# data[].attributes.body
a)       What were the causes of the outbreak of war in 1914, and in particular why did Britain get involved in the conflict?

b)      Discuss and analyse Document (3)c - W.R. Owen

# data[].attributes.headline
Primary Source - The Times 1 August 1914

# data[].attributes.subject
Primary Source - The Times 1 August 1914

# data[].attributes.body
(1) ‘Scholars’ protest against war with Germany’

Peace manifestos were issued from various quarters yesterday. A number of university professors and others, who state that they all in different ways enjoy the friendship and co-operation of German colleagues, sign the following protest and appeal for the support of English scholars:

We regard Germany as a nation leading the way in the Arts and Sciences, and we have all learnt and are learning from German scholars. War upon her in the interest of Serbia and Russia will be a sin against civilization. If by reason of honourable obligations we be unhappily involved in war, patriotism might still our mouths, but at this juncture we consider ourselves justified in protesting against being drawn into the struggle with a nation so near akin to our own, and with whom we have so much in common.

The Times 1 August 1914

# data[].attributes.headline
Primary Source: H. U. S. Nisbet, Diaries and memories of the Great War, Imperial War Museum.

# data[].attributes.subject
Primary Source: H. U. S. Nisbet, Diaries and memories of the Great War, Imperial War Museum.

# data[].attributes.body
Several of us said good-bye to Marlborough at the end of July 1914, fully expecting to be back again in September ... My age then was not quite seventeen and a quarter ... Like multitudes of other young men, I became filled with a passionate desire to take part in [the war]. I drank in everything that was said or written by statesmen, ministers of the Church and newspapers about the nobility of our ideals and the righteousness of our Cause. It wasn’t a matter of ‘our Country, right or wrong’. Our country was 100 per cent right and Germany 100 per cent wrong. We were fighting to uphold the principles of justice and freedom, and international morality, and to smash Kaiserism and German militarism ... We had been taught to worship God one day a week but to worship Country and Empire seven days a week. The British Empire was the greatest empire the world had ever known, and its greatness was due to the superior qualities of the British. Foreigners weren’t cast in the same mould.

# data[].attributes.headline
Primary Source: Extracts from letters to the producers of the BBC television series ‘The Great War’ (written in 1963) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Primary Source: Extracts from letters to the producers of the BBC television series ‘The Great War’ (written in 1963) 

# data[].attributes.body
(a) ‘With some of my pals I volunteered when eighteen years old, to join . . . our local infantry Regiment in Birkenhead, 4th Battalion the Cheshire Regiment. The declaration of war, on 4.8.1914 seemed to us to be the only effective course to protect the trade interest of the nation and counteracting the unemployment caused by the dumping of cheap German manufactured goods.’ (G. W. Evans)

(b) ‘It was Saturday 1st August 1914. I, along with some friends, had returned to Aberdeen after a cycling holiday, to be greeted by newsboy shouts of ‘Great European War Clouds. War imminent’. Of course, we had previously heard of the assassination of Crown Prince Ferdinand in Bosnia, but never, for a moment, dreamt that this foul deed was the go-ahead signal for the greatest and most bloody war of all times . . . There was little excitement among the general public during the first days of the war. It took some time for the gravity of the situation to sink in. The recruiting authorities, however, became increasingly active, so that within a month of the declaration of war every youth in the country was made aware of his importance as a serviceable unit for the cause of King and Country. Thus on the 4th of September 1914 I, along with my chum, joined the 2nd Highland Field Co. Royal Engineers at Aberdeen ... I had no real patriotic ideals, but I liked the life, the open air and the exercise, in contrast to the hum-drum, closed in atmosphere of the factory; besides, the prospect of adventure was alluring.’ (William M. Fraser)

