fighting our own countrymen. For us; 28 000 cas in one day at Towton (29th March 1461).

But all pales into insignificance beside 1st July 1916 (first day of the Somme) - 57 450 British cas (19 420 dead + 2 152 MIA)), to which we can add about 2 700 French and up to 10 000 Germans.

maybe that's the day we should commemorate...... :(:(

[TomJoad]

Well, looks like the BBC will be making some effort; should some worthy material there.


"And a chance for us all to learn something new about a war we think we know well."

The season will include 130 newly commissioned programmes, spanning almost 2,500 hours."



BBC News - BBC reveals 2,500-hour World War I season (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24552194)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Am I alone in worrying that the focus on remembering the First World War may cause the public/media to overlook the (sadly) dwindling number of World War Two veterans?

Whilst they are alive, they are the best possible link to the history of both world wars.

[racedo]

Am I alone in worrying that the focus on remembering the First World War may cause the public/media to overlook the (sadly) dwindling number of World War Two veterans?

Whilst they are alive, they are the best possible link to the history of both world wars.

Doubt it as will make people even more curious.................like opening a box.