606: A Bit "Previous" - The First World War

In a post here two years ago concerning the marking of the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, I wrote the following:

And reflecting on the saturation coverage makes me tremble when I ponder what extraordinary levels of excess the world's media will reach when we arrive at the 100th anniversary of the start of the "War to end all wars."

Well, well.  My understanding is that the BBC is planning four years of coverage - coverage which, rather like this post has begun early.

Given my well-known reactionary views, I am concerned that there will be a great deal of revisionist rubbish written - this perfectly natural suspicion having been reinforced by the BBC's publishing of a piece written by one Dr Gary Sheffield.  Dr Sheffield's piece ends with the following paragraph:

Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse.

Whilst I accept that the point might be arguable, I consider this statement to be bollocks.    Several historians have opined (sorry I do not have the sources) that had the "Miracle of the Marne"  not occurred and in consequence, the Imperial German Army had taken Paris in 1914, then there would have been an armistice, some minor adjustments of borders perhaps and everyone would have gone home - at least in the West.  Then what? No bloody Lenin and his genocidal successor, no bloody Hitler, maybe no ghastly slump etc., etc.

Further the article repeatedly drones on about "democracy" which is a word, as holy today (almost anyway) as "Issslaaam"  (a funny point in itself, on reflection).  The implication that somehow the Allies were "fighting for democracy" is at the very least mischievous, if not downright erroneous.

The Allies, and indeed the Central Powers, were fighting because the whole of pre-war Europe was, as a result of complex alliances, a powder-keg waiting for a spark to set it off.  I will concede that the self-aggrandising character of Kaiser Wilhelm II and his unwillingness to restrain Austria were major contributing factors.

I consider the First World War ultimately to have been a tragic failure of diplomacy, not of democracy!

Finally, try to find the time to read this piece.  It was written in 1928 by Arthur (later Lord) Ponsonby, a Labour politician and incidentally father of tragic "bright young thing" Elizabeth Ponsonby.  Ponsonby's piece puts the lie to many myths about the war.  Myths have a knack of being very persistent - think of King Richard III...

Until the next time.

605: Voices: A Treat for MY Ears

Many a time and oft I have complained in my usual pedantic style about the decline of standards in the use of English - for example, HERE.

As an antidote, and with my grateful thanks for the power of the Internet, here, a couple of examples of the sort of spoken English that is seldom heard indeed these days, more the pity.

Truly a joy to my ears.

First an amusing anecdote from the highly-talented novelist and biographer, Nancy Mitford:

And to follow, the velvety though frail voice of  Virginia Woolf, recorded in 1937:

How I wish I could hear voices like these today.

Compare and contrast with e.g. Russell Brand or Jonathan Ross or that awful female continuity announcer (anaancah?) on what she calls 'BayBaySayToe'. Credit where it's due: Stephen Fry can speak properly, but the problems lie elsewhere - for example the cretins he employs on his television programme, in particular that tit in the lumberjack shirt, but also all those horrible socialist so-called comedians

I was born too late, much too late.

Until the next time.

604: A Bizarre 15 Minutes or So.

This gem I found today in the course of an Internet trawl, which began with Nancy Mitford, via Nancy Cunard, Virginia Woolf and one or two other twentieth-century luminaries.  Thus I came across those inimitable Bloomsberries fooling about at Lytton Strachey's house, Ham Spray.

The films were made by Beakus Penrose, younger brother of famous art expert and artist, Sir Roland Penrose and sometime lover of artist Dora Carrington who plays a prominent role in the films - you'll see her enjoying a ride on a white horse and you'll also see Strachey himself (Eminent Victorians, Queen Victoria etc.) leaning out of an upstairs window.  The film is also graced by the presence of a fine tabby cat...

Enjoy it!

Until the next time.

603: Even Blacker

Today is 26th January, the blackest day in the year, even blacker than 19th January and 14th February.

If you have been, thank you for reading this - oh and thanks to the Lord Jesus as well (not); fairy tales are no consolation.

And it's raining too.

Until the next time

602: More Nonsense

A veritable waste of news space, this one.

Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich's girlfriend was photographed sitting on a chair made in the form of a black woman dressed in "bondage gear."

Shock horror, outrage has ensued (pathetic).

Here's an extract from the BBC article:

Cosmopolitan's pop culture editor, Alex Rees, said on the fashion magazine's website: "I would go so far as to say that certain things (like this) just shouldn't exist.

"But if they must, so that people can feel edgy or provocative or, you know, racist, they really shouldn't be photographed and uploaded onto the Internet - and especially not on Martin Luther King, Jr Day."

Rees noted the chair resembled a 1967 sculpture, entitled Chair, by British pop artist Allen Jones, which features a white woman.

In her apology, Zhukova writes: "This photograph, which has been published completely out of context, is of an art work intended specifically as a commentary on gender and racial politics. I utterly abhor racism, and would like to apologise to anyone who has been offended by this image."

What a load of trivial bollocks.  What if the figure had been the proverbial white, middle-class male, dressed say as a bank manager?

Absolute rubbish - just like another article on today's BBC news site about Australians (called "Aussies") in the piece which refers to Britons as "Brits."  I suppose that a piece about "Pakis" would be off the menu?  Double standards?  I hate 'em.

Until the next time

601: Another Grim Anniversary

Yes, the second: 19th January.

It doesn't get any better; sums it all up really.

Until the next time