Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: British Royal Family and Nazism
|
Moo
 Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: Moo: Can you cite any examples of a communism that responds to democracy?
My country has had a Communist Party for decades, working within the democratic system. The same is true for a number of other countries.
AIUI, communism involves state ownership of all industry.
Moo
-------------------- Kerygmania host --------------------- See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy doesn't seem to realise that in 1933 information was not zooming around the world as it is now. To imply that even the Brit royals would've known what nasty things Hitler was up to at that time is a bit rich. We usually don't assume that anyone imitating the N Korean leader, for example, is a secret sympathiser.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I have just been looking at the newspaper archive. Photos of Nazi salutes are in the Illustrated London News as far back as 1930, and the Spectator was talking about Nazi attitudes to the Jews (including the cry of "kill all the Jews") in 1933. According to the Spectator correspondent, the government was already trying to make plans to force the Jews to leave Germany.
It seems highly unlikely that anyone reading the popular media would not have known about the Nazi salute or the things that were already happening to Jews in Germany.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
So they didn't read the Illustrated London News or the Spectator (or probably other newspapers that I haven't checked yet)? Unlikely supposition, Roselyn. [ 20. July 2015, 21:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
People- some people- knew from day one. I think I'm right in saying that both ++ Temple and ++Lang were prefectly clear that this was somethign monstrous and wicked. But that wouldn't be inconsistent with people simply taking the piss out of the Nazis (which is what the pictures I've seen look to me like they might be showing). There's a long British tradition of thinking that foreigners are mostly ludicrous, and when we're talking about foreigners led by a pop-eyed little man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache, who greet each other with a salute strongly reminiscent of the gesture used by schoolboys asking permission to go to the lavatory, they're even more so.
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
 Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: I have just been looking at the newspaper archive. Photos of Nazi salutes are in the Illustrated London News as far back as 1930...
Nazi salutes were evil because the Nazis were evil. Photos of the Nazis saluting did not in themselves give information about the evil that was Nazism.
Moo
-------------------- Kerygmania host --------------------- See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
No, that's true Moo. But there is clear evidence that the British public were well aware by 1933 what the Nazi salute was (the label in the ILN in 1930 actually calls it a 'fascist style salute').
There are also a lot of reports in both the Spectator and the ILN talking about the Nazis and their ideology.
So the idea that the British public were unaware is pretty busted. They knew what was happening and they knew what the salute represented.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: People- some people- knew from day one. I think I'm right in saying that both ++ Temple and ++Lang were prefectly clear that this was somethign monstrous and wicked. But that wouldn't be inconsistent with people simply taking the piss out of the Nazis (which is what the pictures I've seen look to me like they might be showing). There's a long British tradition of thinking that foreigners are mostly ludicrous, and when we're talking about foreigners led by a pop-eyed little man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache, who greet each other with a salute strongly reminiscent of the gesture used by schoolboys asking permission to go to the lavatory, they're even more so.
Given that we know at least one of the adults in the picture was a Nazi sympathiser, it is highly unlikely that they were taking the piss.
I am sure the children had no idea what their uncle was asking them to do, but we have nothing to suggest that the adults were taking the piss.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Do we actually know that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser, rather than a somewhat dim chap who thought that Herr Hitler was getting things moving and keeping the Reds at bay? And even if he was one, do we know that he was one in 1933? You don't like the royal family. Therefore you are willing to believe everything bad that you can about them. That's all that your posts here have boiled dowwn to.
quote: Originally posted by Ricardus: quote: Originally posted by Eirenist: I suppose I must be naive. I had assumed that Prince Philip's 'Who are you sponging off?' remark was an attempted send-up (no doubt unwise) of the gutter press's centuries-old insistence that all immigrant communities are spongers.
It does seem that the community group itself took it as a joke.
Timeo danaos et lateres demittentes (beware of Greeks dropping bricks) [ 20. July 2015, 21:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
 Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: Do we actually know that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser, rather than a somewhat dim chap who thought that Herr Hitler was getting things moving and keeping the Reds at bay?