(c) ‘I joined the Army as a volunteer in Kitchener’s Army at the age of nineteen and eleven months – after having fought hard against the stubbornness of a government department to let six of their staff – (Welshmen from Cardiff) – to join to ‘fight for freedom’. This was not a sentimental whim; we were genuinely moved by the raping of Belgium by the Hun. The big menacing finger of Kitchener from our hoardings had not yet been devised. It is possible his finger did later move those who could not make up their minds. After three weeks of wrangling with the government department, which should in all conscience have been the first to allow their men to join, we were given permission. Certain regiments, such as the Welsh regiments, were not yet open for recruits. Queues outside recruiting offices in the city were tediously lengthy and men were in a hurry. And as we could not wait we decided to go to Penarth (in 1914 a small seaside town 5 miles from Cardiff), the home of one of the six, and who, because of his seniority and wisdom (he was 29) also became our spokesman. He was also a fluent English speaker. I wore pince-nez: this worried the other five who were anxious we should keep together. On the train journey from Cardiff to Penarth (there were no buses then) they advised me to take off my pince-nez to get accustomed to the air and the general atmosphere. All the way they became my mentors by asking me how many cows and how many sheep I could see in the surrounding fields (since built over). And we strode into the recruiting office, having put away my glasses. We were received by two stern sergeants in a tiny, untidy office on the first floor of a building no longer identifiable. We had already decided we should like to join the 21st Lancers. It sounded grandiloquent and presented to us a picture of wellupholstered recruits in the resplendent uniform of a lancer charging, in due course, like the German Uhlans of whom we had read and cursed for their inhumanity.’ (W. R. Owen)

(d) ‘On the 5th August 1914, when I was a raw lad of 18, times were hard in my home town of Bradford, and I, in common with many others was working only three days a week and having three days dole money. Idling the time away one day, my friends and I were discussing the dreariness of unemployment when someone suggested we should enlist and the Hussars was mentioned. This sounded to me like a glorious adventure...’ (Thomas E. Peers)

(e) ‘I returned to my old farm at Akenfield for 11s. a week, but I was unsettled. When the farmer stopped my pay because it was raining and we couldn’t thrash, I said to my seventeen-year-old mate, “Bugger him. We’ll go and join the army.”’(Leonard Thompson)

# data[].attributes.body
Claimed was a professional Killer British NCO served with 166th Coy Machine Gun Corps on Western Front, 1916-1918 -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
British NCO served with 166th Coy Machine Gun Corps on Western Front, 1916-1918

REEL 1: Background in Talywain, Monmouthshire, Wales, 1898-1916: family; education; employment in pit; attitude to Germans; story of enlisting with Bantam Bn Cheshire Regt, 1915; question of age; description of training; comments on Bantams; reason for transferring to Machine Gun Corps. Recollections of operations with 166th Coy Machine Gun Corps on Western Front, 1916-1918: description of journey to France, 1916; posted to Ypres area, Belgium; story of machine gun blown up into trees; attitude to military life and question of killing; description of role as machine gunner during Battle of the Somme, 7/1916; memory of artillery bombardment and going over top; attitude to killing Germans; opinion of effectiveness of bombardment; story of transfer to 166th Coy and role as Company Quartermaster Sergeant; nature of stores and supplies stores including food movements of 166th Coy; further comments on killing Germans; description of taking supplies to front line and question of danger; description of conditions in Menin Road area, 1917; comparison of British and German trenches in Somme area; opinion of rations and water supplies; rum ration. REEL 2 Continues: question of ammunition supplies; opinion of Vickers machine gun; description of role as sergeant in charge of gun team; state of health; attitude to casualties; problem of rats; question of morale on Somme; problem of German snipers; opinion of officers; memory of action at Hebuterne, Somme; reaction to news of Armistice; attitude to military life and role as CQMS. Post-war life and employment: employment in slaughterhouse; activities with British Legion; description of role with Home Guard and organising transport in GB during Second World War; reflections on period of service during First World War; attitude to conscientious objectors; memory of pilgrimages to France.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
British NCO served with 166th Coy Machine Gun Corps on Western Front, 1916-1918 REEL 1: Background in Talywain, Monmouthshire, Wales, 1898-1916: family; education; employment in pit; attitude to Germans; story of enlisting with Bantam Bn Cheshire Regt, 1915; question of age; description of training; comments on Bantams; reason for transferring to Machine Gun Corps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How did World War One break out? Professor David Stevenson closely examines the three stages that led to war being declared between Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain.

