A bit over the top (Avalon/Getty Images)
In the first days of 2014, the then-education secretary, Michael Gove, addressed the forthcoming centenary of the First World War. “It’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict in the last 70 or so years,” he urged, before citing, as an example, the television series Blackadder. For a sitcom that had ended a quarter of a century earlier, an attack by such a senior politician was quite the tribute. More than that, it was an admission that the Right was losing the culture war over history.
The Black Adder, as it was originally titled, is 40 years old this week, first airing on 15 June 1983. After a shaky start, it would run for four series, though in its day it was never as popular as the other great historical comedy of the decade, ’Allo ’Allo. But its 24 episodes, spread across four time periods, have secured a cherished place in the British TV pantheon: second greatest sitcom ever, according to a 2004 BBC poll of the public; 16th greatest programme ever made, according to the British Film Institute in 2000.
At the time, it wasn’t considered to be as controversial as Gove suggests, overshadowed by far noisier arguments about Britain’s history. A few months before Blackadder was first broadcast, it had been suggested to Margaret Thatcher that what she believed in were essentially “Victorian values” — and she leapt at the phrase with great enthusiasm. When she was asked to identify which bits of the 19th century she particularly approved of, she ran through the standard list — thrift, charity, personal responsibility — and added “the British Empire that took both freedom and the rule of law to countries that would never have known it otherwise”.
Her words were carefully chosen at a time when the public interpretation of the Empire was a contentious issue. It was an era of TV dramas such as The Jewel in the Crown and The Far Pavilions, of films Heat and Dust, A Passage to India and, biggest of all, Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi. When it won eight Oscars in 1983, an editorial in the Daily Mirror celebrated the man who “took on the mighty British Empire at the peak of its power and defeated it”. It was, it said, a film that had been made by a “new Britain” that Thatcher didn’t understand, one in which Gandhi was a hero and which “matched the mood of the moment, especially among the young”. (Though Attenborough also claimed that, were he still alive, Gandhi would have voted for the SDP.)
The other reason Blackadder wasn’t seen as controversial was simply that it was a comedy. When the BBC broadcast Alan Bleasdale’s First World War drama The Monocled Mutineer in 1986, its treatment of an Army deserter was met with a barrage of complaints; it was “blatant Left-wing bias”, complained Tory MP Neil Hamilton. Blackadder Goes Forth — the series to which Gove was to take belated exception — attracted no such condemnation in 1989, despite its depiction of the conflict as a futile, idiotic exercise in slaughter. Comedies weren’t taken seriously.
But even as the Right was winning the economic battles in the mid-Eighties, some were beginning to worry that it was losing on the cultural front. John O’Sullivan, later an advisor and speechwriter for Thatcher, wrote of how popular culture had been “invaded” by moral equivalence, undermining the West’s authority in the Cold War. It still wasn’t comedy that concerned him — more the replacement of John Buchan by John Le Carré as the country’s favourite thriller writer — but he was sure that there was a concern here: “This invasion may be more significant than at first appears. Popular culture, after all, is one important way in which national myths and loyalties are transmitted.”
And those myths were important in shaping national identity. The counter-balance was to be found in education, in the teaching of history, where the focus should be on social cohesion and unity. And if the “national myths” that were taught turned out to be not exactly the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then that could be dealt with later on. “We must learn loyalty before we learn scepticism,” O’Sullivan wrote.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m not sure I agree with the premise here. I think the fact that a show like Blackadder Goes Forth is so highly regarded is because the British have a pretty high comfort level and confidence in their history. Thus, a funny farce about life in the trenches (which famously ends in going over the top and all the characters getting killed) is something people enjoy and remember highly. Similarly, the Flashman books are not exactly flattering to the Victorian period at times, but does their on-going popularity suggest self-loathing or a self-confident ability to take the piss out of yourself?
That ending is a fantastic piece of television. To end like that after not just Blackadder Goes Forth but all four series was simply brilliant. It was a visual sermon and as strong an anti-war protest as I’ve ever seen. If only contemporary protestors of all stripes had the creativity to make their protests like this, they’d be a lot more effective.
Yes, except modern protesters have nothing to protest. It is fashionable to be gay or trans or furry or whatever the current thing is. It is socially shameful as well as illegal to discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics like race and sex. Fossil fuels that provide our modern comforts (flick a switch for light; a ship full of old tars hunting whales for tallow is no longer necessary), and the list goes on.
Real protest-worthy injustices – political corruption that goes unpunished, schools that are indoctrination factories, wars being fought for profit, slavery turned a blind eye to so some can enjoy digital devices and cool footwear – don’t occur,
Protesters today are larping for social media. Make them live for a week in, say, Venezuela or Haiti or North Korea. They’d likely learn about a little virtue called gratitude.
Did you know that the iconic ending was an accident? Basically the producers hadn’t thought of an ending and didn’t know what do do so they just froze the picture as they went over the top – and then added the field of poppies as an afterthought.
I think they actually had filmed a different ending where they wander about in no man’s land.
Like the endings in Butch Cassidy, Gallipoli and Thelma and Louise. A clever but not inappropriate cop-out.
I think they actually had filmed a different ending where they wander about in no man’s land.
Like the endings in Butch Cassidy, Gallipoli and Thelma and Louise. A clever but not inappropriate cop-out.
Just as well they don’t, really. First “Blackadder Goes Forth” was a protest about a war that ended three-quarters of a century (or pretty much a human lifespan) earlier. It was a protest about something not in anybody’s power to change. Second, the French pretty much did learn the anti-war lesson from WW1 and couldn’t resist the German invasion in 1940. There was a powerful anti war lobby in the UK too, but fortunately they were outflanked.
Of course war is horrible, but the consequences of not fighting from 1939 onward would very likely have been incalculably worse.
Yes, except modern protesters have nothing to protest. It is fashionable to be gay or trans or furry or whatever the current thing is. It is socially shameful as well as illegal to discriminate on the basis of immutable characteristics like race and sex. Fossil fuels that provide our modern comforts (flick a switch for light; a ship full of old tars hunting whales for tallow is no longer necessary), and the list goes on.
Real protest-worthy injustices – political corruption that goes unpunished, schools that are indoctrination factories, wars being fought for profit, slavery turned a blind eye to so some can enjoy digital devices and cool footwear – don’t occur,
Protesters today are larping for social media. Make them live for a week in, say, Venezuela or Haiti or North Korea. They’d likely learn about a little virtue called gratitude.
Did you know that the iconic ending was an accident? Basically the producers hadn’t thought of an ending and didn’t know what do do so they just froze the picture as they went over the top – and then added the field of poppies as an afterthought.
