WW1

[thebish]

I read the war poets - such great poetry. And there you have the answer to such a creature as Gove. His despicable little screech will be lost forever. The poetry will echo through the centuries, telling the truth. The poets are dead - but all of them are more living than Gove ever will be.

I'm sorry - I'm missing the link here. Has Gove sent men into battle or something? And no, I'm no defender of Gove, I just can't see how you've forged this particular link.

Gove has launched a campaign to see the war as a great, glorious and necessary national crusade... And taken ludicrously ill-informed swipes at historians with whom he disagrees... There is really no need to try and defeat him in argument - he is already defeated by dead poets.

http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, I had no idea. I really couldn't work out what Harry Enfield's Tory Boy had to do in all of this. Thank you.

here's a flavour....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... oble-cause

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Having read back what's been put let me clarify a few things.
I do not believe the same things that Gove believes.
I'm not advocating celebrating the anniversary of the start of the war, or indeed the anniversary of the battle of the Somme or any other such anniversary.
What I am advocating is if anybody feels so inclined to mark in an understated non partisan way, the anniversary of the deaths of individuals.
I'd also like to make it clear that putting aside the WWI issue, Gove is a tit on the order of one who would struggle to fit inside Dolly Parton's left bra cup.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I read the war poets - such great poetry. And there you have the answer to such a creature as Gove. His despicable little screech will be lost forever. The poetry will echo through the centuries, telling the truth. The poets are dead - but all of them are more living than Gove ever will be.

I'm a bit puzzled by all of this. Was what Gove wrote that bad? He wrote:

The Government wants to give young people from every community the chance to learn about the heroism, and sacrifice, of our great-grandparents, which is why we are organising visits to the battlefields of the Western Front.

The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best. But even as we recall that loss and commemorate the bravery of those who fought, it’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict.

Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.

Whether it was a just war or not is irrelevant. Those who fought did show patriotism, honour and courage. They may have been misled and they were certainly badly led. However, it is remarkable Britain did not have conscription until 1917. Clearly those volunteers believed in what they did. They may have lost their nerve in the trenches (I would have done) and they may have regretted their decision while they were there. But they carried on to the best of their ability for as long as they could. I think it is just that we remember their sacrifice and tell our children. I too keep the two minutes silence.

[Gooner Girl]

I read the war poets - such great poetry.

I'm not generally a great fan of poetry. but we studied some of the Great War poets for English literature GCSE when I was in Year 11. It gripped and fascinated me. Really moving, powerful stuff. Think it was the only topic I ever got an A* in at school.

[Worthy4England]

I read the war poets - such great poetry. And there you have the answer to such a creature as Gove. His despicable little screech will be lost forever. The poetry will echo through the centuries, telling the truth. The poets are dead - but all of them are more living than Gove ever will be.

I'm a bit puzzled by all of this. Was what Gove wrote that bad? He wrote:

The Government wants to give young people from every community the chance to learn about the heroism, and sacrifice, of our great-grandparents, which is why we are organising visits to the battlefields of the Western Front.

The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best. But even as we recall that loss and commemorate the bravery of those who fought, it’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict.

Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.

Whether it was a just war or not is irrelevant. Those who fought did show patriotism, honour and courage. They may have been misled and they were certainly badly led. However, it is remarkable Britain did not have conscription until 1917. Clearly those volunteers believed in what they did. They may have lost their nerve in the trenches (I would have done) and they may have regretted their decision while they were there. But they carried on to the best of their ability for as long as they could. I think it is just that we remember their sacrifice and tell our children. I too keep the two minutes silence.

I'm with this point of view. When I give my poppy money and 2 minutes of my time, which on the face of it, is bugger all contribution, compared to laying down your life after spending the latter portion of it getting shelled in a disease ridden trench, it's not in recognition of a glorious war in which we, the keepers of all that's right and proper triumphed over evil, it's in acknowledgement of those sacrifices that were made. Not necessarily on the part of "The cheery old card", but on the part of "Harry and Jack"

[thebish]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Gove is making a real dick of himself over this.

History is about evaluating rival interpretations - not rote learning the state-sanctioned version. The gap between his intellect and his own estimation of it might be one of the largest in public life.

[Harry Genshaw]

However, it is remarkable Britain did not have conscription until 1917.

They were awash with volunteers in the first few months of 1914/15 but as they dried up a form of conscription was introduced. It wasn't 'full conscription' by definition but it might as well have been with the folk who were excluded. I'd be more specific if I could remember the criteria. Got something about it at home that I may dig out later

[Gooner Girl]

However, it is remarkable Britain did not have conscription until 1917.

They were awash with volunteers in the first few months of 1914/15 but as they dried up a form of conscription was introduced. It wasn't 'full conscription' by definition but it might as well have been with the folk who were excluded. I'd be more specific if I could remember the criteria. Got something about it at home that I may dig out later

Remember it well, do ya?! x

[jaffka]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Which is the reason that I choose to remember, and believe that we should continue to remember.

The following war though was no less horrific, just more fluid with the movement of armies.

[Worthy4England]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Don't disagree particularly. I do think we have a general problem of "history with the benefit of new hindsight", where people apply today's standards or thinking and perception to something that happened a significant period previously. They then seek to re-write it with the much more modern viewpoint and perspective to draw different conclusions. To me that's every bit as stupid.

[thebish]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Don't disagree particularly. I do think we have a general problem of "history with the benefit of new hindsight", where people apply today's standards or thinking and perception to something that happened a significant period previously. They then seek to re-write it with the much more modern viewpoint and perspective to draw different conclusions. To me that's every bit as stupid.

which is why I am more interested in what those like Harry Patch and the war poets - who were actually there - say than what Gove chooses to re-envision... it is Gove who is appealing to modern reinterpretations...

