This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

66
67

TIL, British soldiers from WW1 were mindless drones who had no idea why they were fighting. Thanks Guardian. (self.badhistory)

Lewisb2I don't deny the Holocaust, I only question the gas chambers. が 投稿

"Those in the trenches never understood what they were giving their lives for, beyond a vague commitment to king and country, and a hundred years later most of us still don’t really understand ... That vacuum of sense provides all the more reason for caution when co-opting the events for a purpose as crass as flogging groceries"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/sainsburys-christmas-ad-first-world-war?CMP=fb_gu

Why is this Bad History?

The British Army in 1914 was comprised completely of volunteers (according to a booklet from my history lecturer 25% of the workforce in Western Scotland volunteered in 1914). They were largely motivated by alleged German atrocities which, at the start of the war, was propagated heavily. Of course by the time conscription was introduced, the narrative that many men did not know why they were fighting may have been true. Even so, to make sweeping historical generalisations like this is unbelievable.

全 36 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]JackStolen 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The appeal to "people in the past were dumb/crazy" is the laziest form of bad history.

[–]MirkoCroCop 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Comment is free is not actually the Guardian proper. They publish op-eds

[–]jonewerThe library at Louvain fired on the Germans first 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I often hear this from Guardian apologists.

The people who write for CiF are, to all intents and purposes, Guardian columnists.

Its not like Guardianistas urge forgiveness for the Daily Mail for things that Richard Littlejohn or Quentin Lets have written.

[–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

However, the pieces that find their way into Comment is Free are almost always toeing the Guardian line. Then the comments on the comment is free articles are complete garbage from the more nutty element of the political left wing especially when discussing history.

[–]Lewisb2I don't deny the Holocaust, I only question the gas chambers.[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, but the Guardian newspaper has published articles critical of Britain's involvement in the war, as well as of Remembrance Day/The Poppy.

Even if this is Comment if Free, the Guardian still publishes it, and in some ways does endorse it.

[–]ChrisQF 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (8子コメント)

This shit's going to pop up more and more as we approach the anniversary of the Somme.

[–]whatismooElders of Zion 2, Jewgalectric JewgaJew: Part I, The Jewening 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (7子コメント)

that'll be somme mess

[–]turtleeatingaldermanCotopaxi Rules Everything Around Me 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (6子コメント)

That'll be one way to somme it up.

[–]whatismooElders of Zion 2, Jewgalectric JewgaJew: Part I, The Jewening 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I mean that was basically arrasment, it was so bad

[–]turtleeatingaldermanCotopaxi Rules Everything Around Me 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Just don't let your mind Ardennes from reading it. You might go in-Seine.

[–]whatismooElders of Zion 2, Jewgalectric JewgaJew: Part I, The Jewening 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I mean, I'll see it in the marneing.

[–]turtleeatingaldermanCotopaxi Rules Everything Around Me 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why bring horses into this?

[–]whatismooElders of Zion 2, Jewgalectric JewgaJew: Part I, The Jewening 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fucking words. Marneing I said Marneing

[–]turtleeatingaldermanCotopaxi Rules Everything Around Me 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neigh

[–]paperconservation101 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

RAAAGGGEEEE. This, or rather, the reasons for Australians to enlist in WW1 is/was the focus of much of my research.

In the words of LL Hosbon young men enlisted was for 3-4 major reasons: 1) Help Great Britain as loyal citizens (or former citizens, Australia was only 14 years old then) 2) Something to do "the excitement of it" 3) See the world, in particular Europe. 4) The common reason seen even today - young and foolish.

[–]Raven0520"Libertarian solutions to everyday problems." 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Isn't the Guardian basically thought of the same way as the Huffington Post in America?

[–]eighthgearOh, Allemagne-senpai! If you invade me there I'll... I'll-!!! 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The Guardian is a respected newspaper with an established history. It is seen as left-leaning, like the Huffington Post, but I don't think it is fair to compare a the Guardian to a news aggregator blog. A better comparison would be with the New York Times, I'd say.

[–]EvanHarperDon't Robespierre that joint, man. 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Somewhere between the NYT and Mother Jones.

[–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'd agree. It is a harsh comparison. That said, I have been put off the Guardian in recent times by its increasingly sensational/contrarian bent.

[–]mrscienceguy1STEM overlord of /r/badhistory. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Guardian is just about the only newspaper we have in Australia that is willing to discuss new surveillance laws. Virtually every other newspaper from News Corp and Fairfax tiptoe around the issue.

[–]somegurk 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmmm I think it's gone down in quality a bit in the last ten years but it still has some good stories and writers, just stay away from comment is free section unless you want to laugh at the comment section.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]cordis_melumLiterally Skynet-Mao[M] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It is the worst newspaper in the world, read by the worst people in the world; student unionists, liberal democrats, and fat women who wear wooden jewellery.

    ... okay?

    It so happens that I'm a social democrat who happens to own a wooden bracelet. That being said, this did not influence my decision to remove your post as a R2 violation. As a reminder, R2 is as follows:

    Rule 2: No current (post-Cold War) political badhistory posts, or comments. Discussion of politics within a historical context, and badhistory by current political figures are allowed. The discussion of modern politics, however, is not allowed.

    As your post instead just insulted massive groups of people, many who read this subreddit on a daily basis and who are regulars here, I'm also removing this under R4, which reads:

    Rule 4: Please remain civil when commenting. We ask that you do not insult others, or spew racist/bigoted garbage. Further, use of derogatory slurs, inappropriate accusations of mental illness or disability, and so on, will lead to removal of the comment and possibly a warning or ban if deemed appropriate.

