WW1

[Bijou Bob]

For me William, the difference in attitude towards the two conflicts is rooted in social policy. In 1917/18, the government of the time undertook to build 'Homes for Hero's' for returning soldiers. Political parties took it in turns to ramp up the numbers of houses that they would build if elected, with the fledgling Labour party promising 300,000. In truth, by 1923, the numbers built hadn't even reached five figures. Returning soldiers found that their jobs had been taken over by women during the war years, depressing wages and reducing opportunity.

A growing fear in government that the events in St Petersburg and Moscow would be repeated in London and throughout England gave rise to social policy that alleaviated some of the appalling social conditions found in both urban and rural areas.

Following the financial crash in the twenties and early thirties, families often had two income streams from husband and wife. Families who had lived in poverty for generations were all of a sudden able to achieve a hitherto unheard of level of affluence. By 1939, the grinding poverty of the late 19th century had been left long behind for many and a growing middle class had access to better quality education, better healthcare and a far better diet than their predecessors. Not many wanted to swop a comfortable and growingly affluent existence to fight again. The visit of the postman with the dreaded yellow envelopes had affected every community on a daily basis. Nobody wanted to see a return to that and who can blame them?

[William the White]

For me William, the difference in attitude towards the two conflicts is rooted in social policy. In 1917/18, the government of the time undertook to build 'Homes for Hero's' for returning soldiers. Political parties took it in turns to ramp up the numbers of houses that they would build if elected, with the fledgling Labour party promising 300,000. In truth, by 1923, the numbers built hadn't even reached five figures. Returning soldiers found that their jobs had been taken over by women during the war years, depressing wages and reducing opportunity.

A growing fear in government that the events in St Petersburg and Moscow would be repeated in London and throughout England gave rise to social policy that alleaviated some of the appalling social conditions found in both urban and rural areas.

Following the financial crash in the twenties and early thirties, families often had two income streams from husband and wife. Families who had lived in poverty for generations were all of a sudden able to achieve a hitherto unheard of level of affluence. By 1939, the grinding poverty of the late 19th century had been left long behind for many and a growing middle class had access to better quality education, better healthcare and a far better diet than their predecessors. Not many wanted to swop a comfortable and growingly affluent existence to fight again. The visit of the postman with the dreaded yellow envelopes had affected every community on a daily basis. Nobody wanted to see a return to that and who can blame them?

Thanks Bob - but, as I didn't mention World War Two at all, I'm a bit confused about this.

[Bijou Bob]

Ha ha ha sorry William, I misread your last post and went off on one!

[Relentless09]

Every year on the 1st of July there are small commemorations across N.I for the start the Battle of the Somme. Personally I like remembering family members and their friends who believed in what they did was right. However each to their own when it comes to events like this.

[Montreal Wanderer]

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.

Ok here goes;

5th Jan 1916 - Prime Minister Asquith only 2 months earlier had argued against conscription and here he was introducing it.
Referred to as the 'Derby scheme' it required all single men between 18 & 41 to join up. Married men were only asked to serve once all single men had signed up, so by introducing the scheme Asquith had in effect, introduced conscription.
Exemptions after this time were Civilian Employment in the national interest, men whose dependents could not survive without their breadwinner and those that could prove serious ill health.

Our approach re conscription was apparently looked at with bemusement by both our allies and our enemies. The Derby scheme led to full conscription in 1917 which was an about face from what most MPs believed in 1914. It paved the way for full conscription to be introduced in 1939 at the outbreak of WWII with very little opposition

But the Derby scheme was voluntary was it not?

The Derby Scheme was a voluntary recruitment policy in Britain created in 1915 by Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby. The concept behind the Derby Scheme was that men who voluntarily registered their name would be called upon for service only when necessary. Married men had an added incentive in that they were advised they would be called up only once the supply of single men was exhausted. The scheme proved unsuccessful and was abandoned in December 1915

I think you must mean the Military Service Act of 1916. This Act stated single men of 18-41 years old were liable to be called up - the beginning of conscription. Canada also had an Act of the same name in 1917 - hence my error on the date. Thanks,Harry.

So why did you ask Harry to look it up?

Because I didn't know about the Derby Scheme. Once Harry gave me the name I was able to look it up. This is why I asked him. Indeed Harry helped clear up misconceptions I had had about conscription for which I thanked him.

[Bruce Rioja]

SKILLZ

[William the White]

Every year on the 1st of July there are small commemorations across N.I for the start the Battle of the Somme. Personally I like remembering family members and their friends who believed in what they did was right. However each to their own when it comes to events like this.

One of the very finest plays set in World War One is Frank McGuiness's magnificent Observe the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme. I so hope that this play is revived somewhere during the commemorations. I would travel a long way to see it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observe_th ... _the_Somme" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really, if you get the chance, see this play.

[Dujon]

Reference: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For Australia, as for many nations, the First World War remains the most costly conflict in terms of deaths and casualties. From a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner.

How can any one 'celebrate' that sort of carnage? I can understand the people alive at the time celebrating the end of the war but that's surely not our obligation even though we are happy there was an end to it.

In my neck of the woods we have two commemorative moments each year. One is 'Poppy Day' recognising the end of WW1 which is used by various charities for ex-servicemen support and honoured by a minute silence at the time of 11am on November 11 each year. The other is ANZAC Day on April 25 each year. This is a national public holiday during which we commemorate all those who served this country in war - whether they survived or not. All across the country on that date there are ANZAC Day marches. Unfortunately all our WW1 veterans have now died. Whilst it started as a remembrance of Australia's involvement in the Dardanelles - sp? - (Gallipoli) campaign it has since been expanded to include all service personnel involved in overseas active service. In the major cities crowds line the streets to watch and cheer and wave little Australian flags whilst the veterans march by.

I don't think that this is some form of jingoism; it is merely a mass 'thank you' to our ex-servicemen and women.

There is an ode from which this is taken. It's repeated each evening in every RSL club in the country. It is also a mantra for ANZAC Day:

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

(Laurence Binyon's poem, "For the Fallen")

Lest we forget.

[Montreal Wanderer]

In 1998 - marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Great War - I had a play produced at the Octagon called Early One Morning. It told the story of Private James Smith of Bolton who was shot at dawn on Sept 4, 1917, for desertion on the eve of the cruel slaughter that was called the Battle of Passchendaele.

I met surviving members of his family still living in Bolton, and was able to take two of them to visit his grave just outside Ypres, and there they planted a miniature Lancashire rose. The day the pardons for the executed of that war - 306, if i remember correctly - came through I visited them, and we sat in their living room with a real Lancashire celebration - flat cake and strong tea.

I had been a profound sceptic about Remembrance, poppies etc until getting to grips with that play, learning about that war, those horrors, that gave me occasional nightmares for several months. I am a sceptic no longer. I observe the two minutes silence.

It is that day again. For those who haven't heard it, this is a song written in anger about the father of a little girl who refused to observe a store request for two minutes of silence in Nova Scotia.

[jaffka]

When you go home
tell them of us and say,
for your tomorrow
we gave our today.

[Lord Kangana]

If any questioned why we died, tell them because our fathers lied.