What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great War: Myth and Memory
The First World War, with its mud and the slaughter of the trenches, is often taken as the ultimate example of the futility of war. Generals, safe in their headquarters behind the lines, sent millions of men to their deaths to gain a few hundred yards of ground. Writers, notably Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, provided unforgettable images of the idiocy and tragedy of the war. Yet this vision of the war is at best a partial one, the war only achieving its status as the worst of wars in the last thirty years. At the time, the war aroused emotions of pride and patriotism. Not everyone involved remembered the war only for its miseries. The generals were often highly professional and indeed won the war in 1918. In this original and challenging book, Dan Todman shows views of the war have changed over the last ninety years and how a distorted image of it emerged and became dominant.
304 pages, Paperback
First published August 3, 2005
4 people are currently reading
141 people want to read
About the author
Daniel Todman
5 books26 followersDaniel Todman is professor of modern history at Queen Mary University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 27, 2022
that doesn't mean that I'm not sick of this damn war: the blood, the noise, the endless poetry.
Daniel Todman's mainly engaging examination of the evolution of Britain's attitudes to it's involvement in the First World War treads a certain amount of ground endlessly; however,there's a reason for that, which is apparent with a bit of thought, but isn't hammered home.
The book is thematically split between the aspects making up our understanding of the war. These examine such topics as casualties, leadership and our cultural inputs. Todman's view is that British involvement in the continental war was a necessary intervention; Wilhelmine occupation of even the gains made in 1914 would have compromised an independent Britain, and Germany was hardly a benevolent occupier, even in 1914.
In the immediate post-war period, the view of the war was very much opposed to that of today; Armistice Day was a day of both celebration and remembrance, and to criticise the leadership of the Army was unthinkable.
Todman basically breaks down the shift in viewpoint to two main reasons; the slow passing of the veterans of the Western Front, and interpretation of the war from media sources (by which I'm including TV documentaries and dramas, and literature - yes, I'm being bone idle).
While survivors of the war were alive, they were able to influence perceptions through direct application of their own experiences to their audience, be that direct family or by comment on whatever commentary they were discussing. However, as this generation died out, a more politicised view, which was often more concerned with contemporary political concerns than 'correct' history emerged. This viewpoint remained entrenched until fairly recently (I don't doubt that more people have watched 'Blackadder Goes Forth' than have read Nick Lloyd's Passchendaele: A New History, for instance). The roast of the English teachers who took it on themselves to reinterpret Wilfred Owen brought forth a wry smile, and a nod of agreement, too.
My highpoint was the brief description of boys comics in all of this (Pat Mills and Joe Calquohoun's masterpiece Charley's War was my introduction to things) and while not at all a history it's an interesting take on how subjective the subject is. Is it niche? I'd suppose, but it should make you stop and think about other periods and how they've been interpreted and that's not necessarily a bad thing at all.
November 10, 2013
When Britons talk of World War I they use words like mud, horror, slaughter, futility, unjustified, command incompetence, and redemptive sacrifice. Dan Todman's The Great War: Myth and Memory is an analysis of changes in how the war has been remembered over the last 100 years and how the myth of those ideas has become the dominant way of thinking about the war. Because it wasn't always that way. As Todman explains, in the early 1920s for someone to suggest higher command was at fault or the war effort had been futile would have provoked a sharp disagreement. Today those who argue otherwise are considered ill-informed.
Todman surprised me by insisting one reason for the shift was the poetry of Wilfred Owen. Arguably he was the most influential of the war poets. Unpublished in his own lifetime (he was killed in the closing days of the war), his friend Siegfried Sassoon published the poems in the 20s and 30s. At the same time the poetry was promoted by the poet Edmund Blunden, and he again published them several more times after 1960. Owen's mystical poems of doomed youth, fatalism, waste, and futility captured the public's imagination. And its popularity meant that the poems and their received meaning would be taught in schools and quoted frequently in the television documentaries marking the 50-year anniversary, freighting them with even more influence. That picture the poetry and the documentaries formed became dominant.
The fact the World War II, by comparison, seemed to be a much easier war contributed to the power of the perceived myths of World War I. Particularly meaningful was the fact that combat losses in WWII were half those of WWI, emphasizing the slaughter and what many explained as incompetent leadership in the period of 1914-1918.
After 1945 movies and novels continued to more frequently reflect the growing influence of the public perception so that novels critical of the war became highly successful during the 80s and 90s. Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy and Sebastian Faulks's Birdsong are only 2 of the examples Todman highlights.