Just as well they don’t, really. First “Blackadder Goes Forth” was a protest about a war that ended three-quarters of a century (or pretty much a human lifespan) earlier. It was a protest about something not in anybody’s power to change. Second, the French pretty much did learn the anti-war lesson from WW1 and couldn’t resist the German invasion in 1940. There was a powerful anti war lobby in the UK too, but fortunately they were outflanked.
Of course war is horrible, but the consequences of not fighting from 1939 onward would very likely have been incalculably worse.
You can agree that BGF is a brilliant work of comedy, and also regret that it may be for many people in this country their only source of knowledge on WWI.
It would be just as bad if Allo Allo were the primary representation in British culture of WWII. Fortunately people do tend to know about stuff like the Battle of Britain & the Atlantic, Normandy and the the dams raid.
Flashman may be “not exactly flattering at times”, but neither is it a one-sided, condemnation of the cruelty and stupidity of the country and it’s leaders.
This is odd. The BIG story is how the BBC, C4 and ITV over the last decade have come to see and rather hate ‘white history’. The British Imperial age is now all viewed through the new state ideological lens of CRT (see Saint Abdul, Queen Vic & her court of raycist whiteys) and every single Brit 1700 to 1950 has joined Evil Cecil Rhodes in the Sin bin. Why are we worrying about Blackadder?
That ending is a fantastic piece of television. To end like that after not just Blackadder Goes Forth but all four series was simply brilliant. It was a visual sermon and as strong an anti-war protest as I’ve ever seen. If only contemporary protestors of all stripes had the creativity to make their protests like this, they’d be a lot more effective.
You can agree that BGF is a brilliant work of comedy, and also regret that it may be for many people in this country their only source of knowledge on WWI.
It would be just as bad if Allo Allo were the primary representation in British culture of WWII. Fortunately people do tend to know about stuff like the Battle of Britain & the Atlantic, Normandy and the the dams raid.
Flashman may be “not exactly flattering at times”, but neither is it a one-sided, condemnation of the cruelty and stupidity of the country and it’s leaders.
This is odd. The BIG story is how the BBC, C4 and ITV over the last decade have come to see and rather hate ‘white history’. The British Imperial age is now all viewed through the new state ideological lens of CRT (see Saint Abdul, Queen Vic & her court of raycist whiteys) and every single Brit 1700 to 1950 has joined Evil Cecil Rhodes in the Sin bin. Why are we worrying about Blackadder?
I’m not sure I agree with the premise here. I think the fact that a show like Blackadder Goes Forth is so highly regarded is because the British have a pretty high comfort level and confidence in their history. Thus, a funny farce about life in the trenches (which famously ends in going over the top and all the characters getting killed) is something people enjoy and remember highly. Similarly, the Flashman books are not exactly flattering to the Victorian period at times, but does their on-going popularity suggest self-loathing or a self-confident ability to take the piss out of yourself?
“When she was asked to identify which bits of the 19th century she particularly approved of, she ran through the standard list — thrift, charity, personal responsibility”
I’d have put the British Empires war against global slavery at the top of the list. E.g. the Royal Navy’s West Africa Preventative Squadron. It changed the world.
“When she was asked to identify which bits of the 19th century she particularly approved of, she ran through the standard list — thrift, charity, personal responsibility”
I’d have put the British Empires war against global slavery at the top of the list. E.g. the Royal Navy’s West Africa Preventative Squadron. It changed the world.
Ah to be a Leftist. To constantly agitate for change, disrupt the status quo and seize control only to fail miserably. Then to turn around and claim that your “Liberation Movement” only failed because your own infiltrative apparatus got infiltrated by Capitalist reactionaries. Then to continue writing performative prose and poetry about revolutionary struggle on an IPhone at Starbucks.
Its a story as old as time.
You forgot the pink hair and ironic tattoos.
Yawn
My favourite is the criticism that “unfettered capitalism” is the cause of all our problems whilst the state spends more, borrows more then monetises its debts. The left’s solution is invariably more of the same.
Yes. The snake eating its tail. Its all Circular. It starts with taxpayer money and ends with taxpayer money.
Yes. The snake eating its tail. Its all Circular. It starts with taxpayer money and ends with taxpayer money.
You forgot the pink hair and ironic tattoos.
Yawn
My favourite is the criticism that “unfettered capitalism” is the cause of all our problems whilst the state spends more, borrows more then monetises its debts. The left’s solution is invariably more of the same.
Ah to be a Leftist. To constantly agitate for change, disrupt the status quo and seize control only to fail miserably. Then to turn around and claim that your “Liberation Movement” only failed because your own infiltrative apparatus got infiltrated by Capitalist reactionaries. Then to continue writing performative prose and poetry about revolutionary struggle on an IPhone at Starbucks.
Its a story as old as time.
Isn’t the truth somewhere in the middle? Or even on another axis? The phoney “left-right” paradigm, pushed by establishment shills claiming to be one side or the other and denigrating their opposite numbers, is the real problem. The fact that WW1 was a “futile, idiotic exercise in slaughter” is true, not because it’s the “left”’s position, but because it’s blatantly true. The fact that the “BLM” protests were organised by a nefarious Marxist organisation seeking to undermine our (by 2020) well-evolved and less-racist-than-ever society is true not because it’s the “right”’s position, but because it’s blatantly true. I’m also confused about the author’s position anyway. He starts off sounding like “Otto English” (a stage name, btw) and then criticises him (and justly… the guy is a boring, juvenile attention-seeker!) Rather strange, pointless piece of writing really. I’m here for the comments.
To be fair, the problem with ‘exercise in slaughter’ is that it suggests that was the intent; slaughter. And BLM wasn’t “nefarious. Their aims might be foolish and hostile, but not criminal or evil.
“Blatantly true” is simply an impossibility because our language is never emotionally neutral. One can’t say or write anything without adding at least a bit of spin. That’s why people in so many cultures have visual signals; a wave of the hand, rocking the head, a little shrug, to signal a lack of devotion to words they’re using.
You’re parroting the 60s take on WW1, which is what Gove was objecting to. It’s not blatantly true that WW1 was a “futile, idiotic exercise in slaughter”, because that implies that the alternative was simply not to be idiotic and futile. If only we’d thought of that, eh!?!
Fighting to defend European democracy against a proto-Nazi militarist regime waging a war of conquest was neither futile nor idiotic.
“a proto-Nazi militarist regime waging a war of conquest”
What? That’s a bit OTT!
“a proto-Nazi militarist regime waging a war of conquest”
What? That’s a bit OTT!
To be fair, the problem with ‘exercise in slaughter’ is that it suggests that was the intent; slaughter. And BLM wasn’t “nefarious. Their aims might be foolish and hostile, but not criminal or evil.
“Blatantly true” is simply an impossibility because our language is never emotionally neutral. One can’t say or write anything without adding at least a bit of spin. That’s why people in so many cultures have visual signals; a wave of the hand, rocking the head, a little shrug, to signal a lack of devotion to words they’re using.