The information now available makes it pretty clear that he and his wife were certainly sympathisers (to put it mildly) by the late 1930's. The only question in my mind is how far that went. Were they passive sympathisers or were they actively working for the downfall of the British government? I have to say that the evidence indicates the latter. Were we not talking about the ex-king and the brother of the reigning monarch, then I think that there would have been grounds for him to be tried for treason.
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: And even if he was one, do we know that he was one in 1933?
That is a little less clear, I think. My guess is that he was in broad sympathy with a lot of the Nazi aims. But I suspect the events surrounding his abdication pushed him further along that line. "That Woman" certainly encouraged him to look sympathetically towards Hitler and his own sense of loss of what he felt entitled to added to the feelings of resentment against his brother and the government that had forced him to abdicate.
I think we still come back to the most likely scenario whereby in 1933, this was all a game. There is nothing murky or nefarious about the incident - it is just a family playing around.
I'm pretty sure that I remember playing around with my brothers when I was a kid and we experimented with goose steps. That didn't mean that we were commie-sympathisers or that we condoned Stalin's purges and oppression. We were just messing around. People do that, I've noticed.
-------------------- Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Yes, Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies (practically Nazi membership) are well-known - but it's pretty safe to say that George VI was emphatically NOT a Nazi. Neither does young children being prompted to make a Nazi salute by Uncle David (as I think it may well be) mean those children will be Nazi sympathisers as adults.
Yes, there were Nazi sympathisers in the aristocracy. There were also Nazi sympathisers in other social classes. There were also those who wanted to prevent another world war more than any personal view of Hitler. I don't think even most of the aristocratic sympathisers were as extreme as the fascist Mitford sisters - most just thought Hitler in power would mean they didn't have to think about striking miners and more parties for them. Most aristos just did not think about politics enough to have a serious opinion on Hitler, let alone bother to be real sympathisers.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote: 2. The raised arms may in fact be what was called the Bellamy salute: since the 1890s this had been performed in most schools in the United States while the children recited the pledge of allegiance.
It might have been, but of course nobody has made any counter-claim of this kind. I don't think any of the royals in the video had been educated in the USA, so this seems pretty unlikely.
I would say this was more of example that this type of salute wasn't necessarily associated only with the Nazis at that time. The Olympic salute could well have been seen by the royals in films of the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics, see opening ceremony footage (about 3:07 in and also 3:30 where a group does it).
-------------------- spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
 Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: Moo: AIUI, communism involves state ownership of all industry.
You're moving the goalposts here. You asked a question, I (and other people) answered it.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
 Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
When, as 2nd formers (c aged 12) we were assigned German as our modern language, most of the boys decorated their ekker books with swastikas. We had to be told my our (German) german teacher that this was not a cool thing to do and the symbol had very painful associations for some people (eg her, I suspect).
Children are gauche and ill-informed as were a good many upper class people in the early '30s. I do not think you can take a tiny fragment of record as conclusive proof of anything.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I've just been looking at other archives, and the (London) Times had several articles from 1930 about the Nazis, their policies, political violence in Germany and the Nazi/fascist salute.
The Illustrated London News has many photos from the Nuremburg Rally of 1933, many of which have a lot of people saluting.
To be fair, the ILN also has a picture of an athlete taking the 'olympic oath' at the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics with a Nazi-style salute.
There is a Pathe News reel of Hitler receiving the salute in 1933. But then they also have one of the British blackshirts saluting at the London Cenotaph in which is apparently from 1922 (which seems a bit unlikely to me given the British Fascist Union did not coming into being until the 1930s).
There are British newsreels of the Olympics, so it is possible that these include the olympic oath as well, although I have not found it.
So I think it is more possible that this was a reference to the olympic games than I thought before. However, I still think that a reference to the Nazis, particularly if the film was made in 1933, is more likely than any relation to the Olympics.
As far as I can tell, around Nuremburg in 1933 the Nazis got quite a lot of coverage in the British media whereas there was much less about the Olympic opening ceremony.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oscar, Pamona and Firenze have nailed it.
In more general terms, whilst I believe the Gospel embodies a 'bias for the poor' I don't think it requires us to exercise prejudice towards the rich, toffs and aristos.
