What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War
What was it that the British people believed they were fighting for in 1914–18? This compelling history of the British home front during the First World War offers an entirely new account of how British society understood and endured the war. Drawing on official archives, memoirs, diaries and letters, Adrian Gregory sheds new light on the public reaction to the war, examining the role of propaganda and rumour in fostering patriotism and hatred of the enemy. He shows the importance of the ethic of volunteerism and the rhetoric of sacrifice in debates over where the burdens of war should fall as well as the influence of religious ideas on wartime culture. As the war drew to a climax and tensions about the distribution of sacrifices threatened to tear society apart, he shows how victory and the processes of commemoration helped create a fiction of a society united in grief.
364 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
November 16, 2011
Adrian Gregory takes an iconoclastic approach towards understanding World War I by disabusing many long held notions and traditions within the popular (and in many cases academic) historical narratives. Throughout the book, Gregory tears open the popular imagined canvas of World War I and paints a much more nuanced and complex picture. Gregory argues that prior historians have mistakenly understood the Great War from a post WWII perspective instead of taking it on its own terms. This has unfortunately led to the false positioning of the Great War as “the bad war” in contrast to “the good war” which followed. This complex history reemerges as Gregory investigates the lived experiences of varying classes and identities. For example, the book allots a significant amount of space towards fleshing out working class experiences during WWI. I would recommend this book to a wide spectrum of people, from readers with casual interests in WWI to those working within War and Peace studies. Most importantly, The Last Great War revisits the historiography of WWI pointing out tenuous sources used in the past and offering new explanations along the way.
June 15, 2009
I studied under Gregory, so take this with several pinches of salt, but this book is stunning. It leaves just about every preceding account of First World War Britain--Ferguson, Sheffield, Winter, Hynes, Marwick, even Todman--in the dust.
Gregory's thesis has clear roots in his earlier work on interwar Britain. The Cliffs Notes version is that far from being "alienated" from their indifferent families and friends on the home front, the way the mythology of the war suggests, soldiers became the bedrock of identity for all British civilians during this period, and the soldier's sacrifice (meaning his life) the way everyone else came to measure their relative virtue. Britons found innovative ways--through religion, public policy and economic incentive--to believe that military service was personal salvation. Moreover, they found ways to believe that everyone could achieve something equivalent in civilian life, overcoming, for a time, the resentment that stems from the UNEQUAL way that war deaths were distributed across the country. In other words, they created a myth of social salvation too.
The book is structured thematically, addressing civilian reaction to the outbreak, the role of propaganda, military recruitment, military fundraising, the role of religion, the role of unions, the treatment of widows and veterans and the way the myth of sacrifice/salvation played out in the post-war memorials (Gregory has a separate book, Silence of Memory, that is all about this last theme).
The genius of the book is that this broad thematic take on wartime Britain allows Gregory to more or less encompass the arguments made by all his predecessors without truly "choosing" a school. Everyone else who has written on the war has one factor, from religion to class to culture, they deem paramount as an explanatory tool; Gregory's organizing tool of sacrifice/salvation can be applied to each of those factors. That is not to say that Gregory doesn't take on, and disagree forcefully, with his peers and predecessors. Rather, he earns the credibility to call someone's argument rubbish by taking them on within a multi-faceted argument--he cannot be dismissed as having a one-track mind or one axe to grind of his own. That is perhaps a mark of his maturity. Gregory has worked on this subject and this period for several decades and this book is the culmination of that lifelong research.
Gregory's academic temperament also helps: in each chapter, he takes on the prevailing arguments about that factor or theme, and uses sacrifice/salvation to either corroborate, complicate or debunk it. In almost all cases, he comes down somewhere in the middle, finding merits and flaws in everyone's approach. His language is cautious and hesitant, always "we should not be too quick to generalize from X data." This too increases the weight of his words when in some chapters he lashes out unequivocally against one particular myth. It is refreshing to see this tone in academia, which seems so often polarized between people who have too much agenda and those who have no real ideas at all.
There are bones to pick, to be sure, mostly that despite what appear to be the author's best efforts, the books sometimes falls into certain knee-jerk British patriotic cliches. But these moments are far outweighed by passages that astound with their analytic honesty.
You may think this book is not for everyone since it's serious academic writing, not general interest nonfiction (and does require some background). But to be frank, it often reads easier than much modern fiction. That's because Gregory brings alive the characters of individuals--men, and loads of women--on the street through lengthy quotations from letters, diaries, court and press records. Gregory puts it best himself: he sees social history as "collective biography," an approach that, whatever its academic implications, works as a narrative style.
