How to remember ?

[observer]

In 2014 it will be 100 years since the start of WW1 and it appears our PM wishes to "celebrate" it. Not sure "celebrate" is the right word, especially for "the start" of a war; perhaps rememberance would be better, and perhaps the best way to remember, would be through a programme of factual history lessons in our schools?

[sadako]

Watch the second series of Downton abbey?

[asperity]

Call me Dave is displaying his ignorance yet again. Perhaps he thinks setting off a few fireworks would be a good way to "celebrate" the death of millions.

[Davy51]

I am sure ,for the upper classes of the time , that it was thought of as "a damn good show" & something to celebrate when thousands of Tommies went over the top to their deaths over a meaningless piece of ground.

[Eagle]

In 2014 it will be 100 years since the start of WW1 and it appears our PM wishes to "celebrate" it. Not sure "celebrate" is the right word, especially for "the start" of a war; perhaps rememberance would be better, and perhaps the best way to remember, would be through a programme of factual history lessons in our schools?

 It seems that you have noticed Paxman rebuking Cameron for his 'celebrate' comment, why didn't you beat Paxman to it? Cameron made the remark last year. Just saying.

[observer]

Paxman made it a news item again - just saying.

[Eagle]

I suppose it is only coincidental that Paxo has a new book out entitled, "Great Britain's Great War"

[Lt Kije]

Perhaps the best way to remember the fallen, is to better teach the history of the event in Schools, so we never forget !!! And in that way we can pass on the significance of the event to the next generation. If we forget we are doomed to make the same mistakes that led us to War in the first place.

[observer]

Thought I'd said that?!

[inky pete]

I am sure ,for the upper classes of the time , that it was thought of as "a damn good show" & something to celebrate when thousands of Tommies went over the top to their deaths over a meaningless piece of ground.

 

The "upper classes" of the time lost a far greater proportion of their young men than the general population.

 

In fact, the Death Duties and dilution of assets resulting from the casualties they took and the loss of straight line heirs were largely responsible for the families having to break up and sell off estates they'd held and cared for in their families for dozens of generations.

[algy]

The "upper classes" of the time lost a far greater proportion of their young men than the general population.

 

In fact, the Death Duties and dilution of assets resulting from the casualties they took and the loss of straight line heirs were largely responsible for the families having to break up and sell off estates they'd held and cared for in their families for dozens of generations.

I presume you are quoting percentages inky.'old chap, either that or you neglected to add your smilie'. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us on such a sweeping statement!. Regarding the content of the latter part of your statement, - 'on the broken backs of the lower and working classes did they attain their wealth and land'

[inky pete]

The word "proportion" speaks for itself algy.

 

And it would be equally true to say that without the leadership and investment provided by their betters, the great unwashed would still be living in their own filth and dying of cholera and typhoid in droves - oh, and ruled from Paris or Berlin to boot!

[Lt Kije]

The class system still lives with inky,

 

The upper classes kept the low and middle classes in their place for generations in a vain attempt to keep power to themselves.

 

Power to the people!!!!!!

 

Your use of the word betters speaks volumes inky!!

[algy]

The word "proportion" speaks for itself algy.

 

And it would be equally true to say that without the leadership and investment provided by their betters, the great unwashed would still be living in their own filth and dying of cholera and typhoid in droves - oh, and ruled from Paris or Berlin to boot!

In our past history the poor have always been exploited by land owners and industrialists alike with both women and young children being forced to work long hours for little reward, the mill towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire were a prime example, the poor in the countryside were also treated in the same manner living in tied cottages where if the put a foot wrong or were ajudged to be surplus to requirements they were evicted from there homes. Warrington was a prime example where children as young as eight years old were employed making pins at Eddlestons pin factory on Knutsford Rd at Latchford, so don't give me the crap regarding how the benevolent industrialists and landowners saved the poor from their own fate - what a load of drivel.

Regarding health it was the likes of Buchan, Snow and Lister who helped clean up the health of this nation, with little help from the wealthy aristocrats.

[observer]

Just trying to understand your point Ink: are you saying that they lossed a bigger proportion of their class or of the population?  The Army structure of command resembled closely that of the class system in the general population, this the great unwashed made up the majority. As general Officers would be safely billeted behind the lines their losses would be light if any. Junior Officers on the other hand would be expected to lead their men "over the top" and may have been the prime target for snipers; thus their losses would be disproportionately high. Meanwhile, these Officers would be leading platoons or companies of 30 - 120 of "the great unwashed", large numbers of whom would be mown down by machine gun fire, a much higher other ranks ratio than to Officers. The main problem with trench warfare was that it favoured the defence, the General Staff ignored this, and continued to throw wave upon wave of humanity into killing zones; hence the high casualty rates. Not until the introduction of tanks and use of aircraft, and combined arms assaults, did were successful attacks made towards wars end.

[Lt Kije]

Well said algy

[Eagle]

 If you go back far enough we were all poor, would some of you rather things hadn't changed?

[asperity]

The class system is alive and well thanks to the efforts of those people who consider themselves to be "lower class". Well done on that chaps.  :rolleyes:

[algy]

The class system is alive and well thanks to the efforts of those people who consider themselves to be "lower class". Well done on that chaps.  :rolleyes:

Asp, In todays society at what level of class would you place yourself?.

[asperity]

As I work for a living in a transport industry I should imagine I'm working class.

[algy]

That is exactly where I slot into the pecking order although I am retired I have always been paid for what I have been employed to do, although some who know me may not agree with my self assessment.

[Davy51]

I think ,at least the upper classes had something to sell or mortgage to fund their wartime medical outcome but  an injured soldier came home with nothing & many of his able  bodied comrades found that  the "land fit for heroes " was a hollow sham, eventually giving rise to lack of jobs & social unrest. 

[algy]

I think ,at least the upper classes had something to sell or mortgage to fund their wartime medical outcome but  an injured soldier came home with nothing & many of his able  bodied comrades found that  the "land fit for heroes " was a hollow sham, eventually giving rise to lack of jobs & social unrest. 

Generally inky usually talks sense but in this instance I'm not sure what happened, the lads as most of them were, were used purely as 'cannon fodder' with the general staff using tactics from conflicts fought in the previous century and not at all applicable to WW1.

[observer]

Think you'll find in all wars throughout history, the rewards for other ranks for their sacrifice,  were a medal and a begging bowl; it's only lately that pensions and medical support have improved.

[inky pete]

The word proportion is very simple to understand.

 

In this instance let's say that 10,000 of the upper classes young men went to war - mainly as junior officers and platoon leaders going over the top at the head of 100 ordinary Tommies each. They got almost completely wiped out because they were prime targets for snipers, were expected to display conspicuous galantry in the face of the enemy, and were always the first to face the machine guns. They suffered casualties of maybe 70% in total.

 

One of the statistics often quoted is that on the Western Front between July and December 1917 one British officer was kiiled for every 19 ordinary soldiers killed.

 

Since the ordinary soldiers typically outnumbered their officers by between 50 and 100 to one it's pretty easy to see that a British officer had between 2 and 5 times as much chance of being killed as one of his own men.

 

Hardly a "damned good show", as Davy51 originally posted. Not even a "jolly good wheeze".

 

It's easy to hate the rich just for being rich, but to claim - or even imply - that they paid a lesser price when defending our country is not just factually wrong, it's despicable and insulting.