Perhaps the single most important counter to the burgeoning strength of the myth was that by the 1970s WWI veterans began to pass away in huge numbers. Many of them, if not most, had not experienced the war in such negative terms. But they were no longer present to tell a different side of the story.
Todman tells us that there are essentially 2 histories of the Great War: a public history composed of popular beliefs emphasizing slaughter, incompetence, and horror, and a political history viewing the war in light of Britain's geopolitical position in which her entry and persistence to the end of the war can be justified as necessary to at least prevent German dominance of the continent, keep free the avenues of British trade with her continental partners, and prevent Germany from establishing a naval presence on the Belgian coast to threaten British control of the Channel. How these perceptions of the history came to be pushed aside as the most important issues of British participation in the war is the thrust of Todman's study.
Todman surprised me by insisting one reason for the shift was the poetry of Wilfred Owen. Arguably he was the most influential of the war poets. Unpublished in his own lifetime (he was killed in the closing days of the war), his friend Siegfried Sassoon published the poems in the 20s and 30s. At the same time the poetry was promoted by the poet Edmund Blunden, and he again published them several more times after 1960. Owen's mystical poems of doomed youth, fatalism, waste, and futility captured the public's imagination. And its popularity meant that the poems and their received meaning would be taught in schools and quoted frequently in the television documentaries marking the 50-year anniversary, freighting them with even more influence. That picture the poetry and the documentaries formed became dominant.
The fact the World War II, by comparison, seemed to be a much easier war contributed to the power of the perceived myths of World War I. Particularly meaningful was the fact that combat losses in WWII were half those of WWI, emphasizing the slaughter and what many explained as incompetent leadership in the period of 1914-1918.
After 1945 movies and novels continued to more frequently reflect the growing influence of the public perception so that novels critical of the war became highly successful during the 80s and 90s. Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy and Sebastian Faulks's Birdsong are only 2 of the examples Todman highlights.
Perhaps the single most important counter to the burgeoning strength of the myth was that by the 1970s WWI veterans began to pass away in huge numbers. Many of them, if not most, had not experienced the war in such negative terms. But they were no longer present to tell a different side of the story.
Todman tells us that there are essentially 2 histories of the Great War: a public history composed of popular beliefs emphasizing slaughter, incompetence, and horror, and a political history viewing the war in light of Britain's geopolitical position in which her entry and persistence to the end of the war can be justified as necessary to at least prevent German dominance of the continent, keep free the avenues of British trade with her continental partners, and prevent Germany from establishing a naval presence on the Belgian coast to threaten British control of the Channel. How these perceptions of the history came to be pushed aside as the most important issues of British participation in the war is the thrust of Todman's study.
August 12, 2024
Picked up this book after reading the author’s long, detailed and fascinating 2 part book on WW2.
I was born a few years after WW2 and although I knew both my grandparents fought in WW1, one in China and the Middle East, my father’s father on the Western Front, I really didn’t know anything about it and it was much discussed in the family or taught at school. WW2 was all pervading. My mother’s father was a regular soldier, he joined up in 1901 in the Supply Corps and went to China in 1912, and he talked about his time in China, but very little about his time during the war. I have since found out that he went to Turkey in 1921 during their civil war. My father’s father never mentioned his experiences, although we presumed that he had been injured as there was a tapestry of the regimental badge hanging near the settee where he sat. The only time he said anything to me was after I had been to a “taster” session with the Royal Engineers, he advised me to keep away.
We were all bought up on the “myths” of WW2, lucky underdog, bravely facing the industrial might of Germany. It wasn’t until university and a history student explained the part Russia has played, especially the Battle of Stalingrad. The remaining myths, and there are many, were explained, mostly in the Todman books mentioned above.
Ah, this book. This is not a history of WW1, but about how the perception of the war has changed over the years as generations pass. There is some explanation of Britain’s entering the war and how the casualty figures became so high, and to a certain extent how this was unavoidable.
Felt it could have been shorter, but the author provides detailed information to fully developed his arguments.
On a personal note, this book was first published in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, and in that period we seem to be making more of Remembrance Sunday than we used to, even though there must be very few survivors of WW2.
In summary, a worthwhile read for anyone interested in how history has treated WW1, but requires concentration, the author is a “serious”, but not dull, historian.