In July-August 1914 an international crisis culminated in the outbreak of the First World War. The crisis had three phases. In the first, one of the six European Great Powers, Austria-Hungary, launched a war against Serbia. In the second, this war escalated into a Continent-wide conflict involving Germany, Russia, and France. In the third, the conflict spread into Western Europe as Germany invaded Luxemburg and Belgium, and Britain intervened. The sixth Great Power, Italy, remained neutral.

Phase one: Austria-Hungary declares war against Serbia

In its later stages the crisis ran at breakneck speed, but at first it moved slowly. It began with the assassinations on 28 June of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, at Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip. Franz Ferdinand was heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. He fell victim to what would now be called state-sponsored terrorism. Princip was an ethnic Serb from Bosnia, which Austria-Hungary had annexed in 1908. He belonged to a revolutionary nationalist group that wanted to liberate the South Slav peoples (Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) from foreign rule and unite them in a new state of Yugoslavia. The conspirators had received their weapons from Serbian military intelligence and been trained in Belgrade, although the Serbian civilian government had not been involved. It was therefore unsurprising that Austria-Hungary made drastic demands on Serbia in an ultimatum delivered on 23 July. But the Austro-Hungarian leaders wanted to use the assassinations to provoke a war, and to a British radical such as David Lloyd George their conduct amounted to bullying. When Serbia failed to accept all of the demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July.

Phase two: the conflict widens to Germany, Russia, and France

Austria-Hungary's leaders ruled a multi-national empire. They felt that Serbian-backed separatism threatened its survival. Already by 1913 they had decided that only force could solve the problem. But they knew a war against Serbia was almost certain to escalate, and before sending the ultimatum they consulted their ally, Germany, whose leaders urged Austria-Hungary to use force and promised backing if Russia intervened (the secret 'Potsdam blank cheque', 5-6 July). The Germans' motives have been intensively debated. From their perspective, Austria-Hungary was their one reliable Great-Power ally, and enemies ringed them. France and Russia had allied in 1891-94, and since 1904 Britain had co-operated with them. Germany had conducted a battleship-building race against Britain and an army race against France and Russia, and since 1905 the two blocs had clashed repeatedly over Morocco and the Balkans. The German leaders were readier to risk war because they believed the current military balance favoured them but would soon deteriorate. But if Germany threw down a challenge, Russia was quick to respond. Once Austria-Hungary sent the ultimatum Russia began military preparations, and after war was declared on Serbia, Russia ordered 'general mobilisation' (31 July), placing its forces on a war footing. Russia's leaders were willing to accept a European conflict rather than abandon Serbia, partly because of Slav solidarity but more to protect their own interests in the Balkans and because they saw Germany as a danger. They had recently strengthened their army, and they correctly expected France to support them.

German satirical map of Europe in 1914

Satirical map of Europe drawn by German graphic artist Walter Trier in 1914, showing Germany and Austria-Hungary as aggressors.

Phase three: Germany invades Luxemburg and Belgium, Britain intervenes

Germany and France had been at odds since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, after which Germany had annexed the French provinces of Alsace-Lorraine. The French remembered the loss, although they would not have started a war over it. Germany's strategy for a war against France and Russia envisaged first defeating France quickly, outflanking France's border fortresses by invading via Luxemburg and Belgium. Once Russia mobilized (which the Germans feared would undermine their war plan) the Germans declared war on both Russia and France (1 and 3 August) and demanded that Belgium allow them to cross its territory. Britain, Germany, and France had all committed themselves to respect Belgian independence by the 1839 Treaty of London, and the issue swung the doubters in the British Cabinet. As Germany failed to comply with a demand to respect Belgium, on 4 August Britain declared war.

A History of Fidelity, a summary of Alsace-Lorraine's history

Brochure summarising the history of Alsace-Lorraine which by 1914 had been part of the German Empire for 50 years.

In 1914 a Balkan crisis coincided with high tension between Europe's opposing power blocs. For decades the continent had enjoyed relative peace, and many had believed that war was becoming obsolete: some called for a common language such as Esperanto. Now, however, anti-war opposition collapsed, because events moved too quickly and the full facts of the crisis remained hidden, and because each government could present the conflict as a defensive struggle forced on it by the enemy. Partly for this reason, at least until 1917 pro-war consensus generally remained solid.

