A few weeks ago I attended the really excellent London Socialist Historians Group day school “From Imperialist War to Class War” which was both stimulating and informative. I thought it would be useful to write a quick report of the event and a recommendation to attend their future activities, if you’re that way inclined.
There were five speakers who focused on different subject areas. Neil Faulkner gave a strong overview on how the war came about, Megan Truddell spoke about the anti-war movement in Italy and how the fracturing experience effected post-war Italian politics, Ian Birchill spoke mainly about the movement against war in France while George Paizis spoke about the Greek anti-war movement in, mainly, Salonica and Terry Ward had a focus closer to home and was particularly interested in both family histories and leading socialist turned pro-war triumphalist Robert Blatchford.What I liked about Faulkner’s paper was that it was a fresh attempt to create a more integrated, holistic approach to the causes of the war. This means not simply taking a dry appraisal of specific events or the build up of Imperialist war machines, that created an almost inescapable logic for war, but also things like the psychology of the time and how colonialism plus industrialisation plus capitalism created a mindset as well as a politics that allowed not just war to take place but to take place on such an unprecedented scale. It’s hard to understand how millions launched themselves into the slaughter without seeing how fundamentally alienated and brutalised society had become.
I’m not sure I agree with everything he was saying, but that’s what exploring ideas is all about, looking at things in new lights see what shadows they cast. Where I think he was strongest was in talking about how the war was a complete paradigm shift from previous conflicts. While we’d seen certain aspects of the war (trenches, barbed wire, machine guns, mass conscription) prefigured in previous conflicts the First World War brought these elements together in a horrifyingly destructive way. It also helps explain why it required a paradigm shift to end the war. Unusually the war ended while ‘enemy’ troops were still in the countries they had invaded, which reinforces the fact that the war ended because the Russian people ended their war and provided an example across Europe that the slaughter did not have to continue. This is highly unusual.
Ian Birchill pointed us towards Hobsbawm who said that “the whole point of history is to be a pain in bum to national myths”. However, it’s undoubtedly true that when the war began it was greeted by an upsurge in patriotism and ‘war fever’ across society (with notable, honourable exceptions). Burchill put this down to how deeply ingrained imperialism was in the major European powers, the propaganda around things like poor little Belgium and “raped nuns”, genuine physical intimidation making opposing the war a frightening experience, silencing many who had doubts, and a failure of leadership from those who, before the war, you might have expected to provide radical leadership. This not only included socialists like Blatchford, anarchists like Kropotkin and suffragettes like Emmeline Pankhurst but also entire organisations.
In France this included ‘revolutionary syndicalists’ in the CGT union federation which had 300,000 members and, like most of the French left, had opposed the build up to war. Once the German army was on the move however they instantly lost their nerve. This must be at least partly because being invaded is a very different experience than joining a foreign war. Intimidation was also a very real feeling. French socialist leader Jean Jaures (pictured) was assassinated on the eve of war because of his very opposition to the coming war. It was also fueled by a conception that the left should ‘always be with the class’. This led one CGT leader to volunteer for the front – but refuse to carry a gun! Quite what his officers thought of this I’m not sure.
Certainly in the short term this meant that the anti-war movement pretty much melted away as soon as war was declared. However, it’s worth remembering this is a snapshot in time. By the end of the war something like half of the French army had deserted and mutinies and anti-war feeling was at an all time high. This was partly a product of the fact that hundreds of thousands of socialists had earlier filled the ranks of the army – a very different approach than the British Conscientious Objectors.
There were similarities though. The Clarion, the most popular left paper at the time edited by leading socialist Blatchford outright supported the war. Terry Ward quoted one letter from a “Clarionette” saying that he was glad to serve in the army and that if he should die he’d “die a socialist”. This about turn by those many would have been looking to to give a lead against the war meant that many found themselves disorientated and unable to stand against the pro-war tide. At least at the beginning of the war.
These complications were also examined in the discussions on Greece and Italy where previous political allegiances and fissures found the war drive with some unexpected left allies. But it was also true that some nationalists in Greece and the Pope himself in Italy opposed the war giving heart to a great many who thought the slaughter was wrong.
In Italy over five million men were called up, but over 10% were prisoners of war by the end of the conflict. It’s no wonder that there was a general strike in Turin in 1917 and a growing anti-war movement led by women workers, who were often writing to their loved ones at the front encouraging them not to fight.
One lesson from all the papers seemed clear to me. That it is far easier to stop a war before it starts than after the shelling begins. Iraq and Afghanistan today show us that once you’ve plunged yourself into a war getting yourself out of it again can be near impossible – and the Parliamentary vote on Syria shows that it is possible to stop wars before they’ve begun.
It’s clear that the commemorations of the war will be as much about the conflicts of today as they are about remembering and honouring the past. That gives us double the reason to ensure that those who opposed the war then are not forgotten who are part of a tradition that many of us stand in today. As Megan Trudell said the commemorations “will not be over by Christmas” and we are at the start of four years where the past, as well as the present, are contested.