Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Recruiting posters
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 25th October 2010
Inspired by the Art of War thread ...
-
Message 2
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Monday, 25th October 2010
Possibly the most famous recruitment poster ever;
and the American version;
-
Message 3
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Monday, 25th October 2010
where is the one with Haig french and Kitchener sitting in the dining room of a french chateau 20 miles behind the front line asking "Why arent you here?"
oops - am i allowed to say that ??
st -
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
Would a Canadian today look upon either of these with a touch of irony?
-
Message 5
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
"oops - am i allowed to say that ??"
Probably not - very few serious historians now support what might be described as the "Blackadder school of WW1 history".
Haig may not have been perfect, but he was well ahead of the game, given that he started out as a colonial-war cavalryman and ended the war commanding the most technolgically advanced and mechanised army of the conflict. He had to learn a lot of lessons very quickly. -
Message 6
Posted by Eliza (U14650257) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
Damn! So the famous exchange of General Melchett assuring his troops that he's right behind them, to which Blackadder caustically comments "About twenty miles behind them" just isn't accurate at all?
-
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
No, a divisional commander probably wouldn't be that far back.
Also, "chateau" was an inexact term - many of them were more like karge farmhouses rather than castles or palaces.
And there was a practical reason - if you are going to command hundreds of thousands of men effectively, you need room for your staff and all the comms.
Even Montgomery in WWII, despite his ostentatious use of his caravan, used to base it in the grounds of chateaux, which his staff occupied.
LW -
Message 8
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
#1
Some posters were aimed at women
-
Message 9
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
and others demonstrate the way language has developed in the intervening period. This one should amuse a modern History class:
and this one might inspire Sarah Palin's sorority:
-
Message 10
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th October 2010
here's a classic:
-
Message 11
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 27th October 2010
D'you suppose Prince Harry has a copy of this?
-
Message 12
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Wednesday, 27th October 2010
That's rather below the belt, WhiteCamry!
At least the future Duke of York has seen active service with his granny's army. -
Message 13
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 27th October 2010
Sixtus_Beckmesser,
At least the future Duke of York has seen active service with his granny's army.Ìý
Now there's a title: "Gran's Army." -
Message 14
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Wednesday, 27th October 2010
Hi everyone,
for romantic hearts
for few and proud
bye -
Message 15
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 30th October 2010
Back to the Napoleonic Wars for this one;
and two from the American War of Independence;
-
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 30th October 2010
Would a Canadian today look upon either of these with a touch of irony?
Ìý
Is irony the right word here? It’s possible that Canadians reviewing those Second World War posters today might (depending on the individual) feel differing sentiments ranging from amusement to bemusement to nostalgia to embarrassment. But irony doesn’t seem to apply. Those posters are really no different to this poster:
Note the Canadian airman in the foreground.
Or how about these posters from the First World War:
There is perhaps a degree of irony in that last poster relating to the juxtaposition of the word 'corps' with the phrase 'quick service overseas'.
That poster might hold a certain ‘cringe factor’ for some today by equating fighting Imperial Germany and her allies in the 20th Century with fighting the Iroquois in the 17th Century.
Or how about these 2 posters:
Note how the Irish Canadians are depicted serving under the Union Flag. This contrasts, however, with the Scottish Canadians who are shown under a Scottish lion rampant with not a Union Flag in sight.
These contrast again with the following poster from Ireland itself where the Irish soldiers (in the British Army) are shown marching under an Irish (or Leinster) harp – again with not a Union Flag in sight:
But then this is contrasted again with this poster calling on Irishmen to avenge the sinking of the RMS Lusitania:
Note the Union Jack (incorrectly) depicted on the mast of the ship and on the stern.
Or how about this bizarre poster:
I can only imagine that this was trying to get Americans to join the Canadian and British armed forces during the First World War before the US entered. But wasn’t that illegal? Does anyone know what this poster is about?
Then there is this poster:
There is a distinctive ambiguity here. The poster obviously relates to the phrase ‘For King And Country’ and there is a map of the British Isles. The map, however, clearly shows the borders between Scotland, England and Wales. So the question is which ‘country’ is being referred to - and is this ambiguity deliberate? In other words those who saw the UK as being one country could read it that way while those who saw each component nation as comprising a country could read it that way too.
This poster is even more to the point in its ambiguity:
Apart from the fact that it seems to excuse the Shetland Islanders from military service it also seems to show that the UK authorities during the First World War were well aware that identifying with the state as such was problematic for many UK subjects at the time. This poster, therefore, allows the individual reader to decide their own personal reasons for deciding to contribute to the war effort. There is no ‘king’ here, nor ‘state’, nor ‘flag’ and not even ‘country’. Here the reason is just ‘home’.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.