A World Language: why not Esperanto?, by Margaret L Blaise

Booklet published in June 1916 by Margaret L. Blaise (née Jones, 1878-1935), pioneer of the Esperanto movement in Britain.

Written by Professor David Stevenson

David Stevenson is a Professor of International History at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has published extensively on the causes, course, and consequences of the First World War. His books include 1914-1918: the History of the First World War; With Our Backs to the Wall: Victory and Defeat in 1918; and 1917: War, Peace, and Revolution. He is currently working on the British home front in 1916-17.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How did World War One break out? Professor David Stevenson closely examines the three stages that led to war being declared between Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain. In July-August 1914 an international crisis culminated in the outbreak of the First World War. The crisis had three phases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the summer of 1914, Europe was in a crisis. Just weeks before Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, had been assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian-backed terrorist. Now just a few weeks later, the continent's largest armies were mobilizing against each other with new nations joining the fight seemingly every week. The world watched with bated breath as Europe marched to war. So what happened? How did a seemingly irrelevant local conflict in southeast Europe become a World War? And why did Britain decide to get involved?

Well before we answer those questions a reminder to subscribe to the Imperial War Museums Youtube channel for more videos just like this every two weeks.

When people ask how the First World War began it's often couched in terms of a domino effect, a series of events that were almost preordained, but what I would say is that if anyone had suggested in June 1914 in Britain that World War might be about to break out and they would be met with disbelief really.

Britain hadn't fought a war on the continent since the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, 99 years previously. Rather than a war in Europe, Britain was primarily occupied with its own internal affairs.

As the 20th century dawned Britain is one of the greatest powers on earth, it rules over this vast global empire. I mean it's so big that every fourth person on earth owes its allegiance to the British crown.

The Briton was the world's merchant sailor, his flag encircled the globe sixty percent of the vessels on any ocean were his.

The lifeblood of the British Empire was the sea. The Royal Navy policed the waves so that its merchant ships could trade across the globe. This brought the British Empire vast wealth, but not all of its citizens were able to share in it. Many overseas subjects were demanding greater freedom from the empire to control their own affairs, while at home domestic issues threatened to boil over.

There's this huge inequality of wealth that underpins British life at the turn of the 20th century. Only two-thirds of men have got the right to vote, absolutely no woman has the right to vote. So I'd say by the time you get to 1914 this is quite a volatile country.

The most divisive issue, however, was that of Home Rule for Ireland. Some people in Ireland wanted to be ruled from Dublin rather than Westminster, while others were bitterly opposed to this, including some vocal British politicians and a sizable contingent in the north of Ireland who considered themselves to be British. As the Home Rule Bill made its way through parliament, rival militias began to arm themselves on either side of the issue.

There is a very real threat that this is going to spill over into violence in the summer of 1914 and so to suggest to people in Britain that the conflict that's about to occur will come from Europe rather than from Ireland most people would have been very very shocked to hear that.

But while domestic tensions were rising in Britain, new tensions were coming to the fore in Europe. Germany was the new kid on the block with big ambitions. After defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the most powerful German state Prussia allied with smaller Germanic states to create a united Germany, but this new nation wanted an empire of its own.

Britain really initially admired this new nation, Britain really actually thought as a friend but imperial Germany soon began to threaten Britain's sense of supremacy. Its determination to up its industrial output, up its military strength, and most crucially for Britain build a rival fleet of warships.

German ships manoeuvre in the cold waters of the north sea.

This new German navy was a threat to Britain's naval dominance, the glue that held the empire together, and something for which Britain could not stand. That rivalry then turned into an arms race as each nation tried to outproduce the other with ever greater feats of technology. This culminated in the production of Dreadnought battleships which were seen as the nuclear weapons of their day.

That factor means Britain's now started to see Germany as a threat, by the time you get to say 1907 Europe's really split into two opposing camps.

