|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
quently, although some sensitive collections were withheld, records relating to the First World War and the inter-war period became generally accessible in 1968. Few schol- ars immediately availed themselves of this indispensable source, or of the many private collections released by the 56 the unquiet western front thaw , but in the 1970s and 1980s there would truly be a new era or watershed in the historiography of the First World War. In terms of historical perspective, however, Britain s par- ticipation in the Second World War has paradoxically made it harder to understand, and appreciate, its role in the First. A. J. P. Taylor s curious conclusion that, despite all its suf- fering and destruction, the Second World War was a good war has gained general acceptance, particularly as applied to Britain. Only one respected historian has made a counter- claim for the greater nobility of Britain s motives and con- duct in the First World War. There is superficially much to be said in defence of Taylor s judgement. The Kaiser s regime, although increasingly militaristic, was patently not such an evil force as Hitler s, and German atrocities in the First World War, greatly exaggerated in the Allied news media, were dwarfed by Nazi barbarism in the Second. Moreover Nazi Germany seemed to have posed a more di- rect threat to Britain s survival as an independent state, with intensive aerial bombing and rocket attacks added to the submarine menace in both wars. Only a few cynical critics would deny an element of genuine idealism in Churchill s rhetoric or of sincerity in a crusade to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny. But this moral or idealistic component of national policy has been magnified in retrospect since the horrific discoveries at Belsen in April 1945 and the full post-war documentation of Nazi war crimes against hu- manity. Now the war is widely seen in terms of the Holo- caust and the Allies inadequate response to it, but at the time it was entered into and fought for similar reasons to the First World War, namely to defend Britain s indepen- dence and its empire and to prevent German domination of western Europe. The exceptional historian mentioned above is the late John Grigg, who argued in 1990 that Britain fought the donkeys and flanders mud 57 First World War in a more idealistic spirit and with a higher regard for moral values than the Second. In some ways, he suggests, the British may even have been too idealistic in their attitude during the First World War: The themes of blood sacrifice and atonement were much in evidence, but with a political twist. Britain was thought to be fighting not just to preserve its own freedom and its position in the world, but to save as well the whole human race from war itself. Those who died in the conflict were, therefore, seen as sacramental victims, purging the world of one of its worst evils.7 In my opinion, Grigg s arguments are persuasive as re- gards Britain s moral stance and conduct of the First World War, but less so in his criticisms of the Second, which in- clude the popular targets of Unconditional Surrender and strategic bombing. What, of course, adds weight to the pre- vailing view is the contrasting outcome of the two world wars: in 1918 the German threat was only checked and soon reappeared in a much more menacing form, whereas in 1945 Germany was completely defeated, occupied and di- vided, and Nazism was effectively extirpated. Nonetheless, Grigg s arguments deserve careful attention, particularly as he stresses that the myths about the First World War were mostly created during the 1960s. As will be made clear in the following discussion of the key works in the 1960s on the First World War, the renewed controversies on such matters as Easterners versus West- erners , the attrition strategy, generalship, the employment of tanks and, most problematic, casualty statistics, gener- ated powerful emotions and even led to personal vendettas. It was almost as though the war had to be fought over again by a new generation of historians and publicists. It is important to stress that one military historian be- strode this battle-ground of publishing, theatre and 58 the unquiet western front cinema like a colossus. Captain B. H. (from 1965 Sir Basil) Liddell Hart had attained his position of dominant influ- ence through his immense output on the war in the 1920s and 1930s, his remarkably generous help to newcomers to the subject, and the assemblage of his enormous, unrivalled personal archives which no writer could afford to ignore. Liddell Hart s attitude to the First World War was com- plex and should not be caricatured.8 He welcomed con- troversy through correspondence as a way of refining his ideas, assessing the evidence and approaching the truth . He remained tolerant and open-minded on many subjects related to the war and was capable, even towards the end [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |
Odnośniki
|