Gentlemen of the Forum.
Some of you may have noticed that it's the 100th anniversary of the beginning of WWI this year. I am already irritated by the coverage. Seems to me we've already got into the War Poets and Lions Led by Donkeys cliches - all Western Front with not a mention of any other fronts.
I put myself into the position of a general in 1916 n the Western Front. I'm leading more men than was in the entire BEF in 1914, there's a line of trenches from Switzerland to the sea. My army were all civvies a year ago. Air power is is its infancy, cavalry are useless and tanks are a pipe dream. I have artillery, but never enough, and the PBI. Not a situation I would want.
The impression is of men going to France in 1914 and staying in the front line trenches until death or 1918. It's probably boring talking about the circulation of troops to rear areas, not in keeping with the "Journey's End" presentation. I'm not saying that the Western Front was a picnic, but surely it was a stalemate of technology and circumstance?
The only other theatre that gets any attention is Gallipoli which was - a stalemate. Certainly people are aware of Lawrence of Arabia because of twinkly-eyed Peter O'Toole, but I would humbly suggest that most people couldn't say who Lawrence fought. As for Allenby, he's hardly a household name is he? Then there's the running around in Africa with the magnificent and magnificently named Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck.
So, Gentlemen of the Forum, have I got it wrong? Are we up for a year of tired old cliches, or could we actually learn something new in 2014?
I think the Lion led by Donkeys view of the war has pretty much passed now. I have to say until about 20 years I had pretty much the same view of the Western Front until I went for the first time to Picardy and Flanders..I don't think its over exaggerating when I say it was 'life changing'
The whole WW1 views though is strange, after living in Oz until recently very few were aware that the ANZAC's played such a big part on the Western front and all their views were concerning Gallipolli . I suppose you could say the same for the British there in regards to public perception
I think the major problem is that historians and other military experts still havent really come to any firm conclusions about WW1 and so sterotypes still abound
Personally I would doubt it fsn......But then I know so little compared to my esteemed colleagues on the forum regarding ANY period of history. :-[ :-[ :-[
But.....You seemed to have sneaked in your promotion to Brigadier without me noticing.....Congratulations !!!
Cheers - Phil
Hopefully we will get more about the histories of Mesopotamia and Salonika and Italy
What should happen as the Australian Govt did is to put all the WW1 records online for free so people can access, in that way families learn about their relatives
Quote from: Techno on 16 January 2014, 09:24:01 PM
But.....You seemed to have sneaked in your promotion to Brigadier without me noticing.....Congratulations !!!
Blimey! So I have! I genuinely hadn't noticed! I feel so unprepared.
Must get down to the tailor's tomorrow and have some gold braid sewn onto this cardigan.
Congratulations Brigadier.
Have you read Kipling and Conan Doyles war poems. They change dramatically as the war goes on. Sassoon and Owen were in the minority of the published works.
It was only in the 20s did the sense of shame really get into the national consciousness.
My Great-Grandad signed up in 1914, fought at Loos all the way through without any home leave. Started as a private, left as a Captain (brevet Major) was very proud to have served, he even went back between the wars to the town where he was mayor between 1918 and 1921. His brother died at passchendale. By the thirties, he refused to talk about it and in 1939 had a total breakdown as war was declared again.
I have mentioned before he was a habitual artist, compulsive sketcher. He filled a dozen books a year. We have one that lasts the whole war. He designed the 1916 Christmas cards for the Sherwood Forresters. The officers card is a jolly Robin Hood figure with a glass of champers.
The men's is a squaddie, wrapped up, covered in snow, and his red nose sticking out, saying "Who the bloody hell said Merry Christmas!"
They are on display in Nottingham Castle Museum.
I suspect you are correct fsn, but then it is the media and it is an anniversary - which is never a good combination.
And it has to be said that the First World War is a problematic period because much of the 'history' relating to it is so tied up with current political totems. A brief glimpse at the comments section of the Daily Mail - shower afterwards - concerning Gove's statement reveals this. I particularly cringed at the repeated assertion that the generals were all upper class twits - Robertson, CIGS, was a private who worked his way up to being a Field Marshal, and Haig was 'trade' - and that the upper classes sacrificed the working class, while they were unaffected - Asquith, while serving as Prime Minister, had a son killed on the Somme.
What is frustrating is that the period is really rather interesting.