Germany had disturbed the delicate balance of power in Europe. France, fearing this new empire on their doorstep, allied with Russia in the east. An unlikely friendship for two of Europe's most ideologically opposed nations. That then left Germany feeling surrounded and pushed them to form an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and to a lesser extent Italy. Finally, Britain and its empire, afraid of German domination on the continent, drifted closer to France and Russia, though without going as far as forming an alliance.

You've got Germany Austria-Hungary and Italy and you've got France Russia and to some extent Britain. There's still no immediate reason for war between the two, it would take a crisis to turn tensions into an armed conflict.

And that crisis came in the summer of 1914. The Balkans in Southeast Europe had been a hotbed of unrest for some time, with two wars in the preceding three years. Those wars had made Austria-Hungary's neighbour Serbia much larger, prompting tensions between the two nations to rise even further. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June by a Serbian-backed terrorist, Austria-Hungary felt it had no choice but to assert its dominance.

Austria-Hungary sets out to punish Serbia it wants to quash support for Serbian nationalism. It's encouraged by its ally Germany. So after Serbia failed to meet the terms of a very draconian ultimatum Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia and this act of war this stirs up these old tensions and anxieties right across the continent because it draws in supporters and allies on both sides.

When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia Russia came in to back the Serbs in defence of a fellow Slavic nation. When Germany, in support of its ally, then declared war on Russia that brought France into the war on Russia's side. Italy however did not join the war, as its alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary was a defensive pact. In a matter of weeks then Europe's largest powers were primed for war, but Britain was still in two minds over whether it should be involved.

It agonized over whether to support Russia and France. I think at the heart of Britain's anxieties it came down really to Britain fearing German domination of Europe because if a victorious but hostile Germany dominated the continent and threatened Britain's position in the world that was just intolerable for Britain.

The tipping point came thanks to Germany's war plans. Hoping to defeat France quickly before Russia had a chance to mobilize her forces, Germany attempted to skirt around the French defences in Alsace-Lorraine by attacking through neutral Belgium, a country Britain had sworn to protect.

On the 4th of August Britain issues an ultimatum to Germany which is ignored, which ends in Britain declaring war on Germany and by Britain declaring war on Germany that also means its global empire is at war and you have a conflict set up that becomes very rapidly a world war.

The causes of the First World War are complex, they're still debated to this day. The nations didn't realize it at the time, but their attempts to defend what they perceived as their own national interests created a war that would shape Europe for decades to come. Most participants expected the war to be over by Christmas, but as we know the reality was very different.

The First World War became what we would call a total war. These nations pitted against each other, millions of men fighting on land, on the sea, in the air, modern weaponry causing mass casualties and ultimately the war broke the empires of Germany, of Russia, Austria-Hungary, it forced the USA onto the world stage and the war also laid the seeds for future conflict in places like the Middle East. So it ultimately defined the shape of Europe and the world in the 20th century and this is how it all began.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How The World Went To War In 1914 - On 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife were assassinated leading to the start of the First World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The army's latest recruitment campaign was mocked for its political correctness. MoD

In 1914, the steady gaze and pointing finger of war minister Lord Kitchener urged the men of Britain that they were all needed to protect their country. A century later in January 2019, the British army channelled this message once more in the latest instalment of its controversial campaign " This is Belonging", which was duly panned for political correctness.

This latest campaign implied that all were needed in uniform, but particularly targeted millennials and Generation Z - youth groups that are all too often mocked and shunned in the media.

Unlike the previous "Be The Best" campaign - the staple for British army recruitment for many years - and the still-used "Born in ... made in the Royal Navy" ads, the recent call for " snowflakes " directly engaged with negative perceptions of modern youth culture. Those considered (by themselves or society) as "snowflakes, selfie addicts, class clowns, binge gamers and phone zombies", were told they had a place in an army that recognises positive qualities in negative stereotypes.

But the original and the homage campaigns bear three core similarities. First of all, they both promote inclusivity while actually adhering to strict and specific criteria. They also target recruits from the fringes of society, and finally, both have been more infamous than successful.

