Volume 41 Number 4 Article 2 June 2013 Remembrance and Research: Some Reflections on a endingP Centenary Keith C. Sewell Dordt College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation Sewell, Keith C. (2013) "Remembrance and Research: Some Reflections on a Pending Centenary," Pro Rege: Vol. 41: No. 4, 7 - 15. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol41/iss4/2 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Remembrance and Research: Some Reflections on a Pending Centenary perhaps even the coldness of the grave. Over the years the selection of musical compo- sitions played on this occasion has become fixed by tradition. Prior to the National Anthem comes a majestic paraphrase of Psalm 90, “O God our Help in Ages Past,” by Isaac Watts (1674-1748), sung to the tune “St. Anne,” by William Croft (1678-1727). A short while before this, the movement “Nimrod,” by Edward Elgar (1857-1934), from the work gener- ally known as “The Enigma Variations,” is played.1 In the complete work, the eighth variation is light, pleasant, and happy, remarkably congruent with the (not exactly accurate) popular image of the sup- by Keith C. Sewell posedly halcyon days of the pre-1914 Edwardian era. This variation elides on a single note, held by The scene is the Cenotaph, in Whitehall, the first violin, into the ninth, and most famous London, on the eleventh of November. Year after variation of the entire work: “Nimrod.” From its year, from 1919 onwards, the monarch, other mem- hushed beginning, this variation develops a theme bers of the British royal family, the holders of high that is at once dignified, glorious, and majestic yet office, and many others remember in solemn cer- never without pathos. Depending on place and emony those lost in the great conflicts that started circumstance, the effect can be powerful—but it in 1914 and 1939. November 11 is the anniversary does not last. The conclusion is a rapiddiminuendo , of the signing of the armistice in 1918. The second which may be taken, in retrospect, as evocative of great conflict brought no change to the annual the rapid fading of British power in the twentieth day of remembrance—it was, for many, a dreadful century. continuation of the first. The sky is often grey and All such ceremonies of remembrance mourn chilly, as if to suggest an approaching bleakness, or those lost by war, but in Great Britain, that mourn- ing tends to merge with an unstated regret for a Dr. Keith C. Sewell is emeritus professor of history, of loss of greatness, habitually perceived, even today, Dordt College, living in Melbourne, Australia. in imperial terms. This discussion will probe the Pro Rege—June 2013 7 relationship between British imperialism and the Excellency at once began a harangue which lasted origins of the war of 1914. I will argue that the for about twenty minutes. He said that the step tak- roots of Great Britain’s involvement in this colos- en by His Majesty’s [British] Government was ter- sal tragedy owed more to the consequences of her rible to a degree, just for a word ‘neutrality,’ a word imperial ambition than those at countless remem- which in wartime had so often been disregarded— brance ceremonies generally appreciate. just for a scrap of paper, Great Britain was going to I can remember the Armistice Day ceremony make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing in Whitehall, London, in 1964. That year was par- better than to be friends with her.”8 The “scrap of ticularly poignant, being the fiftieth anniversary of paper” remark, which very quickly found its way the outbreak of the Great War in 1914—the con- into the British press, was used to substantiate the flict into which the United States was eventually view that Germany alone disregarded the rights of drawn, in 1917. Next year, the centenary of the out- neutrals as insignificant and was responsible for break of what came to be called “the Great War” the outbreak of war. Of course, and without ques- can be expected to be particularly evocative. My tion, Germany ought not to have violated Belgian grandfather, George H. Sewell (1872-1927), fought neutrality, even though there are indications that against “Fritz” on the western front for four years. France also would have contemplated doing so, un- If he had been asked why Great Britain and the der force of circumstances. In the case of “the scrap then British Empire were locked in such a deadly of paper,” it transpired that many members of the struggle with Germany, he would probably have re- Berlin diplomatic corps had recently seen a play en- plied, using an expression of the day, “to save little titled Les Pattes de Mouche, in which a small piece Belgium.” of paper is not at all insignificant, but something This sentiment is understandable, given that the upon