For instance the story of the Kitchener poster - which was never a poster (well it was but it didn't start to be used until @ Dec 1914), but a magazine cover that was then sold as postcards, so that when people recall seeing Kitchener's face everywhere, it was not on posters staring down from the walls of recruiting offices - as is portrayed in dramas, films and other artistic representations - but staring up at then from these postcards thrust into their hand in the street, or waiting for them on the door mat from one of the many daily postal deliveries.
What is also annoying is that the narrative is far more interesting than the standard version of events - which is in a sense closely tied in Lions Led by Donkey's and the war poets.
This standard narrative was wheeled out by Dan Carlin in his latest Hardcore History podcast, and was particularly cringe worthy because of his attempt to down play the events in Belguim - don't let's be beastly to the Germans - which while perhaps where not babies on bayonets, did include in the space of roughly 11 days, 6000 civilian deaths, the destruction of Leuvan, complete with the expulsion of its 10,000 population, and roughly 20% of the Belgium population being displaced. Not to mention the subsequent forced labour and repatriation of goods and machinery to Germany. But for some reason this is not considered as reprehensible these days, because it goes against later political narratives relating to victory and defeat, reparations, the war dead and whether or not Britain should have got involved in the war.
And there are aspects about this standard narrative that are just plain wrong, and for some reason never get corrected. They are only little things, like the Entente Cordial was never an alliance, but an agreement relating to colonial matters. And that without understanding this, it is impossible to understand the significance of Belgium, or why the r*pe of Belgium was played up in propaganda (dreadful as it was), the tensions within the 'allied' forces in the early years if the war, and why the French were so keen to blood the British on the Somme - despite Haig's reluctance.
Or the theme that Russia was an under-developed, industrially backward country - which as Norman Stone points out in his book on the Eastern Front was far from the case, and that Stalins five and ten year plans far from dragging the county into the 20th century merely brought it back to roughly the level it had been in 1914 - but again for political reasons relating to left wing politics in the 1920's and 30's this was not something that was acceptable. Incidentally Stone's book has an excellent anecdote which explains the Russian defeat far more succinctly than the standard decadence model of the Tzar - though I suppose it also exemplifies Tzarist decadence. Because supply was arranged through a system of farming, and because the cartels operating the contracts were inefficient (as monopolies tend to be), contracts were placed with US manufacturers. However, in order to supply the boots, and to get around the monopoly of the cartel, the boots were sent through the post to the individual soldier, though they could not be sent as a pair, thus two parcels were sent, one with the left boot, the other with the right. Which while not only being very comical, also made the logistics impossible, especially when combined with the massive demand for fodder for the cavalry, and the problems of shell supply caused by the Russian fortress policy in the 1890's - which is a debate that occurred in all countries, and in 1916 would mean that the French fortresses at Verdun did not have any guns (which in the standard narrative is due to the French commander being a fool, but is more likely because he had taken an opinion contrary to the Russians in the artillery debates of the 1890's)
Recently I listened to the excellent podcast series of lectures by Margaret Anderson, at Berkley on the Rise and Fall of the Second Reich - https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/history-167b-fall-2007-rise/id461115995 - which gives a very interesting perspective on 19th century Germany - and for whom I thank for my Palmerston quip in another thread.
What I found interesting about her lectures was that it offered an explanation for war that made far more sense than the general tinder box theory, namely that though Germany was strong militarily and industrially, the only real diplomatic card it had was it's army - or perhaps more accurately the threat of the army. Thus when Britain was looking for allies after the Boer war, although it first approached the Germans - for reasons of blood and history perhaps - it made far more logical sense to come to terms with the two great European colonial powers of France and Russia - to reach understandings, not alliances - and contain the German fleet - rather than the standard version of the Anglo-German naval race (something that could be equally applied to the US).
Her assessment of the Sarajevo incident is equally more compelling than the standard narrative.
Sorry if I have rambled on a bit... it's just all the talk around this commemoration has been annoying me for weeks, and I wanted to get some things of my chest off my chest.
Which is not to say that I don't like the war poets, or think the Lions led by Donkeys meme has merit - it's just that it doesn't have merit for the knee jerk reasons that accompany it - and both colour the 'real' history in a way that it less than helpful, and relate more to later social and military debates of the 1930's and 1960's.
