Paxman sounds as if he’s tired of the whole bally lot of ’em…the peace loving lefties who roam the corridors of the BBC spreading peace and joy….through self-indulgent appeasement.
Jeremy Paxman: why we would not fight the Great War now
BBC broadcaster Jeremy Paxman suggests Britain is too self-obsessed and hedonistic to become involved in a conflict like the First World War
A conflict like the First World War could not happen in today’s “materialistic, self-obsessed, hedonistic” society because of the decline of the traditional notion of “duty” and the influence of social media, Jeremy Paxman has suggested.
The broadcaster and historian said it was now hard to imagine what members of a younger generation would fight for, and for which “noble causes” they would risk their lives.
Arguing the idea of “duty” had now diminished in favour of “personal freedom”, he said exposure to war in an era of 24-hour, high definition news meant people would not put up with such a conflict.
Speaking of the influence of social media, he added: “I suspect that there would have been so many tweets and so many Snapchat-ed photos of trench digging that public opinion would have caused an end to the business. The trench would never be dug.”
Speaking at the Emirates Airlines Festival of Literature in Dubai this weekend, he also argued there were now fundamental misunderstandings in the way most people viewed the First World War.
Suggesting that some of the war’s best-loved poetry, such as that by Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, was “part of the problem”, he claimed many now unfairly saw the conflict through a prism of “prejudices” about inept generals and wasted lives.
Paxman, who puts across his theories in his latest book Great Britain’s Great War and an accompanying BBC series, said he hoped to change perceptions, but admits he would be a “fool” to expect to do so single-handedly.
“Forget the poems, forget Oh! What a Lovely War, forget Blackadder. Engage with the lives of those who took part in it and think, ‘What would I have done?’,” he said of how best to study the conflict.
“The events now are so built upon by writers and attitudinisers and propaganda that the actual events seem submerged.
“So what I wanted to do was re-engage with the events themselves. How did they seem to people at the time?”
Paxman, the presenter of Newsnight and University Challenge, told an audience in Dubai that while he “loved” the poetry of the First World War, he believed it was “part of the problem”.
He added the “difficulty” of modern education is that so much of the First World War is “taught only as poetry and not as history”. “An attitude is imbibed from those poems which I don’t think represents the reality of it for most,” he said.
“I think the reason [poetry] is of interest is that it conforms with our prejudices to see the whole thing as a terrible pointless sacrifice. It was a terrible sacrifice, sure, and the story it was fought for democracy and so on I don’t think stacks up.
“But I think that the idea that the whole thing was a conspiracy to throw away young lives is perpetuated by the poets, and actually there’s much more to it than that.”
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, he added: “I always ask myself what would I have done. And I worry whether I would have acquitted myself well enough.”
When asked whether it would be possible for such a conflict to exist today, Paxman argued: “I have no doubt whatsoever that such a war could not be fought today, for a number of reasons.
“We have grown up in an environment in which the greatest premium is put on personal freedom. Great value, we are told living in a western democracy, is that you can do as you please. It’s a much more difficult challenge to manage that sort of society than the generation that grew up during the First World War.
“The second reason is probably that ideas of duty, clearly strongly felt by many people, have diminished as the international significance of the country has diminished.
“Thirdly, there’s exposure: we have become accustomed to seeing wars in colour, in high definition, in real time in our sitting rooms. That sort of exposure changes what people are willing to put up with.
“We live in such a relativistic society now, and materialistic, self-obsessed and hedonistic; it’s hard to imagine circumstances under which people would say that ‘it is worth it, I’m willing to risk my life and well-being for this’.
“What would [the younger] generation fight for? The right to use your iPhone? What are the great noble causes?”
His opinion? “Some things are worth fighting for.”
He’s sort of right and yet not…the nation state is not the cause of war….look at the Muslims toddling off to ‘defend Islam’….or the Lefties who ran off to fight for Communism in Spain….ideology is more dangerous than the nation state….end the nation state and you’ll end up like Somalia, endless little wars run by war lords totally destroying the economy and society…..the BBC telling us the other day that 1 in 3 Somalians has mental health problems…due to endless conflict.