In culpability terms, I would certainly suggest that Sir Oswald Mosley bears more blame than his supporters in London' East End or the Staffordshire Potteries.
To acknowledge that the fascists sought to appeal to other groups, Breton or Scots Nationalists, working class factory workers is neither irrelevant nor an attempt to exonerate their aristocratic sympathisers.
What we have here, it seems to me, is a personal and visceral dislike of particular types and classes of people masquerading as an objective concern for social justice.
We can share what is a genuine concern for social justice which lies behind the OP, I think, without having to indulge in a knee-jerk prejudice against toffs.
I don't like toffs either and will take the piss out of them when occasion demands. I don't think this is one of them as it doesn't tell us anything about 'Uncle David' that we didn't already know.
It's no more nuanced or apposite a reaction than it would be to claim that all London dockers were racist because many of them supported Enoch Powell in the late 1960s - or that because some working class Potters were Blackshirts in the 1930s that 'Stokies' as a whole were implacably fascist.
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Again, it is not simple prejudice when this is about aristocrats who have inherited, unelected, and unexamined power and privilege which they seek to increase by supporting fascism. However you look at it, a potter in Stoke is of far less importance than Lord Rothermere in the 1930s.
The tragedy, of course, is that whatever his political views, the potter is much more likely to die fighting in WW2 than the toff.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The tragedy, of course, is that whatever his political views, the potter is much more likely to die fighting in WW2 than the toff.
I'll go and dig for the figures but I'm pretty sure that that's not true at all in percentage terms. It certainly wasn't for WW1. Other way around. If you want to die in a world war, be a public schoolboy and serve as a junior officer. That'll do it. Lead from the front and all that.
Of all people that actually went for the sole male Mitford sibling funnily enough.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: I'll go and dig for the figures but I'm pretty sure that that's not true at all in percentage terms. It certainly wasn't for WW1. Other way around. If you want to die in a world war, be a public schoolboy and serve as a junior officer. That'll do it. Lead from the front and all that.
Of all people that actually went for the sole male Mitford sibling funnily enough.
Please do. A fairly large number of aristocratic men died in WW1, many fewer died in WW2 AFAIU. I'd be interested to see any numbers which show otherwise. [ 21. July 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite so, betjemaniac. And look at what Orwell says about the war record of the British upper classes in The Lion and the Unicorn (or it may be England Your England)- something to the effect that whatever their faults, the casualty lists showed (and this was written during and about the second war, after Dunkirk) that they were plentifully resdy to go out and get killed in war. I don't think, btw, one would call Lord Rothermere an aristocrat: a big businessman who had been given a peerage. On the Mitfords- yes, there was poor Unity (I say poor because she seems to have been rather barmy) and Diana, and Pamela married a really rather unpleasant fascist professor called Derek Jackson (who nonetheless fought in Bomber Command). However, Jessica's communism has already been mentioned- and don't forget that Nancy was somewhere on the mild left. Never heard anything about Deborah's politics, if she had any. So, 3 fascists (or one Nazi of dubious mental stability, one fascist, and one probable fascist); two lefties; one not known. Maybe 3 out of 6 not fascists: plus their brother, about whose politics I know nothing. not quite the solid fascist phalanx (no pun intended) of myth. [ 21. July 2015, 08:50: Message edited by: Albertus ]
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: I'll go and dig for the figures but I'm pretty sure that that's not true at all in percentage terms. It certainly wasn't for WW1. Other way around. If you want to die in a world war, be a public schoolboy and serve as a junior officer. That'll do it. Lead from the front and all that.
Of all people that actually went for the sole male Mitford sibling funnily enough.
Please do. A fairly large number of aristocratic men died in WW1, many fewer died in WW2 AFAIU. I'd be interested to see any numbers which show otherwise.
Well, while I try and turn the numbers up, is a fairly long and depressing list of British aristocracy killed in WW2 here to be going on with
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
 Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Some of the differences between WWI and WW2 will be because so many of the men did die in WWI. It was known as the lost generation and WWI disproportionately affected the upper classes. Whole year groups from Eton died, but only 10% of thet troops fighting.