which everything turns.9 German advance through Belgium, in egregious In practice, the truth can be much harder to violation of Belgium’s internationally recognized establish than is generally realized; moreover, at- neutrality, gave the British government the grounds tempts to displace entrenched versions of events, needed—not least in the eyes of the British pub- especially where immense suffering and loss have lic—to enter the conflict as an ally of France and been involved, are always liable to encounter resis- Russia, on August 4, 1914. Shortly before, the tance. Unsurprisingly, governments tend to be ex- British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey (1862- traordinarily anxious to ensure that their version of 1933),2 when addressing the House of Commons, events is the constantly reiterated received version had made Belgium a pivotal point.3 Yet “saving little of events. Not only do they have a case to uphold Belgium” was no ready and simple justification, as amid the comity of nations, but in the age of de- Jonathan Helmreich has indicated.4 On the brink mocracy, they also have a cause to maintain in the of war, Grey’s policies provoked the resignation eyes of their own populations, especially when a of cabinet ministers Viscount John Morley (1838- conflict becomes protracted and costly. 1923) and John Burns (1858-1943).5 Cautionary The First World War was no exception. From and prescient editorials in the Manchester Guardian August 1914 onwards, the combatants published called for Great Britain to refrain from participa- their variously colored selections of documents, tion in the unfolding calamity.6 each tending toward self-vindication—Great Indeed, the more we explore the origins of this Britain (blue), France (yellow), Belgium (grey), dreadful conflict, the more we find that easy -as Germany (white), Austria Hungary (red), Serbia sumptions fade and presumed certainties are com- (blue), and Russia (orange). All too soon it became promised. The experience of Sir Edward Goschen clear that the war would not be over by Christmas (1847-1924), the British Ambassador in Berlin 1914. As the agonies of loss and rigors of depri- from 1908 to 1914, is a case in point. After his fi- vation became protracted, increasingly virulent, nal interview with German Chancellor Theobold state-sponsored propaganda ensured that animos- von Bethmann-Hollweg (1856-1921),7 Goschen re- ity deepened to hatred. It became imperative to en- ported, “I found the Chancellor very agitated. His sure that the “home front” be constantly engaged 8 Pro Rege—June 2013 and energized. This mood required that all bel- that were imposed on Germany exacted from her ligerents wage multi-faceted publicity campaigns an acknowledgement of her presumed war guilt, to fortify and “inform” their populations. These which in turn constituted the basis on which sub- efforts ranged from crude propaganda to careful stantial reparations were levied. It was a punishing argument. The British position was presented by peace.13 The German delegation to Paris was denied James Wycliffe Headlam-Morley (1863-1929), in a the opportunity to engage in genuine negotiations work entitled The History of Twelve Days–July 24th and obliged to sign the treaty under threat and to August 4, 1914.10 force of circumstances. In Germany, the treaty was experienced both as a Diktat and as grossly unjust. It encumbered the new German republic—known The roots of Great Britain’s to history as the “Weimar Republic”—with the odium of shame and defeat. involvement in this colossal Although beset by many internal tensions, the tragedy owed more to the Weimar Republic resolved to refute the thesis of consequences of her imperial paramount German war guilt by a massive pub- lication of archival material. The result was Die ambition than those at Grosse Politik der Europäische Kabinette, 1871-1914 countless remembrance (40 volumes), which appeared between 1922 and ceremonies generally 1927.14 In 1928 Austrian scholarship produced the Oesterreich-Ungarns Aussenpolitik (8 volumes, dated appreciate. 1929), covering the years 1908-1914, to parallel the German series. The French government responded with its Documents Diplomatiques Français, 1871- Headlam-Morley’s “Preface” framed the per- 1914 (Series I, 16 volumes, Series II, 14 volumes, ceptions of his readers by focusing on Prussia and Series III, 11 volumes), from 1929 onwards. These the actions of Frederick the Great. Thus contextu- sequences are of undoubted importance for histo- alized, his discussion proceeded to a step by step ac- rians. In the post-Tsarist Soviet Union, some ma- count of recent events, based on the various govern- terial appeared in 106 issues of the Krasnyi Archiv mental “colored books.” Great Britain appeared as between 1922 and 1941.