If you know even a smidge about the First World War or British history and society, this is worth a read.
Gregory's thesis has clear roots in his earlier work on interwar Britain. The Cliffs Notes version is that far from being "alienated" from their indifferent families and friends on the home front, the way the mythology of the war suggests, soldiers became the bedrock of identity for all British civilians during this period, and the soldier's sacrifice (meaning his life) the way everyone else came to measure their relative virtue. Britons found innovative ways--through religion, public policy and economic incentive--to believe that military service was personal salvation. Moreover, they found ways to believe that everyone could achieve something equivalent in civilian life, overcoming, for a time, the resentment that stems from the UNEQUAL way that war deaths were distributed across the country. In other words, they created a myth of social salvation too.
The book is structured thematically, addressing civilian reaction to the outbreak, the role of propaganda, military recruitment, military fundraising, the role of religion, the role of unions, the treatment of widows and veterans and the way the myth of sacrifice/salvation played out in the post-war memorials (Gregory has a separate book, Silence of Memory, that is all about this last theme).
The genius of the book is that this broad thematic take on wartime Britain allows Gregory to more or less encompass the arguments made by all his predecessors without truly "choosing" a school. Everyone else who has written on the war has one factor, from religion to class to culture, they deem paramount as an explanatory tool; Gregory's organizing tool of sacrifice/salvation can be applied to each of those factors. That is not to say that Gregory doesn't take on, and disagree forcefully, with his peers and predecessors. Rather, he earns the credibility to call someone's argument rubbish by taking them on within a multi-faceted argument--he cannot be dismissed as having a one-track mind or one axe to grind of his own. That is perhaps a mark of his maturity. Gregory has worked on this subject and this period for several decades and this book is the culmination of that lifelong research.
Gregory's academic temperament also helps: in each chapter, he takes on the prevailing arguments about that factor or theme, and uses sacrifice/salvation to either corroborate, complicate or debunk it. In almost all cases, he comes down somewhere in the middle, finding merits and flaws in everyone's approach. His language is cautious and hesitant, always "we should not be too quick to generalize from X data." This too increases the weight of his words when in some chapters he lashes out unequivocally against one particular myth. It is refreshing to see this tone in academia, which seems so often polarized between people who have too much agenda and those who have no real ideas at all.
There are bones to pick, to be sure, mostly that despite what appear to be the author's best efforts, the books sometimes falls into certain knee-jerk British patriotic cliches. But these moments are far outweighed by passages that astound with their analytic honesty.
You may think this book is not for everyone since it's serious academic writing, not general interest nonfiction (and does require some background). But to be frank, it often reads easier than much modern fiction. That's because Gregory brings alive the characters of individuals--men, and loads of women--on the street through lengthy quotations from letters, diaries, court and press records. Gregory puts it best himself: he sees social history as "collective biography," an approach that, whatever its academic implications, works as a narrative style.
If you know even a smidge about the First World War or British history and society, this is worth a read.
February 26, 2023
4.5/5 rounding down for Goodreads. If you want an academic book about the WWI British home front I'd say it is worth a go (if you want a lighter read with more personal accounts then All Quiet on the Home Front by Richard Van Emden and Steve Humphries is a good alternative)
The writing is on the academic side but still readable, very little jargon or using dense language. The book is mainly about what motivated British people through the war as well as living standards and economics. The highlights of the book for me were the earlier chapters on beginning of the war and on atrocity propaganda. The chapter on the beginning of the war argues very persuasively IMO that the image of huge enthusiasm for the war is mostly untrue, that nobody believed that it would be a easy war "that'll be over by Christmas", that people recognised how bloody it would be and that the surge of recruitment was less from jingoism and more from unemployment, the sense of danger after the retreat from Mons and the confirmation of separation allowances so men knew their families would have some financial security. The main feeling the author suggests was a mix of sorrow and anger over the war which turned to hatred of Germany for causing it. The atrocity chapter argues that the government and the media (the Daily Mail mainly) didn't set out to deliberately make up atrocity stories and instead genuinely believed what they were reporting, and that the more bizarre stories (German corpse being used in factories for example) were started by the public as urban myths from a lack of info rather than being made up by the press.