And men who fought in WWI were only just too old to fight in WW2. My grandfather was 19 at the start of WWI, 45 at the start of WW2.
So the effects of WWI continued into WW2.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: Quite so, betjemaniac. And look at what Orwell says about the war record of the British upper classes in The Lion and the Unicorn (or it may be England Your England)- something to the effect that whatever their faults, the casualty lists showed (and this was written during and about the second war, after Dunkirk) that they were plentifully resdy to go out and get killed in war. I don't think, btw, one would call Lord Rothermere an aristocrat: a big businessman who had been given a peerage. On the Mitfords- yes, there was poor Unity (I say poor because she seems to have been rather barmy) and Diana, and Pamela married a really rather unpleasant fascist professor called Derek Jackson (who nonetheless fought in Bomber Command). However, Jessica's communism has already been mentioned- and don't forget that Nancy was somewhere on the mild left. Never heard anything about Deborah's politics, if she had any. So, 3 fascists (or one Nazi of dubious mental stability, one fascist, and one probable fascist); two lefties; one not known. Maybe 3 out of 6 not fascists: plus their brother, about whose politics I know nothing. not quite the solid fascist phalanx (no pun intended) of myth.
Pamela - I think it's most unfair to lump her in on the basis of her husband; unlike the other two I don't think she ever actually expressed an opinion on very much, let alone politics. She may have married a fascist, but we could set against that the fact that she was also courted pretty assiduously by John Betjeman.
Tom - had some pretty unpleasant opinions and it has been alleged that he pulled strings not to have to fight against Germany because he knew so many people over there. OTOH he clearly wasn't a coward and was killed fighting the Japanese.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Ok, that may be fair enough. Perhaps then they cancel each other out. Still leaves 3/4 fascist/ non-facsist ratio. Even the other way round would give the lie to this 'fascist Mitfords' myth, at least in that generation.
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: Ok, that may be fair enough. Perhaps then they cancel each other out. Still leaves 3/4 fascist/ non-facsist ratio. Even the other way round would give the lie to this 'fascist Mitfords' myth, at least in that generation.
If you want to get deep into Jungian synchronicity did you know Unity's middle name was Valkyrie? Or that the Mitford gold mine in Canada (which pre-dated the second world war by nearly 50 years) was called Swastika?
It's an aristo-conspiracy I tells ya.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: Some of the differences between WWI and WW2 will be because so many of the men did die in WWI. It was known as the lost generation and WWI disproportionately affected the upper classes. Whole year groups from Eton died, but only 10% of thet troops fighting.
Affected, yes. Disproportionally affected, no.
quote: And men who fought in WWI were only just too old to fight in WW2. My grandfather was 19 at the start of WWI, 45 at the start of WW2.
So the effects of WWI continued into WW2.
This is true, but also overall there were less British fighters killed in WW2 than in WW1.
You are much less likely to die from the higher commissioned ranks in WW2 (and more recent conflicts) than as a man called-up into the ranks.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: Some of the differences between WWI and WW2 will be because so many of the men did die in WWI. It was known as the lost generation and WWI disproportionately affected the upper classes. Whole year groups from Eton died, but only 10% of thet troops fighting.
Affected, yes. Disproportionally affected, no.
to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?
The evidence that the upper classes were disproportionally affected is a whole class wiped out at Eton? Some working families lost more than 5 sons from one generation.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
"Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers" according to the BBC.
But then this is not evidence of a disproportionate loss of the aristocrats, because not all officers were aristocrats.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?
The evidence that the upper classes were disproportionally affected is a whole class wiped out at Eton? Some working families lost more than 5 sons from one generation.
No, the evidence is the death rates:
"ordinary" soldiers - 12% officers - 17% Old Etonians - 20%
You were far more likely to die as a junior officer than you were as any rank below subaltern. If you sent 5 sons in as subalterns you had a higher chance of losing all 5 than you did if you sent 5 sons in as private soldiers.
And people did.
To be honest, class-based competitive grief is a bit distasteful, but if we're going to talk about proportions and percentages then we may as well be accurate.