You’re parroting the 60s take on WW1, which is what Gove was objecting to. It’s not blatantly true that WW1 was a “futile, idiotic exercise in slaughter”, because that implies that the alternative was simply not to be idiotic and futile. If only we’d thought of that, eh!?!
Fighting to defend European democracy against a proto-Nazi militarist regime waging a war of conquest was neither futile nor idiotic.
Isn’t the truth somewhere in the middle? Or even on another axis? The phoney “left-right” paradigm, pushed by establishment shills claiming to be one side or the other and denigrating their opposite numbers, is the real problem. The fact that WW1 was a “futile, idiotic exercise in slaughter” is true, not because it’s the “left”’s position, but because it’s blatantly true. The fact that the “BLM” protests were organised by a nefarious Marxist organisation seeking to undermine our (by 2020) well-evolved and less-racist-than-ever society is true not because it’s the “right”’s position, but because it’s blatantly true. I’m also confused about the author’s position anyway. He starts off sounding like “Otto English” (a stage name, btw) and then criticises him (and justly… the guy is a boring, juvenile attention-seeker!) Rather strange, pointless piece of writing really. I’m here for the comments.
History is complicated. It has multiple layers and it’s inevitable these get peeled back. We learnt early from Cnut some things are going to happen whether you like it or not. Nonetheless Gove was/is right – ‘greater nuance in our understanding’ is needed. For example the Blackadder ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ theme was merely a continuation of a reappraisal that had started in the late 20s. However Gove’s nuance would also include the fact the British officer class had the highest casualty rate as a consequence of what leaders were expected to do. Elements of nobility and bravery such as this can be lost as just one small example.
My sense is our Country is strong and self confident enough to absorb historical reappraisal. Some of the anti-empire, ‘Britain was terrible’ stripped of it’s context and comparisons with others in the same period, will end up being also rebalanced and where it’s poor scholarship that’ll be drawn out.
Finally I remember my Grandfather and his Brother having little time for that other great British comedy ‘Dad’s Army’. Having fought and lost friends they didn’t quite get Captain Mainwaring and Private Pike. And yet here we are with it being almost as much part of our national story as the Royal family.
My grandfather loved Dad’s Army. Poking fun at those who stayed at home was not uncommon.
My grandfather loved Dad’s Army. Poking fun at those who stayed at home was not uncommon.
History is complicated. It has multiple layers and it’s inevitable these get peeled back. We learnt early from Cnut some things are going to happen whether you like it or not. Nonetheless Gove was/is right – ‘greater nuance in our understanding’ is needed. For example the Blackadder ‘Lions led by Donkeys’ theme was merely a continuation of a reappraisal that had started in the late 20s. However Gove’s nuance would also include the fact the British officer class had the highest casualty rate as a consequence of what leaders were expected to do. Elements of nobility and bravery such as this can be lost as just one small example.
My sense is our Country is strong and self confident enough to absorb historical reappraisal. Some of the anti-empire, ‘Britain was terrible’ stripped of it’s context and comparisons with others in the same period, will end up being also rebalanced and where it’s poor scholarship that’ll be drawn out.
Finally I remember my Grandfather and his Brother having little time for that other great British comedy ‘Dad’s Army’. Having fought and lost friends they didn’t quite get Captain Mainwaring and Private Pike. And yet here we are with it being almost as much part of our national story as the Royal family.
There is nothing particularly left wing about the “lions led by donkeys” narrative concerning the First World War. It was promoted by the conservative historian Alan Clark for example. It’s too simplistic, but it contributed to the Great War being much better remembered in the UK than anywhere else, which has made Remembrance Sunday Britain’s effective national day, and the poppy a powerful, and patriotic, national symbol. When Tristram Hunt speaks of “confronting the past”, he actually means cherrypicking from history to pander to the historian’s own political prejudices, often, as in his “Building Jerusalem”, at tedious length.
There is a delicious irony that Clark was a “natural born coward”, having managed to evade National Service by joining the Household Cavalry for 24 hours whilst still at Eton!
Otherwise of course we should be proud of our part in the Great War, after all we won didn’t we? Albeit thanks to enormous US assistance both financially and eventually military. In fact we couldn’t have done it without them.
Wasn’t the idea of the Unknown Soldier also ours?
Plus who else would have such as splendid memorial as the ‘Animals in War Memorial’ placed bang in the middle of Park Lane? It will certainly baffle archaeologists when they unearth it in a couple of millennia from now.
As to Hunt and his fellow whingers, they should be ignored.
The thick Officer played by Hugh Laurie wore the double spaced buttons of The Coldstream Guards, that we always found very funny!
Good job it wasn’t in fives.
Good job it wasn’t in fives.
Clarke’s son went on to be an officer in The Blues and Royals!
Some recompense then.
Incidentally it’s CLARK no E!
Some recompense then.
Incidentally it’s CLARK no E!
The thick Officer played by Hugh Laurie wore the double spaced buttons of The Coldstream Guards, that we always found very funny!
Clarke’s son went on to be an officer in The Blues and Royals!
Are you suggesting that Remembrance Sunday is somehow the result of the 1960s anti-war movement?
There is a delicious irony that Clark was a “natural born coward”, having managed to evade National Service by joining the Household Cavalry for 24 hours whilst still at Eton!
Otherwise of course we should be proud of our part in the Great War, after all we won didn’t we? Albeit thanks to enormous US assistance both financially and eventually military. In fact we couldn’t have done it without them.
Wasn’t the idea of the Unknown Soldier also ours?
Plus who else would have such as splendid memorial as the ‘Animals in War Memorial’ placed bang in the middle of Park Lane? It will certainly baffle archaeologists when they unearth it in a couple of millennia from now.
As to Hunt and his fellow whingers, they should be ignored.
Are you suggesting that Remembrance Sunday is somehow the result of the 1960s anti-war movement?
There is nothing particularly left wing about the “lions led by donkeys” narrative concerning the First World War. It was promoted by the conservative historian Alan Clark for example. It’s too simplistic, but it contributed to the Great War being much better remembered in the UK than anywhere else, which has made Remembrance Sunday Britain’s effective national day, and the poppy a powerful, and patriotic, national symbol. When Tristram Hunt speaks of “confronting the past”, he actually means cherrypicking from history to pander to the historian’s own political prejudices, often, as in his “Building Jerusalem”, at tedious length.
I followed the events of the WW1 centenary quite closely and have taken up more of an interest as a result. Watching YouTube channels like the Great War (covered the events of the war week by week all the way through and were scathing with their criticism of all participants) and others, the human element of the war is pushed across a lot more than in previous years. For instance, behind the staggeringly high number of deaths, there is a human being as real as you or I behind them. Thinking about this when you look at local war memorials, the Menin Gate etc, it becomes a near overwhelming emotional process.