The other chapters focus on religion (the only chapter I didn't really like), recruitment and conscription, economics, living standards and working conditions and disputes. These chapters tend to be bit more numbers heavy with lots of percentages and some tables with info on them. The idea of sacrifice is mentioned quite a lot as well, with people on the home front being well aware of what was going on militarily and being willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the soldiers. There is some historiographical discussion and critiques of historians.
The notes section is better than most as instead of just being a list of sources there is also a lot of extra information, debates, caveats etc.
The writing is on the academic side but still readable, very little jargon or using dense language. The book is mainly about what motivated British people through the war as well as living standards and economics. The highlights of the book for me were the earlier chapters on beginning of the war and on atrocity propaganda. The chapter on the beginning of the war argues very persuasively IMO that the image of huge enthusiasm for the war is mostly untrue, that nobody believed that it would be a easy war "that'll be over by Christmas", that people recognised how bloody it would be and that the surge of recruitment was less from jingoism and more from unemployment, the sense of danger after the retreat from Mons and the confirmation of separation allowances so men knew their families would have some financial security. The main feeling the author suggests was a mix of sorrow and anger over the war which turned to hatred of Germany for causing it. The atrocity chapter argues that the government and the media (the Daily Mail mainly) didn't set out to deliberately make up atrocity stories and instead genuinely believed what they were reporting, and that the more bizarre stories (German corpse being used in factories for example) were started by the public as urban myths from a lack of info rather than being made up by the press.
The other chapters focus on religion (the only chapter I didn't really like), recruitment and conscription, economics, living standards and working conditions and disputes. These chapters tend to be bit more numbers heavy with lots of percentages and some tables with info on them. The idea of sacrifice is mentioned quite a lot as well, with people on the home front being well aware of what was going on militarily and being willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the soldiers. There is some historiographical discussion and critiques of historians.
The notes section is better than most as instead of just being a list of sources there is also a lot of extra information, debates, caveats etc.
January 31, 2021
This is a story about England at the outset of the First World War; not the military maneuvering but the impact the war had on the home front.
Our author, Adrian Gregory has the credentials for this job. He is rated one of the best historians of the British Home Front and the social history of the First World War. He is an associate professor of modern history, and a fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
The first point Gregory makes is that it was not a popular idea for England to enter this war. Many debates took place concerning why the war needed to be declared on Germany. Many people felt that the conflict was a European conflict and held little interest to them. Although, there was a sentiment of sympathy with France and a sense of moral obligation.
Gregory chronicles the ongoing debate in the newspapers all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in 1914. At times, the endless quotes become redundant because the point was made that there was division in the Country about entering a European war.
Once war was declared, the English people stepped up and supported the war effort with enthusiasm and enlistments. The trade unions supported the war primarily because it afforded a strong position in dealing with management. Soldiers going to war reduced the size of the labor pool giving unions a position of strength in negotiating the improvement of the lives of members.
Rumors and propaganda became widespread all demonizing the Germans, referred to as the Huns (barbarians). After Germanys attack on Belgium, stories of woman and children being murdered circulated and rumors spread in the pubs and other gathering places throughout the Country. The effect and was to heighten the rage and anger of the population. The news media actively participated in this effort to hate the Hun. Gregory points out that this modern war brought with it changes in how wars were now fought. There was no longer chivalrous war, now it was total war. The English were a little slow in coming to terms with the mass bombings of Cities full of civilians and the use of poison gas in the trenches; but they soon make the adjustment.
The government vigorously worked the population to a fever pitch. Lots of rumor and propaganda, but the pressure was also internal. Men were under great pressure to enlist from family, friends, girlfriends and mothers, employers, and government. When all the men in a town enlisted to resist made a person an outcast in their village, group, school, or club. The military used this pressure to get enlistments even offering to have groups stay together and it worked, yet this caused the death tolls to appear to be unequal at times. Battalions with a lopsided number of soldiers from one town or village could cause unequal losses in those towns or villages.
The sinking of the Lusitania is an example of propaganda. The Lusitania was a passenger liner sunk by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland. The U-boat killed 2000 British civilians. Gregory tells us that this sinking shocked England and America. Both governments made great use of this incident calling it a barbarian attack by immoral Huns. But what Gregory does not discuss is the likelihood, that Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty was largely responsible for the sinking, not by any action of his but by inaction. He knew about the danger and there were several actions he should have taken which would have avoided the disaster, yet some believe that he deliberately did nothing. It was well known during the war that the British were shipping arms on passenger liners. The German government issued warnings that these liners were liable to be sunk. It is also known that Churchill hoped German attacks on merchant shipping would bring America into the war. Gregory clearly shows the government use of this tragedy as a weapon to galvanize the English people but does not mention that the government may have contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania.