Same method, same message, same problem

Both campaigns had similar issues. Neither in fact were particularly inclusive. Everyone was needed in 1914 - except of course for the thousands who failed to meet certain specific criteria, such as being over the age of 18 (19 when sent to fight), being taller than 5ft 3", and passing a rigorous medical examination - though the last two stipulations were relaxed in the final years of the war when more men were needed.

A century later, inclusivity now meant reaching out to millennials for the very reasons their generation is so often disdained. So all welcome - except the 92,559 applicants in 2018 who, due to medical and fitness issues, didn't make the cut to join the 7,441 recruits who were eventually enlisted. Perhaps some of the millennial gamers it looked to attract simply did not possess the core fitness levels required by the army, suggesting the campaign was too narrow in targeting such people in the first place.

After eight consecutive years of recruitment shortage, the 2019 snowflake campaign arrived during a era of questioning the need and purpose of the armed forces. Consistently under target strength since 2000, the rate of trained personnel has been in free-fall. In early 2019, the British Armed forces reported a deficit of 10,000, despite the requirement for personnel decreasing by 27% - down from 190,000 in 2000 to 134,304 today.

The socially aware recruitment campaigns of 2018/19 sought to arrest this decline as part of a £1.6m programme focusing on emotions, individuality and specific millennial "types" such as snowflakes.

Promoting pastoral care (emotional and spiritual support) and the chance to be an individual, the modern military appeared to offer equality and self-expression and value technological dexterity. A century after the end of World War I, the British army was promoting inclusivity to an extent that Kitchener could never have envisaged.

A different tack?

Unashamedly controversial, the snowflake campaign channelled the usual youth-bashing ammunition of raging inter-generational battles. Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996), and Gen Z (born from the mid 1990s onwards), are often denigrated as lacking in conviction, resilience, work ethic, common sense or restraint. Old vs young rhetoric has encouraged media demonisation of what is seen as a hypersensitive, overly indulged youth culture.

In retaliation, these younger generations have criticised the economic decline and political malaise evident in British society since 2000. Recession, environmental crisis, a push toward centre-right politics, Brexit and the rise of populist world leaders have created an anxiety-filled future for them. But with battlelines so clearly drawn, the strength of feeling against the snowflake campaign is unsurprising.

Criticism flew from all sides, with accusations of naivety, diminishing standards and underhand recruitment tactics. Charlotte Cooper of Child Soldiers International slammed the release of the campaign during the "January blues", saying:

The 'snowflake' campaign tried to present a new side to the army, but this advertising brief shows the same old story: young people with the fewest options being mis-sold a one-sided view of military life as the magic ticket to a better life.

Same old story

An overly positive depiction of military life is a tried and tested method of army recruitment. Kitchener's increasingly desperate attempts to draw in civilians promised everything from full stomachs to sexual adventures. Again falling standards were decried (and then changed to increase recruitment numbers) as Kitchener's recruits had their pride and commitment called into question.

The British military has always depended on recruiting from the working class. Youth paramilitary organisations dating back to Baden Powell's early 20th-century scout movement reflected the more accepting and benevolent attitudes to military service that was unthinkable before the Victorian period. No longer seen as " rogues", soldiering could mean self-reliance, adventure and physical fitness. In the modern forces, enlistees also have access to training, education and development and a sense of purpose and belonging.

Both campaigns enjoyed some success with this message. In 1914 millions came forward to join up. In January 2019, recruitment figures doubled. Yet Kitchener's success is more myth than reality, as the poster appeared in December 1914 at the tail end of the rush, and the beginning of the slog to conscription in 1916. In early 2019, recruitment numbers certainly increased, but in August 2019 official figures confirmed that the army remains 7,000 personnel short of its target.

A century on, Britain's armed forces continue to lose trained fighters and struggle to replace them. In desperation - or perhaps inspiration - the old Kitchener method was given another opportunity to galvanise the country's youth. Numbers may be up, but only time will tell if it can be sustained.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Your country still needs you: why the British army is running the same old campaign a century after WWI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1914, the steady gaze and pointing finger of war minister Lord Kitchener urged the men of Britain that they were all needed to protect their country. A century later in January 2019, the British army channelled this message once more in the latest instalment of its controversial campaign " This is Belonging", which was duly panned for political correctness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interviewer: "What was a nice little girl?"