    I understand that you weren't likely to insult the user you replied to, but you did in fact insult a large number of readers here. The misogyny in your post further justifies removal under R4.

    If you wish to contest this decision, feek free to take this to modmail.

    [–]Purgecakes 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I do not believe that the Guardian proper is like the HuffPost.

    Comment is Free is however not the Guardian proper, and it was rather distinctive content. Largely separated by quality.

    [–]prof_hobart -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    The British Army in 1914 was comprised completely of volunteers

    WW1 went on well beyond 1914, and conscription was introduced in 1916, and even before that there were plenty of people signing up for little more reason than unemployment or pressure from employers or their communities.

    They were largely motivated by alleged German atrocities which, at the start of the war, was propagated heavily

    Couple of things on that.

    Firstly, the word "alleged" is pretty important - being tricked into signing up based on made up, or hugely overblown, claims isn't the same as actually understanding why they were there.

    Secondly, that wasn't the actual reason why British troops were fighting in Europe at all. Britain wasn't at war with Germany because of any atrocities, real or imagined, and if many people believed that was the reason it backs up the claim that they didn't know what they were actually fighting for.

    [–]EvanHarperDon't Robespierre that joint, man. 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Please read a book about the German atrocities in Belgium published in the last 15 years or so, the idea that they were "imaginary" is way past its sell-by date.

    [–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Firstly, the word "alleged" is pretty important - being tricked into signing up based on made up, or hugely overblown, claims isn't the same as actually understanding why they were there.

    Made up? Here's a tip; go read the work of Alan Kramer. I find it ridiculously ironic that the British propaganda effort to exaggerate and take advantage of German war crimes in Belgium that did occur has actually lead to a situation where most people think they were fabricated!

    [–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sorry, just realised I replied to you rather than the other guy! Woops!

    [–]prof_hobart -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Ah, another person who's missed both the "or hugely overblown" bit and the bit where I pointed out that any atrocities, real or imagined, were not the reason that Britain was fighting in the war.

    [–]Lewisb2I don't deny the Holocaust, I only question the gas chambers.[S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The article is about an ad based on an even which occurred in 1914, therefore anything past then is irrelevant to the discussion. The author tried giving the impression that men during the Christmas Truce were little more than young conscripts who had no basic critical thinking. A claim which is factually false in every regard.

    Furthermore, German atrocities in Belgium have been verified. Controversy arose over them because of the anti-war sentiments in post-WW1 Europe. Since then, however, there have been numerous studies (which /u/Colonel_Blimp pointed out) which have proven they did occur.

    I didn't say that was the reason why British soldiers fought, I said it largely influenced men to join up and fight the Germans. To say the atrocity propaganda had little impact is absurd.

    [–]prof_hobart -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    therefore anything past then is irrelevant to the discussion

    No. It really isn't. The fact that the bit of the war that was shown happened (or at least supposedly happened) in 1914 is neither here nor there. The article is about WW1 as a whole.

    Furthermore, German atrocities in Belgium have been verified.

    Some happened. An awful lot were made up or hugely embellished, and as I said, the reason that Britain were in the war was nothing to do with any atrocities, real or imagined.

    To say the atrocity propaganda had little impact is absurd.

    It's also not what I said.

    [–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Reposted from just below as I replied to the wrong person:

    Firstly, the word "alleged" is pretty important - being tricked into signing up based on made up, or hugely overblown, claims isn't the same as actually understanding why they were there.

    Made up? Here's a tip; go read the work of Alan Kramer. I find it ridiculously ironic that the British propaganda effort to exaggerate and take advantage of German war crimes in Belgium that did occur has actually lead to a situation where most people think they were fabricated!

    [–]prof_hobart -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    And I find it funny that you managed to skip the "or hugely overblown" bit - some bits were entirely fabricated and some bits were just exaggerated -and the bit where I pointed out that German atrocities, real or imagined were nothing to do with why Britain was in the war at al.

    [–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    And I find it funny that you managed to skip the "or hugely overblown" bit - some bits were entirely fabricated and some bits were just exaggerated

    Read my comment, I said the British exaggerated and took advantage of it. However you seriously need to read some of Alan Kramer's research, it'll open your eyes to the fact that these atrocities were not just propaganda, they were substantial and caused a lot of contemporary anger.

    and the bit where I pointed out that German atrocities, real or imagined were nothing to do with why Britain was in the war at al.

    ...however it was arguably a reason behind some people volunteering.

    Either way, before you pretend to be so authoritative on the subject like every other person coming on here in the last couple of weeks to set us all straight about how World War One was literally just like Blackadder and Oh What A Lovely War!, please go check out some of the literature on the topic you're discussing before spouting bollocks.

    [–]prof_hobart -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    however it was arguably a reason behind some people volunteering.

    The discussion was whether they knew what they were fighting for and the reason that they were being sent there was not to tackle any German atrocities.

    please go check out some of the literature on the topic you're discussing before spouting bollocks.

    Sorry. Which bollocks do you claim I've been spouting? I've made no references to Blackadder, Oh What A Lovely War or anything even vaguely similar so please don't simply invent straw man arguments to complain about.

    [–]Colonel_BlimpWilliam III was a juicy orange 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The discussion was whether they knew what they were fighting for and the reason that they were being sent there was not to tackle any German atrocities.

    There are a number of reasons why we went to war and a number of reasons why people volunteered for it. You're just dismissing this one out of hand because reasons.

    Sorry. Which bollocks do you claim I've been spouting?

    You claimed the atrocities in Belgium were either "made up" or "hugely overblown".