Since the start of WW1.

Seems odd considering that I'm a child of the '90s, but it's a difficult concept for me to grasp. 100 years (94 since 1914) is a loooong time (at least in relation to a human lifespan), and yet we see photos and footage of the trenches, the tanks, artillery, mechanized war, and you think... it doesn't seem nearly as old as 100 years.

Perhaps it's because I grew up in an era where at least some WW1 veterans were/are still alive. It's fascinating how human mindset can obstruct fact; 'WW1 wasn't that long ago because they had technology we have improvements of today' etc etc...

Anyone feel the same way? I was interested...

P.S. It also rather interests me to think of the fact that I'm gonna really feel the length that the war lasted - I'm gonna spend 4 years - 4 years - being constantly reminded (and rightly so) by the media of 100th anniversaries of famous battles, events etc... The Somme 100th anniversary will be quite something. Hard to imagine what the atmosphere of the country will be like during those 4 years.

An 18 year old soldier at the beginning of WWII would now be 86 or 87, depending on the month they were born...
Now there's food for thought..

Craig. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:


I have done exactly that recently-ish...which in answer to your question Doug is what got me thinking...

beaky wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 8:54am:


I have remnants of my great-grandfather's services in WW1 - apparently he was a merchant vessel captain or officer (I think) and quite recently my grandfather gave me a book dating from the time of WW1 containing instructions to merchant vessels in time of war. It's weighted with lead so that if the ship was being captured or sunk the book could be thrown over the side and it would sink, thus meaning it wouldn't fall into German hands... his dad (my great-grandad) was issued it, at the end of the war he was presented with it as a memoir when it was declassified, and it's been in the family since. It's incredible... you hear all about the war, zig-zagging in submarine areas, etc from second hand sources, and here I am holding a book that is genuine and real and comes from that era.

It contains a hell of a lot of complicated information such as various recommended zig-zag courses for different situations... quite an incredible item. It shall be much treasured I am sure.

spitfire boy wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 10:29am:


That's cool... my grampa had his unit's war journal, written by the chaplain and hardbound in many copies for those who wanted one. I never did read the whole thing, but it was very interesting despite being filled with a lot of mundane observations.
  Not sure which vulture- er, family member got ahold of that when my grandmother passed away... but I have a few war items that he gave me himself: his little shaving mirror, a bullet casing, and best of all, the small 48-star flag he carried with him on his little vacation through the mud and ruins of 1918 France.

C wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 8:04am:

Indeed. It was more common in WWI.

Things were a lot different then. I often wonder if young boys would do the same thing today.

Among those hoping to join up were thousands of boys, some as young as 13 and 14. Recruiting sergeants, who were paid for every man who signed up, were more than willing to turn a blind eye to lads who were keen to enlist but who were palpably underage. Too often a boy, in his innocence, would admit to being 16 only to be told, 'Go walk round the building, and see if you are not 19 when you get back.' Most took the hint.

During the Great War, at least 250,000 underage boys enlisted in the British Army, of whom perhaps half were killed or wounded.
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/boysoldiers.html

Hagar wrote on Jan 14^th, 2008 at 8:16am:


Speaking from the perspective of a 14-year old... I don't reckon most would. Reason; because WW1 and WW2 happened, and so much is known about them as common knowledge.

H wrote on Jan 20^th, 2008 at 8:28am:


But that doesn't really explain war-fever....why rush to join up because there's a war on? The fact is that military join-ups surged during the early period of WW1 despite all those financial benefits you mentioned having been available in the preceding peacetime as well as wartime. Basically this means that it must have been the war, not the benefits, that spurred so many to join, because if it had been the benefits, such a surge would have occurred in peacetime.

I guess some blame has to be attributed to the surrounding culture - like you mentioned, the military was viewed as a path to glory. In reality it turned out in most cases to be a (very short) path to an agonizing gruesome death.