As far as I can see, I don’t see this as a bad thing and it rams home the carnage and brutality of war. This shouldn’t be a left vs right issue.
The Great War is a very good Youtube channel. I also liked their Franco-Prussian effort too.
Have you read Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers? It is a very informative and well researched book about the events leading up to WW1
Agreed a brilliant account. Who can forget that Serbian ‘diplomat’ who carried around a slice of the late Queen’s breast* in his briefcase to impress people!
Incidentally, as you probably know, Serbia suffered proportionally the greatest casualties of any of the belligerents. A fate it so richly deserved.
Why on earth we ever got involved is a tragedy. Unfortunately gung-ho, belligerent male hysterics such as WSC and aged perverts such as Asquith have a lot to answer for, but will never do so.
(* The nipple?)
The most directly culpable figure in the British government was Sir Edward Grey.
Agreed, but being a Trout fisherman and eventually going blind seems to have exculpated him somewhat!
Agreed, but being a Trout fisherman and eventually going blind seems to have exculpated him somewhat!
Honouring treaties, the Triple Entente vs the Triple Alliance.
Odd take. If anything Britain was quite reluctant to get involved much to the chagrin of France and Russia who is war declared on them by Germany. It was only when Germany invaded Belgium did the UK intervene. By then, the war was in full swing politically speaking.
The Dutch didn’t feel obliged to honour the 1839 Treaty of London and come to Belgium’s aid and nor should we.
The whole thing was madness particularly as France’s major ally and our major threat was Imperial Russia.
However by some sort of ‘divine’ justice everybody got very much what they thoroughly deserved by November 1918.
ps. Russia mobilised FIRST, which Christopher Clark quite rightly regards as the FATAL action.
Well the Dutch were too small to take Germany on and if anything, most of the Dutch were pro-German so why would they assist? In any case, not sure ignoring our treaty obligations and allowing large countries to bully smaller ones is a nice ideal to live up to. WW1 was horrific, but Britain was right to join.
Tsarist Russia was indeed a threat, but Germany was the one who wanted a war with them in 1914 because Russia would be too strong and would mobilise too quickly for the Schlieffen Plan to work by 1916.
Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary who gave Serbia an ultimatum that Serbia could never agree to, namely that Austrian Police would not just carry out their investigations on Serbian soil, but be able to apply Austrian law in Serbia. Serbia accepted everything but that one point with even Kaiser Wilhelm stating that Austria-Hungary had won a great moral victory, removing any justification for war. Kaiser Franz-Joseph declared war on Serbia the same day… World War 1 was without a doubt, Austria’s fault.
I must disagree, Serbia was a “rogue state”,as we now say, and why on earth Imperial Russia thought it worth defending is incomprehensible.
We were wrong to get involved because we simply couldn’t afford it. Our traditional method of financing coalitions as we had done in the period 1793-1815 for example was now completely unaffordable, as we found to our cost by late 1916.
Incidentally the so called ‘Schlieffen Plan’ failed because of Moltke’s gross incompetence and mismanagement.
Thanks to massive French investment in Russian railways, the Russian deployment was remarkably rapid. However it was easily rebuffed by the genius of Max Hoffmann, although Ludendorff usually gets the praise.
ps. I find your ‘defence’ of the Dutch somewhat contradictory. Did you really mean to write that?
I must disagree, Serbia was a “rogue state”,as we now say, and why on earth Imperial Russia thought it worth defending is incomprehensible.
We were wrong to get involved because we simply couldn’t afford it. Our traditional method of financing coalitions as we had done in the period 1793-1815 for example was now completely unaffordable, as we found to our cost by late 1916.
Incidentally the so called ‘Schlieffen Plan’ failed because of Moltke’s gross incompetence and mismanagement.
Thanks to massive French investment in Russian railways, the Russian deployment was remarkably rapid. However it was easily rebuffed by the genius of Max Hoffmann, although Ludendorff usually gets the praise.
ps. I find your ‘defence’ of the Dutch somewhat contradictory. Did you really mean to write that?
Barbara Tuchman, in The Guns of August – “in the quest to lay blame (for WW1), all roads lead to Berlin”.
Britain was near-inevitably going to war; the German generals were practically begging for it; had been chafing against the leash since Bismarck. Archdukes and Serbian nationalism and reactionary tsars and the Ottoman “sick man” all amounted to one convenient spark. (‘Convenient’ for the German generals).
Maybe that’s too obvious to be acceptable to many deep-students of the War. There has to be some underlying, hidden mystery to explain such a disaster. But as slavery was to the US Civil War, so German militarism was to WW1. Both worth fighting against, and thank God for those who did.
When Tuchman wrote that in the early 60’s, with the memories of 1939-45 very much in her mind it may well have seemed that way. Now sixty one years later scholarship was moved on somewhat.
There is no doubt the German General Staff wanted a preventative war against Russia whilst the odds were still in their favour. However they were not omnipotent and did they NOT run Germany as some sort of Military Dictatorship, as is sometimes portrayed. Had they done so they would certainly NOT have consented to the construction of the extremely expensive High Seas Fleet for example. Also many German commercial concerns were opposed to war for the simple reason of potential cost.
Further more Germany had NO quarrel with France, bar that she was assiduously financing the Russians in the hope using Russia to help reverse the catastrophic defeat of 1870.
Russia seems to have acquiesced in all this nonsense because there was nothing better on offer and she wished to restore her prestige so badly shattered by her defeat by Japan in 1905. Additionally she idiotically saw herself as the protector of her “ little Serbian/Slavic brothers” in the Balkans.
As for Austria-Hungary and the little ‘rogue’ state of Serbia, they should have permitted to fight it out without interference, rather like the two previous Balkan Wars, a two years earlier.
Fortuitously for the UK, as the greatest creditor state since Ancient Rome, we had everything to loose by joining such a war and absolutely nothing to gain. The so called ‘Naval Race’ with Germany had already been ‘won’ by 1909 and Russia was potentially a far greater threat to British interests than Germany.
Had we stood aside, (and by using our overwhelming Naval advantage), we could have exerted a far, far, greater influence on any potential conflict.
Perhaps cynically, we would also have been in a unique position to supply both ‘sides’ with armaments and finance, much to our benefit it must be said, if they insisted on coming to blows.
This is an NOT an apologia for Germany but there were other ‘guilty’ parties. It is far too easy to view 1914-18 throughout the prism or perhaps miasma of 1939-45.
My take on Tuchman’s book is that a main inspiration was Vietnam, a war described by a participant In Burns’ great documentary as “chaos without a compass”.
Tuchman’s book was published in the UK under the title “August 1914”, in 1962.