For further reading, can I suggest Six Weeks by John Lewis Stempel? Or Mud Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan?
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: "Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers" according to the BBC.
But then this is not evidence of a disproportionate loss of the aristocrats, because not all officers were aristocrats.
Ok, but neither was the class background of officers even remotely nationally representative (since we're talking statistics) - they were disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above.
Albertus has already said it, go and read the Lion and the Unicorn. And this is before we even get into generals sitting 25 miles behind the lines ordering the poor lions to their deaths. Joan Littlewood's got a lot to answer for.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
What is this supposed to prove? On the first day of the Somme, 700 'ordinary soldiers' from Accrington fought, 235 were killed, 350 were injured. In one day.
Eton lost people. But this, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything - unless you are trying to claim that Eton contained the entirety of the aristocracy.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: Ok, but neither was the class background of officers even remotely nationally representative (since we're talking statistics) - they were disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above.
True, I never claimed anything otherwise. But career soldiers moved up the ranks and it was not unusual for them to become officers. So simply saying that the percentage shows a disproportionate effect on a certain class is misleading.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: to be clear, you're saying that the British upper classes weren't disproportionately affected by WW1??? I mean, it's at least a question for WW2 which is why I'm looking to see what figures are out there, but for WW1 I'd have thought it was practically inarguable?
The evidence that the upper classes were disproportionally affected is a whole class wiped out at Eton? Some working families lost more than 5 sons from one generation.
No, the evidence is the death rates:
"ordinary" soldiers - 12% officers - 17% Old Etonians - 20%
You were far more likely to die as a junior officer than you were as any rank below subaltern. If you sent 5 sons in as subalterns you had a higher chance of losing all 5 than you did if you sent 5 sons in as private soldiers.
And people did.
To be honest, class-based competitive grief is a bit distasteful, but if we're going to talk about proportions and percentages then we may as well be accurate.
For further reading, can I suggest Six Weeks by John Lewis Stempel? Or Mud Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan?
To add to the reading list I'd also offer: Blighty; British Society in the Era of the Great War by Gerard J DeGroot The Great War and Modern Memory - Paul Fussell Forgotten Victory - Gary Sheffield
All of which cover this ground in exhaustive detail.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: What is this supposed to prove? On the first day of the Somme, 700 'ordinary soldiers' from Accrington fought, 235 were killed, 350 were injured. In one day.
Eton lost people. But this, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything - unless you are trying to claim that Eton contained the entirety of the aristocracy.
Funnily enough I suspect I've just read the same article you have - my response was if we're saying Eton wasn't representative, why should Accrington be given the difference in numbers between "the working class" and "the aristocracy"? There are more people who were private soldiers sure, but surely that just brings us back to the line that WW1 had a disproportionately larger impact on a disproportionately smaller group?
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: What is this supposed to prove?
You asserted that quote: the potter is much more likely to die fighting in WW2 than the toff.
and then that quote: You are much less likely to die from the higher commissioned ranks in WW2 (and more recent conflicts) than as a man called-up into the ranks
The figures you yourself quote, repeated by betjemaniac, suggest the contrary. Instead of acknowledging that, you shift the debate to WW1 and reel off figures stated in absolute, not proportional terms. Is this supposed to be convincing?
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Nope, I'm not shifting anything, I am happy to concede that the risk of death of the aristocracy was far greater in WW1 than WW2. I don't believe the rhetoric that claims that the upper classes were disproportionally affected in WW1, but agree many died. And said so.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If it is true that the class background of officers was, as betjemaniac asserts, quote: disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above
and that in addition, a greater percentage of them died than ordinary soldiers, I think dismissing those disputing your assertions as "rhetoric" is a bit thin.
You have not, so far, advanced a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that the potter was more likely to die in WW2 than the toff. [ 21. July 2015, 09:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
 Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: Again, it is not simple prejudice when this is about aristocrats who have inherited, unelected, and unexamined power and privilege which they seek to increase by supporting fascism.
No, the prejudice comes in when you tar all aristocrats with the same brush because of the actions of some.