I was born a few years after WW2 and although I knew both my grandparents fought in WW1, one in China and the Middle East, my father’s father on the Western Front, I really didn’t know anything about it and it was much discussed in the family or taught at school. WW2 was all pervading. My mother’s father was a regular soldier, he joined up in 1901 in the Supply Corps and went to China in 1912, and he talked about his time in China, but very little about his time during the war. I have since found out that he went to Turkey in 1921 during their civil war. My father’s father never mentioned his experiences, although we presumed that he had been injured as there was a tapestry of the regimental badge hanging near the settee where he sat. The only time he said anything to me was after I had been to a “taster” session with the Royal Engineers, he advised me to keep away.
We were all bought up on the “myths” of WW2, lucky underdog, bravely facing the industrial might of Germany. It wasn’t until university and a history student explained the part Russia has played, especially the Battle of Stalingrad. The remaining myths, and there are many, were explained, mostly in the Todman books mentioned above.
Ah, this book. This is not a history of WW1, but about how the perception of the war has changed over the years as generations pass. There is some explanation of Britain’s entering the war and how the casualty figures became so high, and to a certain extent how this was unavoidable.
Felt it could have been shorter, but the author provides detailed information to fully developed his arguments.
On a personal note, this book was first published in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, and in that period we seem to be making more of Remembrance Sunday than we used to, even though there must be very few survivors of WW2.
In summary, a worthwhile read for anyone interested in how history has treated WW1, but requires concentration, the author is a “serious”, but not dull, historian.
March 18, 2020
This is a readable and thought-provoking consideration of changing British views of the First World War. The book adopts a thematic approach to analyse these views through attitudes (e.g. futility) and perspectives (e.g. veterans). The judgments are interesting and sound.
There are two slight qualifications. First, the thematic approach does involve some amount of repetition (e.g. I encountered similar discussions of the 1964 TV series "The Great War" in different chapters). Secondly, as this book was published in the early noughties, it naturally misses the war's centenary and the vast amount of attention that the conflict attracted in the past decade.
Nonetheless, Todman offers an important analysis of the way in which the war has been recalled and is thus an important contribution to its historiography.
There are two slight qualifications. First, the thematic approach does involve some amount of repetition (e.g. I encountered similar discussions of the 1964 TV series "The Great War" in different chapters). Secondly, as this book was published in the early noughties, it naturally misses the war's centenary and the vast amount of attention that the conflict attracted in the past decade.
Nonetheless, Todman offers an important analysis of the way in which the war has been recalled and is thus an important contribution to its historiography.
February 25, 2021
It was difficult to rate this work. I thoroughly enjoyed it and found the writing ingenious at times and the points worthwhile and thought-provoking (not to mention well researched!) throughout. By the final chapters, however, I felt as though I was wading through the same territory again unnecessarily many times over; the repetition began to wear on me. I actually had to put it down for a while and reading something else before I was able to pick it up and finish reading it.
May 25, 2022
A very interesting and rewarding perspective on the Great War and how our memory of it has changed and been modelled in response to our own times. Interesting reflections on how the second world war affected attitudes to the first war both in the 1930s and 1950s.
August 6, 2018
Almost equal parts interesting and informative, and wrong-headed and infuriating. The perfect history book!
August 23, 2018
Slightly repetitive cross-chapters but overall very throught provoking on how WWI is studied, discussed and remembered.
July 16, 2012
One of the best histories of the memories of the First World War I have read so far.
The author traces how the image we have today of the Great War took shape in the course of the 20th century. How time, historical events, culture and cultural procucts such as poetry, memoires, history books, novels, television shows, documentaries and movies influenced the view on the war that lives today. The writing style is nuanced without becoming too "academic" and the structure of the book, it is divided thematically (every chapter covers an aspect of the modern idea of WWI) ensures that the reader preserves a good overview of the matter.
The image the British audience has today according to Todman: 'In 1914 the nations of Europe had stumbled into a struggle that no one really wanted, sparked off by a murder in the Balkans that had little relevance to Britain. In response to their countries call to arms a generation of young Britons joined up to fight a war they didn’t understand. They marched off to France and Flanders, leaving behind an idyllic Edawardian age that would never be recaptured. Once there under the command of incompetent commanders, asinine aristrocrats obsessed with cavalry. Safely seconded miles behind the lines, these generals were unable to grasp the realities of the new style of warfare they were facing. Their men were stuck for four years, in the most appaling conditions, living in the trenches scraped into the ground surrounded by mud rats and decaying corpses. Time and time again they were thrown forward in ill conceived assaults, that achieved nothing. They were destroyed almost to the man; those who survived going over the top, were crippled, went mad, or were shot by their own side for desertion.'