Thus I would have thought a bit early for Vietnam, unless she was drawing on the earlier French fiasco there?
Tuchman’s book was published in the UK under the title “August 1914”, in 1962.
Thus I would have thought a bit early for Vietnam, unless she was drawing on the earlier French fiasco there?
I’m no deep-student of WW1 myself, but that leads me to wonder: if Germany had no quarrel with France, why was the Maginot Line even constructed? What was France’s fear?
The ‘Maginot Line’ was not constructed until the 1930’s, when France was terrified that Germany would seek revenge for France’s vindictiveness at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
They were right to be scarred. but it availed them nothing, when they were beaten into the ground ‘like a tent peg’ by the Wehrmacht in June 1940.
The ‘Maginot Line’ was not constructed until the 1930’s, when France was terrified that Germany would seek revenge for France’s vindictiveness at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.
They were right to be scarred. but it availed them nothing, when they were beaten into the ground ‘like a tent peg’ by the Wehrmacht in June 1940.
My take on Tuchman’s book is that a main inspiration was Vietnam, a war described by a participant In Burns’ great documentary as “chaos without a compass”.
I’m no deep-student of WW1 myself, but that leads me to wonder: if Germany had no quarrel with France, why was the Maginot Line even constructed? What was France’s fear?
When Tuchman wrote that in the early 60’s, with the memories of 1939-45 very much in her mind it may well have seemed that way. Now sixty one years later scholarship was moved on somewhat.
There is no doubt the German General Staff wanted a preventative war against Russia whilst the odds were still in their favour. However they were not omnipotent and did they NOT run Germany as some sort of Military Dictatorship, as is sometimes portrayed. Had they done so they would certainly NOT have consented to the construction of the extremely expensive High Seas Fleet for example. Also many German commercial concerns were opposed to war for the simple reason of potential cost.
Further more Germany had NO quarrel with France, bar that she was assiduously financing the Russians in the hope using Russia to help reverse the catastrophic defeat of 1870.
Russia seems to have acquiesced in all this nonsense because there was nothing better on offer and she wished to restore her prestige so badly shattered by her defeat by Japan in 1905. Additionally she idiotically saw herself as the protector of her “ little Serbian/Slavic brothers” in the Balkans.
As for Austria-Hungary and the little ‘rogue’ state of Serbia, they should have permitted to fight it out without interference, rather like the two previous Balkan Wars, a two years earlier.
Fortuitously for the UK, as the greatest creditor state since Ancient Rome, we had everything to loose by joining such a war and absolutely nothing to gain. The so called ‘Naval Race’ with Germany had already been ‘won’ by 1909 and Russia was potentially a far greater threat to British interests than Germany.
Had we stood aside, (and by using our overwhelming Naval advantage), we could have exerted a far, far, greater influence on any potential conflict.
Perhaps cynically, we would also have been in a unique position to supply both ‘sides’ with armaments and finance, much to our benefit it must be said, if they insisted on coming to blows.
This is an NOT an apologia for Germany but there were other ‘guilty’ parties. It is far too easy to view 1914-18 throughout the prism or perhaps miasma of 1939-45.
Well the Dutch were too small to take Germany on and if anything, most of the Dutch were pro-German so why would they assist? In any case, not sure ignoring our treaty obligations and allowing large countries to bully smaller ones is a nice ideal to live up to. WW1 was horrific, but Britain was right to join.
Tsarist Russia was indeed a threat, but Germany was the one who wanted a war with them in 1914 because Russia would be too strong and would mobilise too quickly for the Schlieffen Plan to work by 1916.
Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary who gave Serbia an ultimatum that Serbia could never agree to, namely that Austrian Police would not just carry out their investigations on Serbian soil, but be able to apply Austrian law in Serbia. Serbia accepted everything but that one point with even Kaiser Wilhelm stating that Austria-Hungary had won a great moral victory, removing any justification for war. Kaiser Franz-Joseph declared war on Serbia the same day… World War 1 was without a doubt, Austria’s fault.
Barbara Tuchman, in The Guns of August – “in the quest to lay blame (for WW1), all roads lead to Berlin”.
Britain was near-inevitably going to war; the German generals were practically begging for it; had been chafing against the leash since Bismarck. Archdukes and Serbian nationalism and reactionary tsars and the Ottoman “sick man” all amounted to one convenient spark. (‘Convenient’ for the German generals).
Maybe that’s too obvious to be acceptable to many deep-students of the War. There has to be some underlying, hidden mystery to explain such a disaster. But as slavery was to the US Civil War, so German militarism was to WW1. Both worth fighting against, and thank God for those who did.
The Dutch didn’t feel obliged to honour the 1839 Treaty of London and come to Belgium’s aid and nor should we.
The whole thing was madness particularly as France’s major ally and our major threat was Imperial Russia.
However by some sort of ‘divine’ justice everybody got very much what they thoroughly deserved by November 1918.
ps. Russia mobilised FIRST, which Christopher Clark quite rightly regards as the FATAL action.
The most directly culpable figure in the British government was Sir Edward Grey.
Honouring treaties, the Triple Entente vs the Triple Alliance.
Odd take. If anything Britain was quite reluctant to get involved much to the chagrin of France and Russia who is war declared on them by Germany. It was only when Germany invaded Belgium did the UK intervene. By then, the war was in full swing politically speaking.
Agreed a brilliant account. Who can forget that Serbian ‘diplomat’ who carried around a slice of the late Queen’s breast* in his briefcase to impress people!
Incidentally, as you probably know, Serbia suffered proportionally the greatest casualties of any of the belligerents. A fate it so richly deserved.
Why on earth we ever got involved is a tragedy. Unfortunately gung-ho, belligerent male hysterics such as WSC and aged perverts such as Asquith have a lot to answer for, but will never do so.
(* The nipple?)
The Great War is a very good Youtube channel. I also liked their Franco-Prussian effort too.
Have you read Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers? It is a very informative and well researched book about the events leading up to WW1
I followed the events of the WW1 centenary quite closely and have taken up more of an interest as a result. Watching YouTube channels like the Great War (covered the events of the war week by week all the way through and were scathing with their criticism of all participants) and others, the human element of the war is pushed across a lot more than in previous years. For instance, behind the staggeringly high number of deaths, there is a human being as real as you or I behind them. Thinking about this when you look at local war memorials, the Menin Gate etc, it becomes a near overwhelming emotional process.
As far as I can see, I don’t see this as a bad thing and it rams home the carnage and brutality of war. This shouldn’t be a left vs right issue.
In some ways British history really is “a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite”, but with the upside that they are always eventually rescued from defeat by a stoic and intrepid populus doing their duty who save the country and muddle through to triumph.
That’s why we have the Magna Carta, the Peasant’s Revolt, the Church of England, regicide, the Bill of Rights, universal suffrage, anti-slavery, India, trades unions, NHS and state pensions. Our national heroes are individuals who rail against elites, authority and convention – Robin Hood, Jack (of beansalk and giant killer), Drake, Raleigh, Wilberforce, Wellington, Nightingale and Pankhurst. Our favourite monarch is a queen who stood up to the Spanish Empire. We cheer for the underdog living off his/her wits, not the super-powered superhero. The philosophy being elites have a long history of making catastrophic mistakes, it’s always up to the people to fix it.
In some ways British history really is “a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite”, but with the upside that they are always eventually rescued from defeat by a stoic and intrepid populus doing their duty who save the country and muddle through to triumph.
That’s why we have the Magna Carta, the Peasant’s Revolt, the Church of England, regicide, the Bill of Rights, universal suffrage, anti-slavery, India, trades unions, NHS and state pensions. Our national heroes are individuals who rail against elites, authority and convention – Robin Hood, Jack (of beansalk and giant killer), Drake, Raleigh, Wilberforce, Wellington, Nightingale and Pankhurst. Our favourite monarch is a queen who stood up to the Spanish Empire. We cheer for the underdog living off his/her wits, not the super-powered superhero. The philosophy being elites have a long history of making catastrophic mistakes, it’s always up to the people to fix it.
“…David Attenborough’s Gandhi.”
Guffaw!!
It was Richard, you Di*k
Or Dickie to his friends!
Or Dickie to his friends!
“…David Attenborough’s Gandhi.”
Guffaw!!
It was Richard, you Di*k
There’s nothing “leftist” about satirising the needless, disgusting slaughter of millions of innocent young men in an idiotic war which was perpetrated by pampered, pig-headed, intransigent, European elites incapable of thinking strategically and changing their minds, or their plans, when the facts change. The war left Britain exhausted and almost bankrupt, fomented a communist revolution in Russia, and left Germany vulnerable to a populist revolt. A disaster for a globalising British empire built on liberal conservative values and free trade. Perhaps if it had not happened Britain might not have ceded its global leadership role to its daughter and creditor nation, the US, so soon?
What I would like to see, though, is more historical focus on the outright lying and propaganda pushed by all sides during the war. If common men hadn’t allowed themselves to be conned or bribed into fighting, hating and killing each other, the elites couldn’t have had their stupid war. Orwell, of course, wrote extensively about this. Perhaps a closer look at that aspect of the war, and how and why so many people got suckered by the narrative-pushers of their day, might provide a perspective on the lying and propaganda that goes on in the context of today’s wars and idiotic power struggles between our own pampered, pig-headed, and intransigent elites? It might, at least, cause the flag-waving crowd to pause for thought.
Given what happened over COVID there is absolutely NO chance whatsoever that the Demos or “common men” will not be “conned or bribed” again.
As Helmuth von Moltke, one of the architects of modern Germany put it so charmingly in 1880, “War is part of God’s order. Without war, the world would stagnate and lose itself in materialism.”
As I may have mentioned before, and itvis something that civilians, especially lefties, find difficult, if not impossible to understand: I remember a Company Sergeant Major asking recruits what was the one factor that linked most of the battle honours on The Coldstream Colours… he answered ” Never forget this- most were f… ups by politicians, and always will be, but that must never get in the way of your duty to Her Majesty, The Regiment, and your fellow Guardsmen, Non Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers… That is what you are here for”….
“Nulli Secundus”.
“Nulli Secundus”.
As I may have mentioned before, and itvis something that civilians, especially lefties, find difficult, if not impossible to understand: I remember a Company Sergeant Major asking recruits what was the one factor that linked most of the battle honours on The Coldstream Colours… he answered ” Never forget this- most were f… ups by politicians, and always will be, but that must never get in the way of your duty to Her Majesty, The Regiment, and your fellow Guardsmen, Non Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers and Officers… That is what you are here for”….
The problem is that it required the common men on all sides to stop fighting, hating and killing each other. If only one side had done it, then it was curtains for that country. Also, it wasn’t long before the First World War that victorious armies sacked cities and massacred their civilian population. One didn’t need much propaganda to defend your family against that.
The Germans did massacre the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane in WWII, and they did crucify a Canadian soldier on a door in WWI. Barbaric events do not lead you to trust the enemy
We sadly had our ‘moments’ to.
We sadly had our ‘moments’ to.
Fair point. I am not ascribing blame to those who did fight. And there is definitely a first-mover problem. Still I think we can learn from exploring how it was that all sides did use fear, shame, and guilt-based propaganda to cajole people into volunteering for what, for many of them, was a pointless and often painful death or at best a life-shattering experience. And perhaps with all this new-fangled tech the ordinary people can co-ordinate themselves better across borders to resist the lying, guilt-tripping, and demoralising tactics that elites continue to deploy against us (perhaps deluded into a belief that it is for the “common good” that they do so).
The Germans did massacre the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane in WWII, and they did crucify a Canadian soldier on a door in WWI. Barbaric events do not lead you to trust the enemy
Fair point. I am not ascribing blame to those who did fight. And there is definitely a first-mover problem. Still I think we can learn from exploring how it was that all sides did use fear, shame, and guilt-based propaganda to cajole people into volunteering for what, for many of them, was a pointless and often painful death or at best a life-shattering experience. And perhaps with all this new-fangled tech the ordinary people can co-ordinate themselves better across borders to resist the lying, guilt-tripping, and demoralising tactics that elites continue to deploy against us (perhaps deluded into a belief that it is for the “common good” that they do so).
Given what happened over COVID there is absolutely NO chance whatsoever that the Demos or “common men” will not be “conned or bribed” again.
As Helmuth von Moltke, one of the architects of modern Germany put it so charmingly in 1880, “War is part of God’s order. Without war, the world would stagnate and lose itself in materialism.”
The problem is that it required the common men on all sides to stop fighting, hating and killing each other. If only one side had done it, then it was curtains for that country. Also, it wasn’t long before the First World War that victorious armies sacked cities and massacred their civilian population. One didn’t need much propaganda to defend your family against that.
There’s nothing “leftist” about satirising the needless, disgusting slaughter of millions of innocent young men in an idiotic war which was perpetrated by pampered, pig-headed, intransigent, European elites incapable of thinking strategically and changing their minds, or their plans, when the facts change. The war left Britain exhausted and almost bankrupt, fomented a communist revolution in Russia, and left Germany vulnerable to a populist revolt. A disaster for a globalising British empire built on liberal conservative values and free trade. Perhaps if it had not happened Britain might not have ceded its global leadership role to its daughter and creditor nation, the US, so soon?
