Historians complain Governments WW1 commemoration focuses on British defeats

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by oldbaldy, May 7, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

  2. That's an interesting take. My understanding is that the UK was not under direct threat initially, therefore how can it be categorised overall as a fight for survival? The UK entered into WWI as a consequence of treaties to do with the protection of Belgium and France.
     
  3. Viewed in the context of Britain's previous 800 years or so, it was seen as critical to prevent any one power achieving hegemony in Europe - especially by violent conquest. When such hegemony was close to being achieved, Britain was always on the "next objective" list, and/or had suffered catastrophic economic damage because of interdiction of trade. Hence the wars against France, Spain and Germany.
     
  4. According to the view expressed in the old BBC series on WW1 written by John Terraine, the respected and authoritative historian; the war was finally won by the British and Canadians bursting through the German trench lines into the green fields beyond. The poor French were disorganised and in disarray while the Americans had not yet arrived in sufficient numbers to really sway the balance of numbers of soldiers fit to fight for the Allied cause. The British Army in 1918 was probably the best army this country has ever fielded; describe it's setbacks, yes for historical truth but do not gloss over it's achievements. And if it's generals were such hopeless incompetents, how is it that some 28 of their number were killed in action or, at least, in the vicinity of the front line?