The Great War: Myth and Memory

[Guest]

The Great War: Myth and Memory by Dan Todman pub. 2005.

Having searched the forum for a review of this book, it seems that the few comments were back in 2007. The book has just arrived by post. Given the current media frenzy over how the War is remembered, I wonder if anyone has read this book recently and has any views.

MG

[SWorrall]

Martin,

it is a key book to understanding how the modern perception of the Great War developed over the 96 years since the Armistice. Everyone with an interest in the Great War ought to read it. Simple as that.

Todman takes a small number of central ideas, ones that sum up how we think of the war today (Mud, Death, Futility, Poets, etc.) and starts off by explaining how it really was in 1918 - 19, then demonstrates the means by which they have changed and mutated, to come to be seen as totemic and emblematic of a 'bad' or unnecessary war. As a single example: After the war was concluded it was commonplace to find celebrations of victory in Britain, Armistice Balls, etc. But a high-ranking cleric in the Church of England wrote a letter to The Times (I think it was?) deploring this whilst so many grieved a loss. So the celebration of victory gave way to the mourning of the dead and the solemn occasions that we have to this day. I know that this is a very abbreviated and simplistic version of what Todman says, and I hope that erudite Pals will forgive me for that. What he traces is how a victory came to be seen over time as something akin to a defeat, how our commemorations are more appropriate to the mourning of a loss, rather than of a war which we helped to win against an autocratic tyrant and a military dictatorship.

Simon.

[gilly100]

I can understand what you have said Simon, and the author you mention, but I can also understand why we remember on a more solemn level these days. After all, a catastrophic loss of life such as WW1 is hardly something to celebrate. As the war came to an end on 11 November, I can understand why so many participants just stood in disbelief, rather than jumping up and down in joy. I can only imagine the mixed emotions. Only my thoughts.

I am personally not going to go out of my way during this centenary period of remembrance the next 4 years. I will instead continue to remember on my own daily basis as I read and write and continue to research this period of history. 'tis enough for me and no less respectful.

Ian

[David Ridgus]

The Great War: Myth and Memory by Dan Todman pub. 2005.

Having searched the forum for a review of this book, it seems that the few comments were back in 2007. The book has just arrived by post. Given the current media frenzy over how the War is remembered, I wonder if anyone has read this book recently and has any views.

MG

It is regularly referred to in other review threads as the gold standard for well researched revisionism. Obviously just my opinion, but I always bracket it with Adrian Gregory's 'The Last Great War' as the key source books for Great War studies in recent times.

David

[Guest]

Thank you. Please keep it coming. I am finding the book very interesting, particularly where he touches on distorted or false memories - an area I find very interesting. MG

[SWorrall]

I can understand what you have said Simon, and the author you mention, but I can also understand why we remember on a more solemn level these days. After all, a catastrophic loss of life such as WW1 is hardly something to celebrate. As the war came to an end on 11 November, I can understand why so many participants just stood in disbelief, rather than jumping up and down in joy. I can only imagine the mixed emotions. Only my thoughts.

I am personally not going to go out of my way during this centenary period of remembrance the next 4 years. I will instead continue to remember on my own daily basis as I read and write and continue to research this period of history. 'tis enough for me and no less respectful.

Ian,

we do it the way that we do because: it is what we have learned is a correct and proper way to do it. But it was not that way initially, and need not have developed in the way that it did. Given different events and circumstances we might still be celebrating having won the war now. What Todman does is to show how and why modes of thought, of commemoration and remembrance have developed as they have done. What pressures and events came into play to change views from 1918 to 2007. But more than that he shows where events have been mythologised, hence the subtitle of the book. Why the view that we have, from the early 21st century, is not an accurate one. And why we ought to recognise the flaws and imperfections of our view in order to understand better what it was really like, rather than just blindly subscribing to this myth.

Simon.

[gilly100]

Each to their own Simon. One can delve into how things are remembered/commemorated/celebrated over time and how it has changed, no drama with that. Perhaps an interesting exercise and worthy introspection. I will continue to feel the way I do regardless of whether it is seen as mainstream these days or not. Someone mentioned 'morbid sentimentality', something I do not subscribe to either. I just feel that appalling loss some 100 odd years ago is a lesson to be learned on what NOT to do, to prevent it happening again. So far, we humans are not doing such a great job on that score. This can probably be debated ad infinitum with all the various views put. I remain comfortable on how I deal with it all. I don't have to jump on some politicians bandwagon when they see fit to push nationalistic feeling on events/wars past. John Howard (..nker) did a good job of that in Australia.

Cheers

Ian

[SWorrall]

I just feel that appalling loss some 100 odd years ago is a lesson to be learned on what NOT to do, to prevent it happening again.

I don't have to jump on some politicians bandwagon when they see fit to push nationalistic feeling on events/wars past. John Howard (..nker) did a good job of that in Australia.

I'm all for keeping party politics out of it myself. Indeed party political comment is banned on this Forum (so you may wish to edit your post?) Curiously the most anti-war party in Britain at that time happened to be the one that entered the war, if even the Liberals would go to war it highlights the fact that it was a justified war for Britain.

I see that quite a few people in Australia have been having a pop at the idea of changing the neutral epitaph on the grave of the Unknown Warrior, deleting 'Known unto God' for words written by a party political figure?

The losses were certainly appalling by any standards. But what should have been differently once war was declared? How could they have been avoided, given the weapons, tactics and military science which were available at the time? It is one thing to recognise scale of loss, but if one criticises then one is obliged to say how it ought to have been done instead. Otherwise it is just a cheap shot from the sidelines.

Simon.

[Guest]

Tod seems to be rather good at explaining how people remembered and how this changed over the decades....rather than making judgement on what is the right or wrong way to remember in current times. (that's not a jab at any comments on this thread....rather one at some politicians)

I found it quite interesting just how many people seemingly in the 1920s were not encumbered by a universal morbid sentimentality. It is interesting how a few individuals through the media, and the media itself shaped opinion over the years. Given half the men who fought for Britain were volunteers and half were not, I suspect opinion was as divided then as it is now and that propagation of any one of the multiple views was a direct function of the level the media chose to support a particular view (or change of view) which in turn shaped public opinion. Ownership of the media was very highly concentrated for most of the past 100 years and must have been the single dominant factor how ideas about remembrance were propagated. Even today the media coverage of Remembrance Sunday is almost universally anchored in a particularly morbid way. I am not saying that is necessarily wrong but it does rather influence how ideas are formed in the public mind. Would a commentator on the BBC Remembrance Day ever suggest the Great War was justified or worth the sacrifice. I suspect not. The lack of serious debate within the British mainstream media limits the boundaries for most.

MG

[gilly100]

Oh dear, no cheap shots anywhere that I can see. Merely giving my opinion on how I feel about remembrance. Others entitled to their way of course and how they feel it has been shaped over time. Perhaps Martin has it explained better than I by delving into the political and media spectrum that tends to influence many aspects of life/thinking/opinion for the punters, not just war and remembrance and so on.

I see no point in editing anything as it pertains to the thread. But if the bracketed part must go, fair enough. But a plonker is still a plonker!

Ian