[jaffka]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Don't disagree particularly. I do think we have a general problem of "history with the benefit of new hindsight", where people apply today's standards or thinking and perception to something that happened a significant period previously. They then seek to re-write it with the much more modern viewpoint and perspective to draw different conclusions. To me that's every bit as stupid.

Exactly. People remember the advances across no mans land with huge casualty rates, quite rightly so as well.

However at the time, defensive weaponry and tactics were in advance of offensive tactics, until later on in the war.

As someone else has said people volunteered for the fight, so at the time it was quite clearly felt as being right. The death lists were published in the newspapers, the casualty rate wasn't hidden from the public.

At the end of the war the much maligned Douglas Haig helped set up charities and at his funeral there was a great crowd, many of them his former soldiers. History hasn't been kind to Haig, some of it probably justifiable, some of it in my opinion not.

[jaffka]

World War 1 will be remembered as long as I am alive and it will always have a place in the history books.

T**ts like Gove, like all politicians come and go. Not many I remember.

[thebish]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Don't disagree particularly. I do think we have a general problem of "history with the benefit of new hindsight", where people apply today's standards or thinking and perception to something that happened a significant period previously. They then seek to re-write it with the much more modern viewpoint and perspective to draw different conclusions. To me that's every bit as stupid.

Exactly. People remember the advances across no mans land with huge casualty rates, quite rightly so as well.

However at the time, defensive weaponry and tactics were in advance of offensive tactics, until later on in the war.

As someone else has said people volunteered for the fight, so at the time it was quite clearly felt as being right. The death lists were published in the newspapers, the casualty rate wasn't hidden from the public.

At the end of the war the much maligned Douglas Haig helped set up charities and at his funeral there was a great crowd, many of them his former soldiers. History hasn't been kind to Haig, some of it probably justifiable, some of it in my opinion not.

aye - people volunteered - but I'm not sure that what they were volunteering for was actually what was going on... nobody is attacking the bravery and courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives - but they are rightly (I think) questioning the new airbrushing of the history of what we were actually engaged in...

[jaffka]

I don't think the issue is whether we remember or not or whether we mark it or not - but the tone in which we do so. I mark it every year and organise various events for other people to do so (all in the kind of tone that Spotty recommends)

Those who fought in it tell a very different story from the one that Gove wants to be taught in schools. To recognise a senseless waste of human life is NOT to disrespect those who lost their lives - it is to raise questions about the reasons WHY we choose to send millions to their deaths and whether it is worth their supreme sacrifice.

Don't disagree particularly. I do think we have a general problem of "history with the benefit of new hindsight", where people apply today's standards or thinking and perception to something that happened a significant period previously. They then seek to re-write it with the much more modern viewpoint and perspective to draw different conclusions. To me that's every bit as stupid.

Exactly. People remember the advances across no mans land with huge casualty rates, quite rightly so as well.

However at the time, defensive weaponry and tactics were in advance of offensive tactics, until later on in the war.

As someone else has said people volunteered for the fight, so at the time it was quite clearly felt as being right. The death lists were published in the newspapers, the casualty rate wasn't hidden from the public.

At the end of the war the much maligned Douglas Haig helped set up charities and at his funeral there was a great crowd, many of them his former soldiers. History hasn't been kind to Haig, some of it probably justifiable, some of it in my opinion not.

aye - people volunteered - but I'm not sure that what they were volunteering for was actually what was going on... nobody is attacking the bravery and courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives - but they are rightly (I think) questioning the new airbrushing of the history of what we were actually engaged in...

I wouldn't expect any survivor from any battle to try and paint it all rosy. There is enough material out there for people to make their own minds up of the horror, if they are inclined.

As worthy said its very easy to judge yesterday with todays standards.

[thebish]

I wouldn't expect any survivor from any battle to try and paint it all rosy. There is enough material out there for people to make their own minds up of the horror, if they are inclined.

As worthy said its very easy to judge yesterday with todays standards.

i don't disagree... I am not trying to judge by today's standards - but by the standards and experience of those who were there... not very many of them that I have heard speak of it anything like how Gove does... in fact - quite a lot of the people who served in WW1 that I have met, refused to speak of it very much at all...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Gove is making a real dick of himself over this.

History is about evaluating rival interpretations - not rote learning the state-sanctioned version. The gap between his intellect and his own estimation of it might be one of the largest in public life.

I have only read his Daily Mail article and didn't see that it justified all the criticism. However, there is clearly much more to the issue than that. I have not seen his speeches for example. So I will bow out of this discussion.

[Montreal Wanderer]

However, it is remarkable Britain did not have conscription until 1917.

They were awash with volunteers in the first few months of 1914/15 but as they dried up a form of conscription was introduced. It wasn't 'full conscription' by definition but it might as well have been with the folk who were excluded. I'd be more specific if I could remember the criteria. Got something about it at home that I may dig out later

Please look it up, Harry, as I am quite curious about this. Your assertion runs contrary to perceived wisdom.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Gove is making a real dick of himself over this.

History is about evaluating rival interpretations - not rote learning the state-sanctioned version. The gap between his intellect and his own estimation of it might be one of the largest in public life.

I have only read his Daily Mail article and didn't see that it justified all the criticism. However, there is clearly much more to the issue than that. I have not seen his speeches for example. So I will bow out of this discussion.

That poorly written and poorly reasoned article is itself deserving of criticism.

Professor Evans serves some up pretty convincingly here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/j ... -education" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;