The author traces how the image we have today of the Great War took shape in the course of the 20th century. How time, historical events, culture and cultural procucts such as poetry, memoires, history books, novels, television shows, documentaries and movies influenced the view on the war that lives today. The writing style is nuanced without becoming too "academic" and the structure of the book, it is divided thematically (every chapter covers an aspect of the modern idea of WWI) ensures that the reader preserves a good overview of the matter.
The image the British audience has today according to Todman: 'In 1914 the nations of Europe had stumbled into a struggle that no one really wanted, sparked off by a murder in the Balkans that had little relevance to Britain. In response to their countries call to arms a generation of young Britons joined up to fight a war they didn’t understand. They marched off to France and Flanders, leaving behind an idyllic Edawardian age that would never be recaptured. Once there under the command of incompetent commanders, asinine aristrocrats obsessed with cavalry. Safely seconded miles behind the lines, these generals were unable to grasp the realities of the new style of warfare they were facing. Their men were stuck for four years, in the most appaling conditions, living in the trenches scraped into the ground surrounded by mud rats and decaying corpses. Time and time again they were thrown forward in ill conceived assaults, that achieved nothing. They were destroyed almost to the man; those who survived going over the top, were crippled, went mad, or were shot by their own side for desertion.'
November 13, 2014
I honestly did not have high hopes for this as it is a book I am due to use for my exam on WW1 Literature and, it being intended for purely academic use, I can't say I was preparing to be entertained, which I, surprisingly, was. This was not the dull academic text I had anticipated, it was actually a great read which considered many different viewpoints and tried to trace the origins of the general beliefs held about WW1 by the British people and especially how their views have changed overtime. It being concerned with history it can of course be heavy reading at points, especially for someone as me who is a novice when it comes to WW1, but it is interspersed with good facts and the language and style never becomes droll. That all being said, I cannot deny that my absolute favorite part was the references to Blackadder Goes Forth.
March 3, 2014
A look at how the Great War has been remembered over the ~90 years since it was fought (this book was originally published in 2005). Todman examines the "memories" that have become the prevailing symbols of the war: mud, death, incompetence, futility, poets, and veterans. It was interesting to see how the rise and fall of different generations affected the remembrance of the war. (One example: Wilfred Owen, now probably the best-known poet of the First World War and a staple of history/literature lessons on that era, was not very popular until well after the Second World War.)
This book is specifically about the British perspective on the First World War, but of course the questions about history and how events are remembered are also much more broadly applicable.
This book is specifically about the British perspective on the First World War, but of course the questions about history and how events are remembered are also much more broadly applicable.
October 15, 2021
Thoroughly enjoyed this as it comments on something which has always endured in the back of my mind. “How did such ahistorical and depressing notions about the First World War’s purpose and events become so popular?”
I was a bit disappointed by how short the explanations of the poor history of these popular narratives ended up being but I guess there are already other authors which have written about it. The alluring subject matter combined with genuinely engaging writing which is even, sometimes, funny will definitely make this one of my favorite books on the First World War regardless of genre.
I was a bit disappointed by how short the explanations of the poor history of these popular narratives ended up being but I guess there are already other authors which have written about it. The alluring subject matter combined with genuinely engaging writing which is even, sometimes, funny will definitely make this one of my favorite books on the First World War regardless of genre.
Read
September 27, 2015A fine companion piece to Sheffield's, in that it shares many of the same concerns while being willing to work along cultural as well as operational lines in advancing arguments. Todman has done a lot of excellent work on how representations of the war in creative media (see Blackadder, Oh What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and so on) have shaped the public's "memory" of the war itself, and a lot of this work is very much on display here.
October 27, 2010
This book was alright. It was a good history of what the trenches were like for soldiers on the western front in WWI. However, I believe he downplayed the massive amount of death during WWI. He makes a comment throughout the book that there were ONLY 40,000 that died. Well, that is still a heaping pile of dead people. Overall it was good, though.
July 10, 2013
An excellent, well researched and clearly argued reexamination of many of the myths surrounding the Great War. Very readable and with each chapter covering a particular theme, the reader never feels swamped by information overload
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews