"War! Huh! What is it good for?" Thus Edwin Starr, who immediately answered his own question. "Absolutely Nothing!" Although his song "War" does not specifically mention Vietnam, it was written in 1969 when the Vietnam War was raging and was widely taken as a protest against that conflict. "Oh! What a Lovely War" is a film which also came out in 1969 (although it is based on a stage musical from several years earlier) and likewise tries to persuade us that war is good for absolutely nothing.
Of course, anyone in 1969 with any historical knowledge could have pointed out that it was only by going to war in 1939 that we were able to protect democracy and prevent world domination by the Nazis and their allies. (Or, as Monty Python might have put it, "What has war ever done for us? Apart from saving us from Nazism, absolutely nothing!") The makers of the film, however, like the producers of the original stage play, avoid the Second World War altogether and concentrate on the First. The story of that war is told in a series of comedy sketches and musical numbers, many of them set on Brighton's famous West Pier, since destroyed by fire. The songs are all taken from the war period itself, some of them cheery and optimistic, while others, generally those sung by the troops themselves, are cynical and sarcastic. The whole point is to demonstrate that the First World War achieved nothing and was a useless waste of millions of lives.
The film-makers probably thought that by pointing this out they were being daring, original and satirical, but in reality they were doing no more than reinforcing an existing received idea. By 1969 the idea that the First World War achieved nothing and was a useless waste of millions of lives had become the standard; this was certainly the version of history which I was taught at school a few years later. Moreover, this is a received idea from which I would not dissent. This is a film I greatly dislike, but my dislike has nothing to do with my politics. The truth is that in 1914 the nations of Europe blundered into war following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Balkan terrorist, and having made that initial blunder found it impossible to extricate themselves. British propagandists (some of them disguised as historians) tried to pretend that the Germans bore sole guilt for the war, but in truth that guilt was shared by all those, on both sides of the conflict, who preferred to go to war rather than sacrifice what Wilfred Owen called "the ram of pride".
So why do I dislike the film? Apart, that is, from the unbearable smugness which is the inevitable hallmark of any production that believes it is saying something daring, original and satirical when it is actually saying something commonplace. Well, for a start it recycles the absurd "lions led by donkeys" myth that all the Allied commanders of the Great War were incompetent idiots. The British generals, especially Haig, are portrayed not only as buffoons but also as callously unconcerned about the human cost of war. In reality Haig and his French and American counterparts, Foch and Pershing, were correct in their belief that the war on the Western front could be won by a series of large-scale offensives. The film-makers do not dare tackle the question (which has stumped armchair strategists for over a century) of how the war could have been won with significantly lower casualties. They merely suggest- indeed, one young staff officer puts forward the idea- that the Allied high command should have pursued a purely defensive strategy. Which would only have played into German hands. Their successes on the Eastern Front meant that the Germans did not need to march into Paris- still less London or Washington- to claim victory. All they needed to do was force a stalemate in the West, which would have led to a negotiated peace which left Germany the strongest power in Europe.
That might have been no bad thing. Geopolitical and economic logic, as well as common humanity, should have dictated that the political leaders of the warring nations should have sat down and negotiated a compromise peace. The film, however, never explores why this never happened. Unfortunately, both sides were so convinced of their own moral rightness and of the total moral depravity of their enemies that any talk of peace was regarded as a near-treasonable betrayal of the cause of freedom and of the men who had already died for it. Those who thought like this were not just motivated by jingoism and stubborn pride; there was also a genuine idealism and a belief that the triumph of Our Cause would lead to a brave new world in the morning, while a compromise peace would merely have reinforced the bad old one. Hence slogans like "The war to end all wars" and "The war to make the world safe for democracy"; these were Allied slogans, but there were German equivalents.
Today, of course, these slogans sound very hollow. With the benefit of hindsight we know that the war to end all wars merely paved the way for a second conflict, even bloodier and more destructive than the first, and the war to make the world safe for democracy merely made it safe for new forms of tyranny, far crueller than anything that had existed in 1914. But hindsight was a luxury that the generation of 1914-18 did not possess. The makers of this film, in their haste to condemn, seem to have forgotten that. 4/10
A goof. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were not first cousins; they were only distantly related. (Both were cousins of King George V, but on opposite sides of his family).
Of course, anyone in 1969 with any historical knowledge could have pointed out that it was only by going to war in 1939 that we were able to protect democracy and prevent world domination by the Nazis and their allies. (Or, as Monty Python might have put it, "What has war ever done for us? Apart from saving us from Nazism, absolutely nothing!") The makers of the film, however, like the producers of the original stage play, avoid the Second World War altogether and concentrate on the First. The story of that war is told in a series of comedy sketches and musical numbers, many of them set on Brighton's famous West Pier, since destroyed by fire. The songs are all taken from the war period itself, some of them cheery and optimistic, while others, generally those sung by the troops themselves, are cynical and sarcastic. The whole point is to demonstrate that the First World War achieved nothing and was a useless waste of millions of lives.
The film-makers probably thought that by pointing this out they were being daring, original and satirical, but in reality they were doing no more than reinforcing an existing received idea. By 1969 the idea that the First World War achieved nothing and was a useless waste of millions of lives had become the standard; this was certainly the version of history which I was taught at school a few years later. Moreover, this is a received idea from which I would not dissent. This is a film I greatly dislike, but my dislike has nothing to do with my politics. The truth is that in 1914 the nations of Europe blundered into war following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Balkan terrorist, and having made that initial blunder found it impossible to extricate themselves. British propagandists (some of them disguised as historians) tried to pretend that the Germans bore sole guilt for the war, but in truth that guilt was shared by all those, on both sides of the conflict, who preferred to go to war rather than sacrifice what Wilfred Owen called "the ram of pride".
So why do I dislike the film? Apart, that is, from the unbearable smugness which is the inevitable hallmark of any production that believes it is saying something daring, original and satirical when it is actually saying something commonplace. Well, for a start it recycles the absurd "lions led by donkeys" myth that all the Allied commanders of the Great War were incompetent idiots. The British generals, especially Haig, are portrayed not only as buffoons but also as callously unconcerned about the human cost of war. In reality Haig and his French and American counterparts, Foch and Pershing, were correct in their belief that the war on the Western front could be won by a series of large-scale offensives. The film-makers do not dare tackle the question (which has stumped armchair strategists for over a century) of how the war could have been won with significantly lower casualties. They merely suggest- indeed, one young staff officer puts forward the idea- that the Allied high command should have pursued a purely defensive strategy. Which would only have played into German hands. Their successes on the Eastern Front meant that the Germans did not need to march into Paris- still less London or Washington- to claim victory. All they needed to do was force a stalemate in the West, which would have led to a negotiated peace which left Germany the strongest power in Europe.
That might have been no bad thing. Geopolitical and economic logic, as well as common humanity, should have dictated that the political leaders of the warring nations should have sat down and negotiated a compromise peace. The film, however, never explores why this never happened. Unfortunately, both sides were so convinced of their own moral rightness and of the total moral depravity of their enemies that any talk of peace was regarded as a near-treasonable betrayal of the cause of freedom and of the men who had already died for it. Those who thought like this were not just motivated by jingoism and stubborn pride; there was also a genuine idealism and a belief that the triumph of Our Cause would lead to a brave new world in the morning, while a compromise peace would merely have reinforced the bad old one. Hence slogans like "The war to end all wars" and "The war to make the world safe for democracy"; these were Allied slogans, but there were German equivalents.
Today, of course, these slogans sound very hollow. With the benefit of hindsight we know that the war to end all wars merely paved the way for a second conflict, even bloodier and more destructive than the first, and the war to make the world safe for democracy merely made it safe for new forms of tyranny, far crueller than anything that had existed in 1914. But hindsight was a luxury that the generation of 1914-18 did not possess. The makers of this film, in their haste to condemn, seem to have forgotten that. 4/10
A goof. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were not first cousins; they were only distantly related. (Both were cousins of King George V, but on opposite sides of his family).