Gregory discusses the issue of voluntary enlistment, but this reviewer sees the same issues present in all the Countries involved. How to get eligible men into uniform requires great effort by Government. Administrations had to be established to register volunteers. They had to seek out slackers, particularly after compulsory service was mandated. Appeals had to be heard regarding requests for exemption. Gregory explains these issues and provides a great deal of data on a county-by-county basis. Unless a reader has a need for this information, the reading becomes monotonous. The discussion of enlistment goes on for a full chapter. Gregory uses statistics and comparisons of counties and regions, for instance, Scotland has the most enlistments and the greatest death toll in all Great Britain. This data becomes pointless because the issues are not unique; every Country experience the same issues administering a war.
I believe that Gregory did his best work on the chapters regarding religion and labor. The old saying is there are no atheist in the trench. The people at home and the soldiers themselves prayed for their safe return and this is true on both sides of the trench. The clergy prayed for victory believing that God was on their side and prayed for the safe return of their soldiers. When a family experienced loose was it Gods will? The churches had trouble answering this question. Many a grieving family became quite cynical about church and God after their loses and Gregory described it well breaking the issues down by Religious affiliation and location.
Trade unions were mentioned earlier but Gregory went further to describe working conditions of the war time labor force. Twelve-hour days seven days a week were the norm and while take home pay increased so did the cost of living with ever increasing shortages of food and clothing. Employers and Government encouraged greater effort by pointing to the soldiers at the front needing the materials to fight the war, trying to keep the citizens at home working to always increase output.
The religion and labor issues only intensified as the war years increased strikes and slowdowns began in 1917 and 1918 calling for the end of this war. Church attendance slowed and Gods will did not appear to be the correct answer after a while.
Ultimately peace comes in November of 1918, but the suffering of the population did not end. There were shortages of just about everything. Anger at the government and the Germans raged.
Our author described how families wanted their dead sons returned and how the government made probably a good decision to not return them but to instead set up cemeteries in Europe. They also made a controversial decision to have the grave sites uniform with a simple cross. This caused outrage in the still grieving families. I had a special interest in this subject because my grandfather was a doughboy and he was involved in contacting American families asking if they wanted their dead sons returned or interned in American cemeteries in Europe. Americans got a choice, the English did not.
Gregory’s prose made this book a tough read at times. His propensity to go on and on with graphs and charts did become tiresome, yet he did have his moments that made the read worthwhile.
Our author, Adrian Gregory has the credentials for this job. He is rated one of the best historians of the British Home Front and the social history of the First World War. He is an associate professor of modern history, and a fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
The first point Gregory makes is that it was not a popular idea for England to enter this war. Many debates took place concerning why the war needed to be declared on Germany. Many people felt that the conflict was a European conflict and held little interest to them. Although, there was a sentiment of sympathy with France and a sense of moral obligation.
Gregory chronicles the ongoing debate in the newspapers all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in 1914. At times, the endless quotes become redundant because the point was made that there was division in the Country about entering a European war.
Once war was declared, the English people stepped up and supported the war effort with enthusiasm and enlistments. The trade unions supported the war primarily because it afforded a strong position in dealing with management. Soldiers going to war reduced the size of the labor pool giving unions a position of strength in negotiating the improvement of the lives of members.
Rumors and propaganda became widespread all demonizing the Germans, referred to as the Huns (barbarians). After Germanys attack on Belgium, stories of woman and children being murdered circulated and rumors spread in the pubs and other gathering places throughout the Country. The effect and was to heighten the rage and anger of the population. The news media actively participated in this effort to hate the Hun. Gregory points out that this modern war brought with it changes in how wars were now fought. There was no longer chivalrous war, now it was total war. The English were a little slow in coming to terms with the mass bombings of Cities full of civilians and the use of poison gas in the trenches; but they soon make the adjustment.
The government vigorously worked the population to a fever pitch. Lots of rumor and propaganda, but the pressure was also internal. Men were under great pressure to enlist from family, friends, girlfriends and mothers, employers, and government. When all the men in a town enlisted to resist made a person an outcast in their village, group, school, or club. The military used this pressure to get enlistments even offering to have groups stay together and it worked, yet this caused the death tolls to appear to be unequal at times. Battalions with a lopsided number of soldiers from one town or village could cause unequal losses in those towns or villages.