What I would like to see, though, is more historical focus on the outright lying and propaganda pushed by all sides during the war. If common men hadn’t allowed themselves to be conned or bribed into fighting, hating and killing each other, the elites couldn’t have had their stupid war. Orwell, of course, wrote extensively about this. Perhaps a closer look at that aspect of the war, and how and why so many people got suckered by the narrative-pushers of their day, might provide a perspective on the lying and propaganda that goes on in the context of today’s wars and idiotic power struggles between our own pampered, pig-headed, and intransigent elites? It might, at least, cause the flag-waving crowd to pause for thought.
We shouldn’t fuss too much about WW1 and Blackadder – we used to use clips from it in lectures when I was an instructor at the staff college in the 1990s: it’s very funny, the uniforms are bang on and military people can identify with the characters. WW1 is closer to Napoleon’s time than today and people who think Blackadder is history aren’t going to listen to the facts however hard you try to tell them.
Movies and television are history because they are more powerful and persuasive than books. No-one is immune to this and it’s the reason why so much entertainment has black people cast as historical figures. In 2053 are you going to risk losing your friends and employment by insisting that William Shakespeare wasn’t a black woman?
“WW1 is closer to Napoleon’s time”.
Really?
What is going on in the Ukraine? It appears to be a massive artillery duel NOT dissimilar from the Western Front, 1914-18. Or have I missed something?
Battle of Waterloo 1815. Battle of the Somme 1916. 101 years.
Battle of the Somme 1916. Today 2023. 107 years.
I don’t think James Athill Esq was referring to it chronologically.
ps. There was the ‘small’ matter of the Industrial Revolution between Napoleon in 1815 and the Somme in 1916.
However perhaps you ‘thumbs down merchants haven’t heard of it’? Obviously NOT!
I don’t think James Athill Esq was referring to it chronologically.
ps. There was the ‘small’ matter of the Industrial Revolution between Napoleon in 1815 and the Somme in 1916.
However perhaps you ‘thumbs down merchants haven’t heard of it’? Obviously NOT!
Battle of Waterloo 1815. Battle of the Somme 1916. 101 years.
Battle of the Somme 1916. Today 2023. 107 years.
Movies and television are history because they are more powerful and persuasive than books. No-one is immune to this and it’s the reason why so much entertainment has black people cast as historical figures. In 2053 are you going to risk losing your friends and employment by insisting that William Shakespeare wasn’t a black woman?
“WW1 is closer to Napoleon’s time”.
Really?
What is going on in the Ukraine? It appears to be a massive artillery duel NOT dissimilar from the Western Front, 1914-18. Or have I missed something?
We shouldn’t fuss too much about WW1 and Blackadder – we used to use clips from it in lectures when I was an instructor at the staff college in the 1990s: it’s very funny, the uniforms are bang on and military people can identify with the characters. WW1 is closer to Napoleon’s time than today and people who think Blackadder is history aren’t going to listen to the facts however hard you try to tell them.
History is a grab bag of grievances into which those with an agenda can reach to support any argument they choose.
I note Sathnam Sanghera is a regular British Empire basher (no other empire gets his attention) and that his tweet was retweeted by William Dalrymple, who has gone native. Dalrymple’s podcast series, Empire, merely lurched from one British atrocity to the next, swiftly passing over anything that could possibly be interpreted as a positive. The jump from the Mutiny to Amritsar without discussing anything in between was particularly telling.
Well said Sir!
Dalrymple is a disgrace, no ifs no buts.
Well said Sir!
Dalrymple is a disgrace, no ifs no buts.
History is a grab bag of grievances into which those with an agenda can reach to support any argument they choose.
I note Sathnam Sanghera is a regular British Empire basher (no other empire gets his attention) and that his tweet was retweeted by William Dalrymple, who has gone native. Dalrymple’s podcast series, Empire, merely lurched from one British atrocity to the next, swiftly passing over anything that could possibly be interpreted as a positive. The jump from the Mutiny to Amritsar without discussing anything in between was particularly telling.
Not even a politician as thick skinned as Thatcher could withstand the bludgeoning boredom of Gandhi.
Not even a politician as thick skinned as Thatcher could withstand the bludgeoning boredom of Gandhi.
They thing with history is that it is a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose from as all of it is likely to be true , at least in part. It is the extent of that truth and what is emphasized that is where the conflict lies. For example, the history that is viewed by those doing the bombing is just as true as the history of those being bombed but they would not really agree with each other regarding it.
I think much of the problem is that people take it too personally. I don’t see why I should be proud of something that I had nothing to do with and nor should I feel shame about it.
That’s not to say history should be ignored. It is the base of national myths and these can either move us forward or drag us back so these myths need to examined with care to ensure that an appropriate response is made. The problem is that there is no agreement as to what the appropriate response is. Too much remembering can be as bad as too much forgetting.
They thing with history is that it is a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose from as all of it is likely to be true , at least in part. It is the extent of that truth and what is emphasized that is where the conflict lies. For example, the history that is viewed by those doing the bombing is just as true as the history of those being bombed but they would not really agree with each other regarding it.
I think much of the problem is that people take it too personally. I don’t see why I should be proud of something that I had nothing to do with and nor should I feel shame about it.
That’s not to say history should be ignored. It is the base of national myths and these can either move us forward or drag us back so these myths need to examined with care to ensure that an appropriate response is made. The problem is that there is no agreement as to what the appropriate response is. Too much remembering can be as bad as too much forgetting.
We need myths, not those myths, my approved myths.
Rinse and repeat.
We need myths, not those myths, my approved myths.
Rinse and repeat.
I absolutely love the idea that David Attenborough directed the film “Gandhi”. My imagination has run riot.
On the serious subject of history in schools though, do we not think it a shame that history is an optional subject for GCSEs and therefore many children stop studying it at age 14? I do
I absolutely love the idea that David Attenborough directed the film “Gandhi”. My imagination has run riot.
On the serious subject of history in schools though, do we not think it a shame that history is an optional subject for GCSEs and therefore many children stop studying it at age 14? I do
I read history because I want to know the facts, in so far as they can be ascertained. I can generally detect when the author or scriptwriter is trying to tell me what to think. That’s all right – I can think for myself. What is less obvious, sometimes, is what s/he has chosen to leave out.
I read history because I want to know the facts, in so far as they can be ascertained. I can generally detect when the author or scriptwriter is trying to tell me what to think. That’s all right – I can think for myself. What is less obvious, sometimes, is what s/he has chosen to leave out.
Conservatism will continue to lose the culture wars, on all sides of the ponds, as long as people spend more time watching (admittedly hilarious) TV shows than they do reading, or absorbing the “national curriculum”. So, yes, for the foreseeable future.
Conservatism will continue to lose the culture wars, on all sides of the ponds, as long as people spend more time watching (admittedly hilarious) TV shows than they do reading, or absorbing the “national curriculum”. So, yes, for the foreseeable future.