An interesting read rather than a ramble
Quote from: Fenton on 16 January 2014, 09:29:00 PM
What should happen as the Australian Govt did is to put all the WW1 records online for free so people can access, in that way families learn about their relatives
The National Archives are working on doing exactly that. They've scanned 1.5 million pages of unit war diaries, and are getting them online:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/905.htm
They're also asking the public to help tag the pages, to help researchers find relevant pages:
http://www.operationwardiary.org/
They're planning to get a lot more stuff relevant to WWI online over the next five years:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/first-world-war/
Russell beat me to the NA's efforts which are worth a look.
A friend of mine (who knows very little about military history) has just returned from a Legers Battlefield Tour and has been (like many others before him) very moved by the experience.
He posted his photos and thoughts on facebook and one of his friends 'liked' his posts and thought it appropriate to post a pic showing how 'futile the war was' which was of a GI in Vietnam.... L-)
Saw a WWI 'History File' (contains DVD's and printed material I assume) in WH Smiths the other week. The picture on the box lid was of a 'just' pre-WWII American soldier complete with an M1 rifle! He was wearing a respirator and a 'battle bowler' British type helmet so, 'Hey, that must be WWI, right?'
I hold out little hope that the 2014 anniversary will change the average person's view of the Great War. I'm going to ignore it and maybe read a couple of more books on the subject instead.
Yours in despair,
D.
Thank you Gentlemen of the Forum (Can we get a badge or a tee-shirt or something?) particularly fateeore for giving some validity to my ramblings.
I often intrigue annoy work colleagues by asking them random questions like "how large were the armies at Hastings?" or "name any other nationality represented in Wellington's army at Waterloo." Their ignorance (and I don't mean that in an offensive way) is quite staggering. These people who have never read anything about WWI will be the ones who I fear will have these stereotypes reinforced.
Another good one is to ask, who invented concentration camps?
When they answer, the British in the Boer War.
Say, "so the Spanish didn't employ them in Cuba?"
At which point....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA
Quote from: Russell Phillips on 17 January 2014, 07:19:00 AM
The National Archives are working on doing exactly that. They've scanned 1.5 million pages of unit war diaries, and are getting them online:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/905.htm
They're also asking the public to help tag the pages, to help researchers find relevant pages:
http://www.operationwardiary.org/
They're planning to get a lot more stuff relevant to WWI online over the next five years:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/first-world-war/
Yes and its a good thing...I know a lot were destroyed but the official unit records and individual army records would be nice as well
Quote from: Fenton on 17 January 2014, 10:28:48 AM
Yes and its a good thing...I know a lot were destroyed but the official unit records and individual army records would be nice as well
The 'personal' diaries are unit diaries not individual diaries - that threw me at first when I initially saw it
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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836)
Thank you Dan Snow!
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.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 20 January 2014, 06:57:36 PM
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. :-& :-& :-&
Quotewe 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 :(
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.
.
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
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.
Quote from: fateeore on 24 January 2014, 12:38:33 AM
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. :D
;D - nice one Hertsblue.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 24 January 2014, 10:29:54 AM
Even Keira Knightly could meet that requirement. :D
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.
Quote from: Hertsblue on 24 January 2014, 10:29:54 AM
Even Keira Knightly could meet that requirement. :D
Beautifully, too...eh, Ray? :)
(http://fcbahistory.pbworks.com/f/Keira%2BKnightley%2B2.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DMGWtn6CHqM/TfyVhTl36OI/AAAAAAAABAs/Z2Qj8jvlzaE/s1600/2.jpg)
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Keira-Knightley.jpg)
Quote from: fateeore on 24 January 2014, 01:40:52 PM
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.
Yes, we tend to forget how much standards of health have improved over the last century.
I think it was Haig who wrote about the 1917 or 1918 conscripts from the inner cities that within 6 months they had grown 2 or 3 inches and increased their weight and chest sizes and their overall health had considerably improved
Quote from: Fenton on 25 January 2014, 11:58:22 AM
I think it was Haig who wrote about the 1917 or 1918 conscripts from the inner cities that within 6 months they had grown 2 or 3 inches and increased their weight and chest sizes and their overall health had considerably improved
Except for the ones who were dead or wounded and lacking of limbs
Quote from: fateeore on 24 January 2014, 01:40:52 PM
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.
The English working class was "made" to order as EP Thompson argued. Life expectancy was designed to be nasty, brutish and short. Industry was devoid of health and safety - 8 shipyard workers died building the Titanic. The textile mills of Lancaster, Yorkshire and Ulster cut the lungs from the workforce.
