Historians complain Government’s WW1 commemoration ‘focuses on British defeats’
A row has broken out over the Government’s plans to mark the centenary of the First World War as ministers have been accused of doing “too little, too late” to commemorate the 1914-1918 conflict.
British troops of the 4th East Lancashire Regiment in trenches near Nieuport Bains Photo: Alamy
6:45AM BST 05 May 2013
Historians and campaigners have also criticised the tone of the plans unveiled so far; they believe politicians and officials are focusing too much on British defeats and the carnage and futility of the war, because they are too anxious to avoid upsetting Germans and want to make sure the events are not considered triumphalist.
However, the critics argue that by doing so, the Government is presenting only the modern, orthodox view of the conflict: that it was avoidable and unnecessary. It thus ignores arguments that, like the Second World War, it was a fight for survival.
They say that under the current plans, the Government has missed an opportunity to explain why the war was fought and failed fully to recognise the achievement of British forces.
The historians also compare the proposals unfavourably with more ambitious events being organised by Australia, Canada and New Zealand, whose men fought alongside the British.
In Britain, £50million has so far been committed by the Government and National Lottery to support centenary events, although £35million of it is for refurbishing the Imperial War Museum.
The Australian government, meanwhile, has already pledged to spend £72million.
Criticism has been led by the research and education organisations the British Commission for Military History (BCMH) and the Western Front Association (WFA).
Prof Gary Sheffield, chairman of war studies at the University of Birmingham and a vice president of the WFA, said: “The Government has come to this ridiculously late. The present government may have only come in 2010, but their predecessors should have been planning this for the last decade. Australia and New Zealand are a long way advanced with their preparations, because they have taken the trouble to think through what they are going to do. We are simply throwing it all together at the last minute.
“I would like to think the Government has a solid idea, but it strikes me that they are simply floundering and don’t know what they are doing properly.”
Under plans revealed so far, a delegation from every secondary state school will visit battlefields, and money is being made available for community projects.
The announcements suggest that the major events will be mainly linked to battles that have become a byword for senseless sacrifice.
The programme begins next year with the centenary of Britain’s declaration of war on August 4, followed by centenaries of the Battle of Gallipoli in 2015; the Battle of the Somme in July 2016; Jutland, in 2016, a sea battle in which both sides claimed victory; and the slaughter at Passchendaele in 2017. It will end with the centenary of Armistice Day in November 2018.
Both the WFA and BCMH argue that equal prominence should be given to victories such as the Battle of Amiens in 1918.
Prof Sheffield added: “The plans seem to miss out the fact that Britain won the war in 1918 altogether. There’s a disproportionate concentration on defeats. They are part of the story, but you need the pay-off of the victory in 1918.
“I have seen very little in the plans providing the context about why Britain was fighting in the first place, what issues were at stake and why people volunteered in their millions to fight.
“The war was an enormous national achievement and this can be remembered without triumphalism. Germany would not be in the least offended by a celebration in this way.”
David Cameron has appointed the MP Andrew Murrison as a special representative to coordinate the plans, and has established a high-level committee, chaired by Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, to plan ceremonies and events, but divisions over the tone of the commemorations have even emerged here.
Some members, such as Sebastian Faulks, the author of the First World War novel Birdsong, are resisting moves to include a celebratory element, while others, such as the historian Prof Sir Hew Strachan have called for more celebration and accused the Government of ducking the debate.
Among academics there have been concerns that the panel is not sufficiently balanced. One said: “There is concern that the Government has co-opted on to the panel people whose work is best known through novels, and that some more from the historical community have not been co-opted on. The perspective represented by these writers shouldn’t overwhelm the perspective offered by operational historians.”
Critics believe the Government is formulating its plans based on a narrow view, articulated by war poets such as Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves and later cemented in popular culture by Joan Littlewood’s hit musical Oh! What a Lovely War.
According to this interpretation, it was a futile, avoidable and unnecessary war, the brutality of which was made worse by the incompetence of the generals in charge.
In recent years, this has been increasingly challenged, with historians arguing that, like the Second World War, it was a fight for survival against a Germany bent on European domination. As such it was neither accidental nor futile but just and necessary.
Bruce Simpson, chairman of the WFA, which has 7,000 members, said: “Put together, what we are going to get are four years of remembrance. The Australians and Canadians have already got so much in place. It seems all the British have thought is, ‘We’ve got cemeteries, we’ve got the anniversaries, we’ll just send a few representatives. Job done’.
“But there has to be something beyond remembrance and wreath laying. Otherwise we have failed these men. They didn’t join up to die. They joined up to fight for freedom.”
Maj Gen Mungo Melvin, president of the BCMH, said: “The generation who fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less it was fought with reason.
“British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects are often overlooked.”
A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said the final programme would encourage people to “learn and think” about the war’s “huge social and political significance” and “the enormous sacrifices”.