Mairi Chisholm: "Oh a nice little girl was a very feminine little girl. You see it was a man's world totally and completely. Women were not supposed to have much in their brains, and of course we were not brought up to careers at all. The one and only career was a good marriage."

At the start of the 20th century Britain was one of the greatest powers on earth. Yet despite its wealth as a nation, many British people's lives were marked with poverty and inequality. Women had few opportunities and few rights. The First World War is often represented as having a wholly positive impact on women's lives: women stepped into men's jobs for the first time ever, thousands of women served abroad along the front lines, women's football even became a hugely popular sport, and the war is thought to have strengthened their case for the right to vote. But the reality is more complicated. Not all of the opportunities for women were positive, lots of the changes were reversed as soon as the war was over, and cultural attitudes towards women were not that easily changed. So did the First World War really transform women's lives at all?

Ellen Parton: "Before the war, women's employment was highly stratified by class, working-class women were broadly accustomed to working long as the hours of dirty sometimes heavy work in areas such as domestic service and unequal pay was the norm. There was little to no legal protection for women against domestic violence and very little protection for young working-class girls from sexual abuse or being forced into prostitution. Across the board women were expected to get married and look after the home."

Britain entered the war in August 1914 and over the next four years some 4.9 million men had signed up or been conscripted to join the army. Millions of women were already working prior to the outbreak of the First World war but now women took on more active roles, more highly paid roles and more dangerous roles.

Ellen Parton: "They were encouraged to ensure that the men in their families signed up, women were encouraged in the press and through colourful impactful poster campaigns. With the men drawn away to the armed forces, opportunities opened up for women. 117,000 women were employed in transport compared to just 18,000 women previously.

The First World War also saw women enter heavy industry for the first time. In response to the shell shortage of 1915, huge factories were set up. Women were known as canaries in the factories as they had to handle the TNT used as the explosive agent in munitions which caused their skin to turn yellow."

Caroline Rennles: "Of course, we all had bright yellow faces you see because we had no gas masks in those times. The conductors used to say in the trams, you'll die in two years, cock. We used to say well we don't mind dying for our country. As I say, we were so young we didn't realise, but they used to call us canaries, we were bright yellow and all this front hair was all ginger you see."

In total around 900,000 women worked in the munitions industry, and it was particularly hazardous work. There were several large factory explosions during the war including at Chilwell in July 1918 where 134 workers were killed and more than 250 were injured. Due to the dangerous nature of this work it was considered to be relatively well paid compared to other jobs open to women and yet across the board women still earned as little as half the wages of men.

Caroline Rennles: "It come right down to nothing almost about a pound I think, as far as I can remember. It was very, very low I know."

Interviewer: "Your wages?"

Caroline Rennles: "Yes, very low."

For working women with children, childcare could be a problem. The pressing need for women to work in munitions did prompt the government to provide some funds towards day nurseries and by 1917 there were more than a hundred day nurseries across the country. However, there was no provision for women working in any other form of employment and most had to rely on friends and family for childcare.

Ellen Parton: "This was still the overriding attitude, that these changes were necessary temporary measures to support the war effort and should not lead to legal or cultural change."

Pressure from women for their own uniformed service began as early as August 1914 but it was not until the middle of the war that the government began planning for the women's auxiliary services. More men were needed for fighting which meant training women to replace them in non-combatant roles. In December 1916 the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps known as the WAAC was established, the Women's Royal Naval Service was formed in November 1917 and the Women's Royal Air Force was set up on the 1st of April 1918. In total over a hundred thousand women joined Britain's armed forces during the First World War.

Mairi Chisholm: "No I had nothing in my mind except that I got the chance to go to London and I had the chance to do a worthwhile job. It was the lure of adventure of course, you see, and I think it was just, here as an opportunity."

Florence Parrott: "When I got in that Blitz that made my mind up for me. I got hit, I got hit in this arm and they took us to St Bartholomew's Hospital, and I said to the girl laying next to me I said, when I get out of here, I said, I'm going to join up. Because I said if I'm going to get knocked about, I'll go where I expect it. And I did."