In researching the reflections of veterans (WW1 and WW2), I was struck by the lack of achievement in the former. Many suffered from what we now call survivors guilt syndrome. The "pals battalions" heightened this sense of guilt. By contrast WW2 vets felt that had "played a part in Hitler's downfall" to quote Spike Milligan.
Could it be that there was no real sense of victory in WW1 ? No march down the Unter Den Linden. No formal act of German surrender. Just an uneasy armistice(11.11.18) followed by the official end of the war, Peace Day (19 07 19). While there was a "Victory Parade" in London, many demobbed soldiers showed their apathy and disapproval. This ranged from a total boycott in East Anglia to serious riots in Luton when the King's speech was read.
Any sense of victory quickly faded and the sombre Remembrance Sunday became the way the nation recalled the war. This sense of shock, apathy and waste of lives may have led to the search for scapegoats. "Lions led by donkeys etc"
Paxman kicked off the BBC's four years of coverage with the first part of his series on WW1.
I was impressed, he got behind the steriotypes and managed to give some indication as to what people thought and why, the bombardment of East Coast towns by the german navy and the Zeplin bombing raids had a huge impact on the populace which played right into the 'beastly hun' hysteria but there was a nice counter point in the letter from the german spy to his jailers thanking them for his treatment up to the point he was shot.
It will be interesting to see how the series progresses.
I enjoyed the show...Nice to see a bit more of the 'home front' Hartlepool etc given some exposure
My only qualm with it and its being totally pedantic I know is why they showed pictures of troops in steel helmets for troops at the front in 1914/15
I also thought about the anachronistic helmet, but then thought that maybe there isn't that much 1914 footage available. Could it be that, as a result of the war, filming improved rapidly as the war progressed, much the same as the plane and radio improved for example.
I have seen loads of footage from Loos and 1914...The Great War series th BBC did has loads...There was a couple of photos as well that I know were by Frank Hurley depicting Australians in Flanders 1917
I don't think Paxman is overly concerned with the historiography, the causal factors, the tactical battles and has no care as to footage matching the era.
He is unpacking the impact of the war on the British nation. I have to say he has put together a coherent story on aspects that are normally relegated to the footnotes of historical narrative.
Issues like English women nursing Asian soldiers and in later episodes the innovative employment of women in industry will feature high in this narrative.
The Britain that emerged in 1918 will be focus. Questions like did fighting for the Empire stir Indian nationalism ?
This is not revision its alternative history.
I guess on reflection about a conflict that my grandfather fought in ' I can see it at several levels . At a human level it was slaughter as is war at any time and for many the national meanings of it were lost in the struggle for survival . I have read of certain sectors of the front where both sides took the decision to live and let live with very little actual conflict actually taking place for periods of time not just on Christmas 1914.
As to the view of troops led by by 'donkeys, several commentators note quite validly that the generals in Britain and France had not envisaged a war of this form where they faced the manifest communication difficulties and it is noted that there were a considerable number of senior officers killed during battles .
Yet there is another where this war has to be analysed and that is that it was a war of competition between capitalist nations whom were looking to re-divde their resource pie and assert their power . After all war is political debate without the nicety of diplomacy and to what end is war fought by nations other than a greater control and access to economic resources . The problem with this is the human cost and suffering but at least the conflict did force some changes and limited gains for the proletariat of several nations as political and social history reflects
Anyone watch "37 Days"? I wasn't going to, but got sucked in to the first episode.
Excellent drama, which conveyed a sense of the time IMHO.
I wasn't going to, but I caught the back of episode 2 and was transfixed by the end of three as the British Cabinet stood round the clock waiting...
Just about managed to catch the first episode of 37 days as per usual the BBC forgot to advertise it...Really enjoyed it, the last as I suppose was to be expected was the best of the 3
I wasn't there, and it's not a war that has ever interested me (apart from dogfights), but I believe Monty supports the "wombats led by gerbils" verdict or whatever the wildlife cliche is; he was there, so may have to be considered seriously. Though heaven knows, he had a fine knack of getting other things wrong.
Agree 37 days is excellent.
IanS
Well I watched it because it was advertised on the BBC. The force did not appear to be with the Emperor on this occasion.
Which one -there were 3 or 4 if you include Eddy, although in Europe he was only a King.
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 09 March 2014, 04:18:59 PM
Which one -there were 3 or 4 if you include Eddy, although in Europe he was only a King.