If saying "this aristocrat was a Nazi sympathiser, therefore they all were" is a valid thing for you to say, then "this potter from Stoke was a Nazi sympathiser therefore they all were" is a valid thing for others to say. Of course, I don't think either is valid.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: If it is true that the class background of officers was, as betjemaniac asserts, quote: disproportionately skewed to the upper middle classes and above
and that in addition, a greater percentage of them died than ordinary soldiers, I think dismissing those disputing your assertions as "rhetoric" is a bit thin.
As I said, the percentages of rank vs officer deaths were quite close anyway. Take out the number of officers who were not aristocrats and those who were career soldier, then there is no simple evidence to prove that the aristocrats were disproportionally affected - other than pointing at the deaths recorded by individual schools.
quote:
You have not, so far, advanced a single piece of evidence to back up your claim that the potter was more likely to die in WW2 than the toff.
This I do concede. However I still believe there is evidence it is true.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: No, the prejudice comes in when you tar all aristocrats with the same brush because of the actions of some.
I don't believe it was the actions of some. The evidence suggests widespread attraction of fascism to the aristocracy.
quote: If saying "this aristocrat was a Nazi sympathiser, therefore they all were" is a valid thing for you to say, then "this potter from Stoke was a Nazi sympathiser therefore they all were" is a valid thing for others to say. Of course, I don't think either is valid.
Well I didn't actually say that all were Nazi sympathisers, so that argument isn't going anywhere. I did say that the aristocracy was intoxicated with fascism, and I think there is significant evidence to suggest that fairly large numbers of the class were attracted to fascism.
If large numbers of the working classes were attracted to the Nazis, as for a time they were attracted to the Communists, then this would indeed be a reasonable thing to say. But the evidence is fairly clear that the working classes were not attracted to fascism or the Nazis beyond a few isolated groups.
Of course, the fundamental difference is one of numbers and power. The aristocracy is small and mostly related. The working class is very large. So a small number of sympathisers within the aristocracy has a bigger effect than a larger number in the working class. Obviously. [ 21. July 2015, 10:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: This I do concede. However I still believe there is evidence it is true.
And therein lies the problem.
I have no doubt, on the basis of what you've posted here, that you want it to be true, because it confirms your views on the upper classes.
But those are precisely the sort of circumstances in which a decent researcher or journalist, say, will triple-check before asserting something, so as to make sure their prejudices are not obscuring their objectivity.
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eutychus: And therein lies the problem.
I have no doubt, on the basis of what you've posted here, that you want it to be true, because it confirms your views on the upper classes.
OK, believe that if you want to.
quote: But those are precisely the sort of circumstances in which a decent researcher or journalist, say, will triple-check before asserting something, so as to make sure their prejudices are not obscuring their objectivity.
Well, that's fair. Still, I believe it to be true and that it can be proven.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: As I said, the percentages of rank vs officer deaths were quite close anyway.
It actually isn't - 17% to 12% is a quite large enough gap when doing a cut of the numbers from overall casualty figures out of total sample of around 1,000,000 (give or take) vs the total numbers served.
If nothing else 17% is almost 50% higher. If you went in knowing those odds would you think "oh it's not that different really"?
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: It actually isn't - 17% to 12% is a quite large enough gap when doing a cut of the numbers from overall casualty figures out of total sample of around 1,000,000 (give or take) vs the total numbers served.
If nothing else 17% is almost 50% higher. If you went in knowing those odds would you think "oh it's not that different really"?
OK, but how many of the difference were from the middle rather than the upper classes? How many were 'battlefield' commissions?
According to wikipedia, quoting a book I do not have access to, there was promotion from the ranks and Kitchener's volunteers for officer ranks came mostly from the middle classes.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Incidentally, if we are going to use Eton college as a measure, 20% of joined up officers died in WW1, 15% of joined up officers died in WW2.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: Incidentally, if we are going to use Eton college as a measure, 20% of joined up officers died in WW1, 15% of joined up officers died in WW2.