The sinking of the Lusitania is an example of propaganda. The Lusitania was a passenger liner sunk by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland. The U-boat killed 2000 British civilians. Gregory tells us that this sinking shocked England and America. Both governments made great use of this incident calling it a barbarian attack by immoral Huns. But what Gregory does not discuss is the likelihood, that Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty was largely responsible for the sinking, not by any action of his but by inaction. He knew about the danger and there were several actions he should have taken which would have avoided the disaster, yet some believe that he deliberately did nothing. It was well known during the war that the British were shipping arms on passenger liners. The German government issued warnings that these liners were liable to be sunk. It is also known that Churchill hoped German attacks on merchant shipping would bring America into the war. Gregory clearly shows the government use of this tragedy as a weapon to galvanize the English people but does not mention that the government may have contributed to the sinking of the Lusitania.
Gregory discusses the issue of voluntary enlistment, but this reviewer sees the same issues present in all the Countries involved. How to get eligible men into uniform requires great effort by Government. Administrations had to be established to register volunteers. They had to seek out slackers, particularly after compulsory service was mandated. Appeals had to be heard regarding requests for exemption. Gregory explains these issues and provides a great deal of data on a county-by-county basis. Unless a reader has a need for this information, the reading becomes monotonous. The discussion of enlistment goes on for a full chapter. Gregory uses statistics and comparisons of counties and regions, for instance, Scotland has the most enlistments and the greatest death toll in all Great Britain. This data becomes pointless because the issues are not unique; every Country experience the same issues administering a war.
I believe that Gregory did his best work on the chapters regarding religion and labor. The old saying is there are no atheist in the trench. The people at home and the soldiers themselves prayed for their safe return and this is true on both sides of the trench. The clergy prayed for victory believing that God was on their side and prayed for the safe return of their soldiers. When a family experienced loose was it Gods will? The churches had trouble answering this question. Many a grieving family became quite cynical about church and God after their loses and Gregory described it well breaking the issues down by Religious affiliation and location.
Trade unions were mentioned earlier but Gregory went further to describe working conditions of the war time labor force. Twelve-hour days seven days a week were the norm and while take home pay increased so did the cost of living with ever increasing shortages of food and clothing. Employers and Government encouraged greater effort by pointing to the soldiers at the front needing the materials to fight the war, trying to keep the citizens at home working to always increase output.
The religion and labor issues only intensified as the war years increased strikes and slowdowns began in 1917 and 1918 calling for the end of this war. Church attendance slowed and Gods will did not appear to be the correct answer after a while.
Ultimately peace comes in November of 1918, but the suffering of the population did not end. There were shortages of just about everything. Anger at the government and the Germans raged.
Our author described how families wanted their dead sons returned and how the government made probably a good decision to not return them but to instead set up cemeteries in Europe. They also made a controversial decision to have the grave sites uniform with a simple cross. This caused outrage in the still grieving families. I had a special interest in this subject because my grandfather was a doughboy and he was involved in contacting American families asking if they wanted their dead sons returned or interned in American cemeteries in Europe. Americans got a choice, the English did not.
Gregory’s prose made this book a tough read at times. His propensity to go on and on with graphs and charts did become tiresome, yet he did have his moments that made the read worthwhile.
December 5, 2023
Very readable for an academic text, which is unusual.
Gregory examines the effect of the War on British society. Each chapter addresses a different aspect of the war and the immediate post-war period. He challenges much of the standard discourse through data and first-person accounts. Readers will come away with a deeper understanding of the war. For my part, I will be using it as a reference for my future stories and novels about the war.
Gregory examines the effect of the War on British society. Each chapter addresses a different aspect of the war and the immediate post-war period. He challenges much of the standard discourse through data and first-person accounts. Readers will come away with a deeper understanding of the war. For my part, I will be using it as a reference for my future stories and novels about the war.
January 26, 2022
This provides a really excellent unpacking of the myths and misconceptions of how British society reacted to The Great War and lived with the realities and aftermath of the War.
Want to Read
February 27, 2023Looking for a cultural history perspective of WWI and not a military one only. This seems to fit the bill 🤔🤔🤞🤞
March 13, 2024
se hace un poco pesadito, pero tenía que leerlo para el tfm...
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews