The Great War, as it was known at the time (also the 'Great European War' or 'Great War for Freedom') was the defining experience of the 20th century for Britain and its people. It had an impact on society, politics, literature, even on humour, that was to last through to the end of the century and beyond. The Britain that went to war in 1914 was still, in essence, the Britain of Queen Victoria, strong in its confidence and self-belief. The British believed in their moral virtue, as well as in their economic and political strength, so the scale of loss of military setbacks that British forces encountered in the war came as a profound shock.
Nor was it only British troops who fought for Britain (or England, as it was commonly referred to at the time): Britain's empire rallied to the Mother Country's call. Troops from as far afield as Canada, the West Indies, the Pacific islands, New Zealand, Australia, India, Burma, and all over the African continent, fought under the Union Jack on land, on the sea or in the air. Irishmen who in 1914 had been preparing for war with each other put their quarrels on hold and fought alongside each other on the Western Front, where two Indian divisions were also fighting. The experience of the war raised political expectations in Britain's overseas territories: both Ireland and India hoped for some form of self-rule at the end of the war, while the Dominions developed a strong sense of national self-worth after fighting alongside the British and proving their value as allies.
Meanwhile, at home the British were undergoing a veritable social revolution. The demands of war required the mobilisation of the whole nation on a scale never experienced before. From the start, Kitchener had seen the need for a huge citizen army, far larger than any Britain had sent to war in the past. To support it, British women, already making considerable strides towards social and political emancipation, would need to take over many previously male roles in the economy, working in factories and in the fields, keeping public services going, even substituting for footballers away at the Front. At the end of the war, the dead were to be buried in a new spirit of democracy: gone were the elaborate memorials to the rich or the common pit for the common soldiers; instead every soldier, regardless of military or social rank, was to be buried under a headstone of uniform design, the officer next to the private soldier. Had the war helped to transform the British into a more democratic people?
Much public discussion of the war has focused on the quality of British military leadership and the allegations that the British army was poorly led by generals with no concern for the lives of their men. This view has been hotly disputed by historians in recent years, though the familiar version continues to dominate public perceptions of the war. It is certainly true that the Great War produced no new Marlborough or Wellington, though many historians now recognise Haig as a much abler and more successful commander than the caricature picture of him would suggest.
Nevertheless, the war did produce memorable disasters, such as the catastrophic first day of the Battle of the Somme or the deadly quagmire of Passchendaele. How, then, should we regard the British generals of the Great War?
Since 1918, the Great War has dominated our memory of the 20th century. Even after the Second World War, it has continued to shape the forms of public remembrance and memorial of the dead of all wars. The works of the war poets are justly famous around the world and they prefigure later works of biting satire. How has our memory of the Great War changed over time? To what extent has the process of Remembrance shown the Great War to have been a social revolution?