I think the point is that the UK’s knowledge of the history of WW1 stems largely from the war poets in English Litt lessons and Blackadder.
I think the point is that the UK’s knowledge of the history of WW1 stems largely from the war poets in English Litt lessons and Blackadder.
I’m sorry that the author is in some way incapacitated so that he has to be sat on a table rather than sitting on it under his own steam.
Yes, well-spotted — one of those grammatical errors that it’s worth being pedantic about.
Yes, well-spotted — one of those grammatical errors that it’s worth being pedantic about.
I’m sorry that the author is in some way incapacitated so that he has to be sat on a table rather than sitting on it under his own steam.
Your problem is that you have identified a left and a right and attributed them ideals which you can then thrash.
A bit strawmanish of you.
Its got more to do with big government and small government, and what the actual purview of each level of government and how many levels of government there should be.
For instance, I like my governments small enough so they cant do things like invade Ukraine….
Your problem is that you have identified a left and a right and attributed them ideals which you can then thrash.
A bit strawmanish of you.
Its got more to do with big government and small government, and what the actual purview of each level of government and how many levels of government there should be.
For instance, I like my governments small enough so they cant do things like invade Ukraine….
Richard Attenborough, not David, directed Ghandi. David is currently saving the planet.
He has the right idea but is a little coy about discussing it. Reduce the world population by about 50%.
Correction 75%.
When are you going to do your bit Charles?
‘Almost there’.
‘Almost there’.
David Attenborough is pretty sound: Eurosceptic, sceptical about global warming, believes overpopulation is the cause of most environmental destruction and he even once gave a nice proof of God’s existence when asked by an interviewer if he was an atheist.
But he is also very smart. He knows that airing his opinions will lead to career and reputational destruction. So he held his tongue and became St David.
I completely agree , but now at 96 what has he to lose? Time to let fly and say what he really thinks!
After all who really cares about “reputational [sic] destruction”? I certainly don’t!
Your reputation is assured, Charles.
Your reputation is assured, Charles.
Is he? What do you base your belief that he is sceptical about global warming on?
He certainly was until about 2006. This is what I wrote some time ago:
Attenborough is secretly quite sound but he knows which side his bread is buttered and toes the progressive line when he has to.
The evidence:
1) He is a long-term patron of Population Matters which, until recently, campaigned against mass immigration and for refugees to be housed in countries local to the disaster rather than being shipped to the west. From their website in 2013:
2) He resisted calls for him to declare himself an atheist and made a great analogy about his experience slicing off the top of a termite hill and the blind termites not being aware that he is watching them. He said it is possible that, like them, we don’t have the senses to detect things outside our immediate “reality”.
3) He probably voted to leave the EU, though he very rightly refuses to be drawn on how he voted by journalists. From 2019:
4) He was very resistant to calls to make global warming the central cause of environmentalism and was a climate sceptic until 2006. I suspect he thinks over-population is the real problem and the focus on fossil fuels is grasping the working end of the stick.
Maybe the treatment of the other David – David Bellamy who lost his TV career for being an outspoken global warming and EU sceptic – convinced him to not bite the woke hand that fed him.
An excellent synopsis of the ‘National treasure’, thank you.
An excellent synopsis of the ‘National treasure’, thank you.
I was wondering about that reference as well, i got the impression it was the exact opposite. If he is sceptical that would be great to hear.
He has made the odd incautious remark but has obviously been told or decided to pipe down sadly.
He has made the odd incautious remark but has obviously been told or decided to pipe down sadly.
He certainly was until about 2006. This is what I wrote some time ago:
Attenborough is secretly quite sound but he knows which side his bread is buttered and toes the progressive line when he has to.
The evidence:
1) He is a long-term patron of Population Matters which, until recently, campaigned against mass immigration and for refugees to be housed in countries local to the disaster rather than being shipped to the west. From their website in 2013:
2) He resisted calls for him to declare himself an atheist and made a great analogy about his experience slicing off the top of a termite hill and the blind termites not being aware that he is watching them. He said it is possible that, like them, we don’t have the senses to detect things outside our immediate “reality”.
3) He probably voted to leave the EU, though he very rightly refuses to be drawn on how he voted by journalists. From 2019:
4) He was very resistant to calls to make global warming the central cause of environmentalism and was a climate sceptic until 2006. I suspect he thinks over-population is the real problem and the focus on fossil fuels is grasping the working end of the stick.
Maybe the treatment of the other David – David Bellamy who lost his TV career for being an outspoken global warming and EU sceptic – convinced him to not bite the woke hand that fed him.
I was wondering about that reference as well, i got the impression it was the exact opposite. If he is sceptical that would be great to hear.
I completely agree , but now at 96 what has he to lose? Time to let fly and say what he really thinks!
After all who really cares about “reputational [sic] destruction”? I certainly don’t!
Is he? What do you base your belief that he is sceptical about global warming on?
You’re free to show us the way.
When are you going to do your bit Charles?
David Attenborough is pretty sound: Eurosceptic, sceptical about global warming, believes overpopulation is the cause of most environmental destruction and he even once gave a nice proof of God’s existence when asked by an interviewer if he was an atheist.
But he is also very smart. He knows that airing his opinions will lead to career and reputational destruction. So he held his tongue and became St David.
You’re free to show us the way.
He has the right idea but is a little coy about discussing it. Reduce the world population by about 50%.
Correction 75%.
Richard Attenborough, not David, directed Ghandi. David is currently saving the planet.
The last scenes of the very last episode of Blackadder when they all finally go over the top are very poignant.
The British can’t discuss a British revolution in the way the French or Americans can discuss their revolutions because we still have a monarchy. Ahead of the coronation, the British Government expected teachers to state that the monarchy was a symbol of continuity for 1000 years …. despite the Wars of the Roses ended by an illegitimate man taking the throne, the probable illegitimacy of Edward IV, the execution of Charles I, the removal of James II, the invitation of an obscure German family to assume the throne, the murder of George VI, the removal of the Nazi supporting Edward VIII, the refusal to prove that Harry is Charles’ son. Harry is correct about one thing. They just make it up as they go along.
The British can’t discuss a British revolution in the way the French or Americans can discuss their revolutions because we still have a monarchy. Ahead of the coronation, the British Government expected teachers to state that the monarchy was a symbol of continuity for 1000 years …. despite the Wars of the Roses ended by an illegitimate man taking the throne, the probable illegitimacy of Edward IV, the execution of Charles I, the removal of James II, the invitation of an obscure German family to assume the throne, the murder of George VI, the removal of the Nazi supporting Edward VIII, the refusal to prove that Harry is Charles’ son. Harry is correct about one thing. They just make it up as they go along.
Word.
It’s important that we don’t succumb to the myth that Blackadder was funny.
It’s important that we don’t succumb to the myth that Blackadder was funny.