This is why I'm trying to find the figures - OVERALL casualty rates in WW2 were lower anyway, so 20% to 15% across different conflicts is meanningless.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: quote: Originally posted by betjemaniac: It actually isn't - 17% to 12% is a quite large enough gap when doing a cut of the numbers from overall casualty figures out of total sample of around 1,000,000 (give or take) vs the total numbers served.
If nothing else 17% is almost 50% higher. If you went in knowing those odds would you think "oh it's not that different really"?
OK, but how many of the difference were from the middle rather than the upper classes? How many were 'battlefield' commissions?
According to wikipedia, quoting a book I do not have access to, there was promotion from the ranks and Kitchener's volunteers for officer ranks came mostly from the middle classes.
Do you think we can keep the target still for more than 2 posts? I suspect that stat will help my case and weaken yours....
There are something like 4 identifiable armies to deal with over the course of 1914-18.
1)The pre-war professional British army - this was all but wiped out by the beginning of 1915. Its officers were overwhelmingly upper middle class or aristocrats and virtually all of them died. There was a reason why there are very few documented interviews with Old Contemptibles. So, in wave 1 the people we're arguing over got disproportionately malleted.
2) The territorial army. This was mobilised in 1914 and held the line for a lot of 1915 - if anything it was more aristocratic than the regulars in its officers - it being the done thing to have a commission with the local volunteers.
3) Kitchener's New Army - this was a mass volunteer force and was blooded at the Somme. There were many middle class officers in it, because there were so many people in it full stop - they were running out of the upper classes (who were in any case dead or had rushed to the colours early enough to be already serving before the New Army existed.
4) The mass conscript army - 1917-18. This had more open commissioning (although you were still disproportionately likely to end up as a junior officer if you went to the right school).
At all times there was commissioning from the ranks. Just not mass of it. The numbers increased towards the end of the war, but so did the overall size of the army. I'm afraid there is truth in the fact that they had to do something because they were running out of upper-class people (because they were either dead or already serving somewhere else).
So - across those 4 armies we've got an officer casualty rate of 17% - we can agree on that.
Within the 4 armies the overall percentage of aristocracy/upper middle class/gentry in the officer corps would be diluted (although not by a vast amount to be honest) as the war went on and the size of the army increased (from 180,000 to multiple millions).
*Within* that however, and across armies 1 to 4 the casualty rates were quite different.
The most aristocratic, army 1, sent 64 x 1,000 strong battalions to France in 1914. By the end of 1914 there had been 90,000 casualties! According to Edward Owen in Glory Departing, of the orginal 64 battalions the average strength by Christmas was 1 officer and 30 men. The aristocracy, a large group within the small group that was the officer corps of the pre-war British army - was hit first and hit hard.
They continued to be disproportionately hit hard in army 2. You could mount a reasonable argument that by the time they were diffused in armies 3 and 4 and *only* facing a casualty rate of 17% it was happy days.
I can't help but think we're going round in circles here - whichever way you cut it the officers were more likely to be killed than the men, and because of the enlistment patterns over the war I wouldn't be at all surprised if within that 17% we're actually looking at a far higher rate for the aristocracy, simply because of when they joined up in numbers, the units they were likely to be in (regular or territorial, disproportionately), and
I'm sorry - I don't want to over defend them, but I did spend an awfully long time studying this at two different universities and IMO the Class War treatise doesn't hold water.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
That seems fair, particularly that the officer class of the original standing army was particularly affected, and was likely from the gentry - given the history of the upper classes having high military ranks.
But then, of course, the question remains about who exactly was the "upper class" and how badly they were affected in the whole conflict. The army expanded multiple times, if one joined from the upper classes, were you more or less likely to die? I don't see that this proves it either way.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mr cheesy: The army expanded multiple times, if one joined from the upper classes, were you more or less likely to die? I don't see that this proves it either way.
I think we've said that if you joined from the upper classes, you were more likely to be an officer, and officers were more likely to die. If you joined as an aristocrat, you were more likely to join earlier, more likely to be an officer, and more likely to be in a regular or territorial unit. That, in WW1 terms, was the holy and undivided trinity of trying to get yourself killed.
But we're now a long way and a couple of decades from Stoke and its potters of the 1940s.
-------------------- And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|