[Call me naive, but I'm constantly surprised at how persistent and hard-edged the British class system is. I've been reading about World War I recently, and I don't know which is more amazing: the cavalier attitude shown by the British high command in sending troops to be slaughtered, or the troops' ready willingness to be slaughtered. A revealing look at this mutual madness appears in this excerpt from _Blighty_ by Gerard J. DeGroot (source: http://www.aftermath.ladybarn.co.uk/degroot.html)]
In the army's social order, [BEF Commander in Chief Field Marshall Douglas] Haig was almost the equivalent of royalty. Like present-day royals, he was not expected to show humanity or familiarity, therefore the effect was all the greater when he did. Reverence was encouraged by the mystery, pageantry and pomp which senior commanders cultivated. Visual symbols of power reinforced authority: the commander's dress and deportment under-lined his superiority and inspired common soldiers to trust in his leadership. Ordinary soldiers who saw Haig at all saw him on a tall, handsome horse or in an impressive car. His uniform was perfectly appointed and his hat shielded his gaze - thus preventing eye contact and accentuating the distance between him and them. 'I remember being asked on leave what the men thought of Haig', one soldier recalled. 'You might as well have asked the private soldier what he thinks of God. He knows about the same amount on each.' C. E. Carrington, who knew the ordinary soldier well, argued: 'The problem of Haig's personality is not whether his grand tactics . . . were right or wrong; it is how he was able to retain the loyalty of his troops, as he did in 1917, and in 1918, and until his life's end.' Most ex-soldiers heartily welcomed Haig's Honorary Presidency of the British Legion. When Haig died in 1928, the crowds lining the streets of Edinburgh and London as the cortege passed were nearly as large as those for a deceased monarch. Prominent in the crowd were many old soldiers.
Senior officers were under no illusion that this was a democratic war which required them to share the suffering of their men. Along with power went privilege. The fact that his men slept in muddy holes was no reason for Haig to decline a soft bed in a luxurious château. Grouse, salmon, fine wines and the best brandy were sent to him by rich friends at home. Nor did he perceive anything wrong with sending whole lambs and butter from the army stores to his wife so that she would not have to endure food shortages. Luxuries were the confirmation of high authority. In the same sense, extravagant rewards were perfectly justifiable after the war. Already in 1916, Haig assured his wife that 'a grateful nation will not allow me to have a smaller income than I am receiving now! So we will be well enough off to make ourselves comfortable.' Few objections were raised about the luxuries Haig enjoyed during the war, or the rewards he received after it. These were the accepted standards of his class and rank. Greater restraint would have seemed peculiar.
Carl
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.