A major problem when trying to raise an army to fight for ‘Something worth fighting for’ would be mass immigration and multi-culturalism……all those communities who don’t really consider themselves British/Western/liberal/democratic and so are unlikely to take the Queen’s shilling….never mind having to watch your back…as interning them would upset the BBC.
As for social media….well the Media has been a problem for a long time….starting with the Crimea funnily enough…certainly since Vietnam…and yet we’ve just had a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan…so Johnny with his iPhone isn’t going to end wars.
Wonder what the reaction will be to Paxman….after all aren’t his comments about poetry, Blackadder and all that the same as Gove’s?
And ultimately that lack of obligation to do one’s ‘duty’ is the result of the Left’s long march through the Institutions and society ……The BBC being the platform of choice for disseminating the new ideology.
Well, history shows, its those who try to unite Europe, by trying to expand the territories under their rule, that cause the wars, not the nations fighting for freedom, or wanting a referendum.
But I have always thought it was better for a soldier to live for his Country, rather than die for his Country, because I am sure that the best military strategy would be to have as many living soldiers as possible.
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
General G.S.Patton
Patton: bad human being, excellent soldier.
I wonder if there was a referendum asking the people whether the country should go to war, would we have a war? It certainly should be a requirement, as it is the common man who has to pay in blood and treasure in any war.
The interesting thing is that Switzerland was at the geographic heart of WWI, and right in the middle of the warring factions in WWII. Yet because of referendums being a requirement for all major policies, the Swiss stayed out.
The Swiss actually had an interesting little air war with the Germans in June 1940, ironically using their own ME109s amongst other things.
By way of balance, having watched 37 Days, it was interesting to see the blame laid so squarely a the door of the German High Command.
Ironically, in the final credits, there was a montage showing how those responsible for the carnage mostly quietly got sidelined to comfy obscurity at worst. Market rate talents even then.
If Newsnight had not spent years criticising any Western country that decides to go to war then people’s attitudes might be different.
The theory that people would not put up with a conflict makes me think of Belloc’s couplet: ‘Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bill (who killed him), thought it right.’
Paxman has made similar comments before, he’s not talking about ‘peace loving lefties who roam the corridors of the BBC’, he’s referring to the young generation.
A major problem in fighting a war would be ‘mass immigration and multi-culturalism’ !??! really? I think you’d find they would as willing if not mkore so to do the fighting for the country that’s taken them in. I’m sure some might consider that ill-thought out comment to be insulting to all those ‘foreigners’ that did a lot of the fighting in the British army.
Nah.
‘ I think you’d find they would as willing if not mkore so to do the fighting for the country that’s taken them in.’
You know what? I think you genuinely believe that.
Wake up, son.
Paxo – the BBC’s very own Van Persie.
Here he is on the BBC’s stance on global warming:
‘I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.
I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible.’
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109&doing_wp_cron
Very hypocritical of him to say this given the flack he gave Gove when he said the same thing.
Much of today’s brainwashed youth, brainwashing largely due to the BBC and Guardian, cry to mummy and daddy if they fail to get into art college let alone seeing your mates blown to bits. My brother’s wife works at university and she has noted how more and more, young people are emotionally weak, unable to take failure and cannot stand being told that they are wrong. IN short, this country is full to the brim with spoiled little know-it-all brats who think that having to stack shelves after leaving university is tantamount to slavery.
I wonder what responsibility, if any, Paxman feels he might have for helping to create a society that is “materialistic, self-obsessed, hedonistic” society, and just how much of those qualities he might himself have.
Given the lack of respect the BBC have given our soldiers serving our country, and the labels attached to those who have been trying to address the balance on issues the BBC have helped create, is it any wonder he sees the country the way he does?
They say to the Queen the world must smell of fresh paint. Is it any wonder Paxman sees Britain the way he does?
May not be relevant, but have any of you guys seen the Armstrong and Miller sketches with the two airmen?
I never really got it until recently. They are juxtaposing our teenagers with the teenagers of 1940’s Britain.
Where our 1940’s teenagers talked of honour and duty, these two talk of their human rights. A sad indictment.