IanS
Unfortunately, in Europe, as every else, in 1914 he was a corpse! He died in 1910. Bearing in mind Hapsburg funeral rituals, there are no titles when you are dead.
Mollinary
Emperor Palpatine of course.
There was a prog on the other night -BBC4 I think- that was all about how war photography was viewed by the governments and military top brass of Britain and Germany during WW I. The Germans positively endorsed it all through whereas the Brits took the opposite view. No Press were allowed with the army and after the unofficial truce of Christmas 1914, they issued an order banning cameras from the front which was issued at the front so any newcomers didn't know about it. Then in 1916 they put out a blanket ban on all unofficial cameras. There were still cameras used though even though the subject matter became slightly more sensitive as if the photographer had become disillusioned with the whole thing. They concentrated on two collections -one from each side- and this trend was visible in both sets. The modern two met up somewhere on the Somme battlefield and it transpired the two original photographers were only two miles apart at one stage.
In another part of the prog there was a man who worked on the bins back in the 70's and had a collection of medals, pictures, booklets and other paraphernalia people had thrown out that he had rescued just before it got crushed. It got my goat about the stupidity of some people.
It was bot fascinating and moving at the same time. Amazing.
All schoolchildren should learn about the effects of both WW I and II on society and ways to stop it ever happening again. Sometimes, when I read about any war, but especially the last two, I have a little tweak of conscience about how I balance my hobby with what I know about the effects of war.
Why don't politicians ever listen to the ones that fought, they are the only ones who know what it's like. If they did we might get somewhere. Unfortunately both memories and effects fade with each generation.
Okay, that's enough philosophical verbiage.
Quote from: Subedai on 16 March 2014, 11:01:34 AM
...
All schoolchildren should learn about the effects of both WW I and II on society and ways to stop it ever happening again. Sometimes, when I read about any war, but especially the last two, I have a little tweak of conscience about how I balance my hobby with what I know about the effects of war.
....
Wargaming with models, not computer games, is one of the best ways to teach the school children about war. Listerning to my son when he was about 13 talking to his mates about D-Day really made clear to me how little most know and how much he had learned through wargaming.
My father served in 2 Btn, East Yorkshire and landed on D-Day so we built up a force based on a company of his battalion supported by 13/18th Hussars and Centaurs. For the Germans we did a Panzergrenadier company from Hans von Lucks Regiment of 21st Panzer Div. He prefers to play the British which leads to the comment, "be careful with that infantry or you will kill your Grandfather", from me.
What a great idea, I'd become a History teacher tomorrow if that were the case.
In this instance, ignorance is most definitely not bliss. Makes you worry for the following generations and how enlightened they will be on the major historical issues.
Sorry, gone all maudlin again...and without alcahol. Hmmm, I wonder what Ma Subs is putting in the tea???
One of my most moving experiences was attending the 80th anniversary commemorations at Ypres on the 11th of November 1998. The whole day was very special, ending with the Last Post at the Menin Gate. A colleague and I had been given a day off school for the event as we were to spend the short afternoon after the ceremony laying wreaths and placing poppy-decorated crosses at all the graves of the school's fallen that we could find in the immediate area. It was a day of cold, bleak weather and we read out each old boy's entry from the roll of honour as we marked his grave. I'll never forget it.
What a memory that is, something to cherish.
I had a similar experience a couple of years ago. I used to be the go-to person for charity and community work for a big retail company and in that capacity I was invited to the Soldiers Ward at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Brum. The incredibly positive attitude of the servicemen who had lost a limb or limbs was such an eye-opening and humbling experience that it knocked the everyday, mundane problems that myself and the vast majority of people have right into touch.
On the other side of the coin, I was once on a bus in Brum and to honour the 2 minutes silence the driver pulled over just before 11 and stopped the bus. Even after he explained why he had done so some middle-aged tw*t wanted the driver to carry on. It was only because he got such a round of f**ks from everyone on the bus who basically told him to sit down, shut up and show some respect that he did, but he was still moaning and even threatened to report the driver.
It's not just the young who need educating, there are a fair few ignorant older tossers who need re-educating as well.
I had the experience of being shown the cave on a Free State farm where my then in-laws' grandparents had taken refuge when the Brits came to burn the farmhouse and take the inhabitants to the camps. Even as a quarter Boer myself, I felt very self-conscious as an English speaker.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26654314 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26654314)
And the war is still killing people! :o