The question is whether World War 1 really did create a lost generation or whether it did not.
Interpretation 1;
In 1917 Lord Landsdowne said in a letter to The Times newspaper that ‘We are slowly killing off the best of the male population of these islands’.
This interpretation clearly states that the war did create a ‘Lost Generation’ and the ‘best’ of the male population were being killed off in a vain attempt at winning the war. Landsowne uses the word ‘best’ as the men that were getting killed were the ones who were fit and good enough to fight for the country. The fact that they were getting killed off meant the best men were creating a ‘Lost Generation’.
Interpretation 2;
Writing in ‘Blighty: British society in the era of the Great War’ Gerard De Groot disagrees and denies the fact that a ‘Lost Generation’ was created.
‘There is little evidence to support a demographic disaster, many promising men died in the war but to blame the dull decades of the twenties and thirties on their absence is to engage in a futile exercise in counterfactual reasoning. The lost generation is important only as a myth, a popular explanation for the course history took’.
Here De Groot says that there was no lost generation was present, however he does not deny that many men died in the war or that there were ‘dull decades’ after the war. His interpretation clearly states that his belief that the ‘dull decades were down to the decades themselves no the absence of a ‘generation’ of men.
Conclusion;
Although we can’t deny the fact that the nation lost nearly a million men in the war in time I believe that society recovered enough over time to not fully realise the potential devastation of what could have been felt.
I believe this because not only one generation was affected. 0.9 million men were not all from one generation, they were spread out over a couple generation as many lied about their ages to be accepted into the army so the ages of the people in the army were much more diverse than the official boundaries would allow. Because of this diversity I believe that the lost generation could not have happened to such an extent as suggested by Landsdowne.
The rise of the Labour Party;
The Labour Part was a relatively new political party that only came into existence in 1900. The Labour Party never really challenged the Democrats or the Conservative parties but after the war they found themselves clearly in the running for government although usually defeated by the conservatives.
The Labour party is usually linked with the working class so there was no point in forming before 1900 as there was no vote for the working class people. Still in its very early stages in 1903 the Labour Party agreed an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats so they could try and keep the Conservatives out of government. This pact enabled Labour to gain a foothold in the English parliament. This ironically left the Liberal Democrats iin a worse position after the war as the were over taken by Labour after giving them their start in the English Parliament. However, just before the war began Labour were still clearly the party lagging behind with only 42 MP’s.
Interpretation 1;
R. McKibbin in the ‘Evolution of the Labour Party 1910-24’ believed that the Labour party already had the support of the working class at the expense of the Liberal Democrats so the rise of the Labour Party was underway before the war.
‘I have argued that the Labour Party cannot be seen as a declining force before 1914, but that, on the contrary, it was already successfully mobilising the working class support at the expense of the Liberals.’
McKibbin clearly believes that the Labour Party was already gaining votes and support before the war so he does not believe that the war was the cause of Labours rise to eventual power.
Interpretation 2;
A Marwick in ‘The deluge, British society and the First World War’ completlet disagrees when he says ‘It was during the war that the Liberal Party, going down, met the Labour Party coming up.’
Here Marwick clearly states that it was during the war that the Labour party was rising. Due to Labour getting votes that would previously have gone to the Liberals.
Conclusion;
I believe that the rise of the Labour Party was not due to World War 1 but due to the decline of the Liberals as Labour directly profited from the Democratic decline. I believe this because the people voting for the two parties were often similar and the Liberal party were declining before the war began giving Labour a strong influx of votes that would allow them to rise quickly through the political ranks before the war had even started.
Ways of Thought
Ways of Thought
Remembrance;
The concept of remembrance in Britain changed massively after World War One as it was the first war where people observed and remembered the atrocities that took place during the time. Before WW1 Britain had never really lost very many men in wars so to lose 0.9 million men across the empire in one war was quite a shock and it changed the concept of remembrance for ever.
World War 1 was the first total war that Britain had been involved in and for the first time the civilians in the involved which therefore meant that the effect of the war could not be hidden from the people so the trauma and the full effects were truly felt and the country truly understood what war was really like. Because of this when war broke out again in 1939 there would be no hordes of people flocking to the recruitment centres, it was obvious that war was no longer glorified but now it was dreaded as the people now knew what it was like and never wanted to experience it again. People remembered what it was like through photos, newsreels and memories passed down through word of mouth or material items. The last thing people had of their husbands, brothers or friends were photos of the people in battledress, this would be the thing that the person would be remembered by so people didn’t like the war as it took away their loved ones.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Conclusion
In conclusion I believe that World War 1 hugely changed the nation’s way of life and thought
I believe this because the ways of life and thought are hugely different now in comparison to how they were before the war.
The ways of life did change massively after the war with women taking a more prominent role in society which would have eventually happened but perhaps not as quickly after showing how they were equal to men on many fronts taking over the factories while the men fought. The large loss of life meant that the nation came to view conflict as a very bad thing as opposed to as a territory and empire building necessity.
Politics was changed massively by the war with the Liberal party falling from first to third in the running for government with most of their lost votes going to Labour who moved up to second, this changed the way of life in the nation as a new government was installed and so far the Liberal party have never regained power so it seems that the Liberal party took a turn for the worse during and after the war.
The concepts of remembrance changed hugely due to huge numbers of men being killed, more than ever before. The sacrifice these men made the recognised fully by the public and huge memorials and a whole day set aside for remembering the dead. The veterans of both world wars and other wars are fully recognised and recognised for what they did for this country and how they bravely fought for our freedom.
Due to all these changes I believe that the nation’s old ways of life and thought perished in the mud of Flanders and changed for ever.
