WWI considered.

[DanJ]

I moved my main focus of interest from WW2 to the Great War a few years ago realising I knew practically nothing about it.  I'm also just old enough to have been a boy when there were still a lot of old men arround who had fought in the war.  As I grew older I slowly realised that while they didn't say much about it except amongst themselves they were very proud of their service which seemed at odds with the popular media view.

However I'm afraid that while we'll probably see a lot of media interest in the aniversary of the war's start I don't think we will see any reflection of modern scolarship, just mass repitition of the 'Lions led by Donkeys' steriotype, after all, why do anything new when you can just trot out the same old tripe?

There are a couple of books which people may find interesting, the first is 'British Fighting Methods in the Great War' ed Paddy Griffiths which is a very interesting look at how the weapons and tactics changed from 1914 to 1918.  The second is 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' by Gordon Corrigan which sets out to explode many of the popular myths of WW1.  Sometimes it feels like it goes a bit too far in the oposite direction but even that is interesting.

[Hertsblue]

Can I second DanJ's recommendation of  Gordon Corrigan's Mud, Blood and Poppycock? This book sets out to correct many of the popular myths of the Great War. For example, the "Lions led by donkeys" tag, so freely quoted above, was actually coined in the 1930s by pacifists. He also makes the point that the "death of a generation" perception came about because of the practice of encouraging all the volunteers of a given area to join a single unit (the so-called "pals battalions"). If that unit were then to suffer heavy casualties they would all originate from one specific location. In WW2 drafts for specific units were drawn from all parts of the country, so that casualties were spread over many locations and thus did not impact severely on any particular town or village. 

[fateeore]

I'd recommend Bloody Victory by William Philpott.

I would also recommend listening to The History of WWII podcast by Ray Harris Jnr, which is currently doing a fairly in depth biography of Churchill - the current podcast is about Gallipoli. His coverage of Mussolini was also very good in placing Italian facism in the context of the WWI. http://worldwariipodcast.net/wordpress/

The Irish Revolution podcast by Michael Laffin is also very good for it's coverage of the Home Rule crisis of 1914, which for some reason never gets mentioned, http://historyhub.ie/theirishrevolution

[DanJ]

The BBC have started their count down to 4 years of WW1 aniversaries with a list of 10 myths debunked on their website.

Looks like revisionism might go mainstream, we live in hope.

[fsn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Thank you Dan Snow!

[Leman]

Some good stuff there, much of which I was teaching to GCSE students 10 years ago. However 5 years ago the curriculum was changed (yet again) and the in-depth study of the Western Front disappeared (3 years later so did I). So the current crop of schoolkids will be getting a lot less on WWI than those in their mid to late twenties have had.

[Hertsblue]

Some good stuff there, much of which I was teaching to GCSE students 10 years ago. However 5 years ago the curriculum was changed (yet again) and the in-depth study of the Western Front disappeared (3 years later so did I). So the current crop of schoolkids will be getting a lot less on WWI than those in their mid to late twenties have had.

Education seems to have its fashions like every other walk of life. When I was at school (sometime in the early neolithic) we spent entire terms on the Corn Laws of the mid nineteenth century. 

[Matt J]

we spent entire terms on the Corn Laws of the mid nineteenth century

was still the same in the late 90's when I was doing A Levels, utterly dull 

[Si Tyler]

Through German Eyes: The British and the Somme 1916 (Phoenix Press) is very good and is an analysis of the British Empire forces from the German perspective which doesn't reflect the press view.

[Fenton]

.

[Si Tyler]

I took the bit off about the Australians from the main post so it doesn't appear in the quote,  It just appeared odd to me and others may not find it so and I didn't think it helpful

[fateeore]

Gosh, just listened to the Paxman interview on History Extra - http://www.historyextra.com/podcasts

It appears that the current viewpoint has been taken on board. Which makes me wonder about the Gove interview with the Daily Mail and the subsequent 'row', being rather carefully placed.

There were a few bits in the interview that I found questionable, for instance the claim that the recruiting requirement to be be 5'3" with a 32" chest was easy to achieve - Martin Middlebrooke's book shows that this could be problematic in places such as Bradford. But one can't have everything.

[Hertsblue]

Gosh, just listened to the Paxman interview on History Extra - http://www.historyextra.com/podcasts

It appears that the current viewpoint has been taken on board. Which makes me wonder about the Gove interview with the Daily Mail and the subsequent 'row', being rather carefully placed.

There were a few bits in the interview that I found questionable, for instance the claim that the recruiting requirement to be be 5'3" with a 32" chest was easy to achieve - Martin Middlebrooke's book shows that this could be problematic in places such as Bradford. But one can't have everything.

Even Keira Knightly could meet that requirement. 

[Sunray]

  - nice one Hertsblue.

[fateeore]

Even Keira Knightly could meet that requirement.  

Indeed she might, but of little consolation to the chap quoted in the book who at 18 had a chest measurement of @24" - due to poor diet, poor housing and air pollution.