One of the major ways that women served during the war was nursing. This was also a key role that brought women abroad near the front lines.

Ellen Parton: "Nursing in the First World War was exhausting, harrowing dangerous work. Although it had long been an occupation associated with women, nursing as a profession by its very necessity mushroomed during the First World War. Trained nurses were licensed professionals, they'd spent years training and they were paid whereas voluntary nurses better known as Voluntary Aid Detachments or VADs comprise mainly young middle- and upper-class women in its ranks. By 1918 there were over 90,000 Voluntary Aid Detachment nurses in the red cross."

Mairi Chisholm: "I used to take that ambulance out and drive the length behind the trenches sometimes to get some, some people out. You had to drive in the pitch dark. No lights whatsoever from the trenches and if you can imagine yourself, heavy roads with deep mud, troops coming up, guns coming up and then the most appalling slither as the ambulance slid off the pave into the mud."

Interviewer: "Were you shocked by the kinds of injuries you saw?"

Daisy Spickett: "One would have been shocked if one could afford to be. I mean, that was what was our salvation, we were thrown head first into the work but we had to do something about it. I remember one occasion I shall never forget; a patient came in with his head bandaged up and only his eyes showing and as I took bandage after bandage after bandage, I thought to myself there's going to be no face left here at all, and then I realised that he was gazing intently at me, and I thought, he's waiting to see my reaction. Then of course it was absolutely different, I chatted to him and teased him a little and tried to make him smile."

Ellen Parton: "By 1918 more than 17,000 nurses had served close to the trenches working in field hospitals all along the Western Front."

On the home front, working together in large numbers opened up new leisure opportunities for women. Sport was encouraged among female workers as it was thought to be good for their health and moral well-being and many munitions factories developed their own ladies football teams.

Ellen Parton: "Women's football was established before the First World War but it really took off during this period. Ultimately this was to ensure the mental and health and physical well-being, which in turn kept the factories productive. However, they were really successful with the Dick Kerr Ladies in Preston for example drawing large crowds at matches. Fronted by Captain Lily Parr; she was openly gay, over six foot tall and she scored over a thousand goals during her time on the team. Sadly, all this came to an end at the end of the war. In 1921, the FA ruled that women should be banned from playing in football league games. Reasons given were spurious suggestions that the game was too physical and may hamper a woman's ability to have a child for example, whereas the real reason was probably quite simply that it was becoming too popular and a potential challenge to men's games. It was a decision which was only overturned in 1969 when the ban was eventually lifted."

The ban on women's football at the end of the war was not the only instance in which opportunities that had opened in wartime or once again closed. On the 11th of November 1918, the Armistice was signed. Tens of thousands of men were demobilised and returned to Britain, to the lives and jobs they had held before the war. Men seeking jobs after 1918 were almost always prioritised over women and women were forced back into low-paid roles or domestic service. For many women, their experiences during the war had been temporary and short-lived but there were some inevitable long-term consequences.

Over seven hundred thousand British men had died during the First World War. That's nine percent of all British men under the age of 45 and more women than ever were now single.

Ellen Parton: "It's certainly true that some of these women chose to remain unmarried. Professions such as teaching, or medicine were opening up to women, but only if they remained unmarried."

In 1918 women over 30 were given the vote. Some have argued that the modern emancipation of women would not have been possible without the contribution of women who served and worked during the First World War.

Ruby Ord: "We were in this hotel and a raid started; we'd got two officers there suffering from shell shock and the men with them were in a panic and Staccard went over to the piano and she played for two hours while the raid last and we all sang, and these men didn't know it was a raid on the, the shell shock officers. And afterwards they were so overwhelmed, the men were, and they said well if anybody ever says a bad word about the WAACs, they have to answer to us for it after this. Because of course people were very ready to criticise us, we were the women who followed them in France of course. But there were several incidents like that where the girls showed outstanding courage and they really had it. So, I don't know, I really learned to admire women, I admired them tremendously."

But the steps that had been made during this time were soon masked by other matters. Britain was steeped in unemployment and poverty and soon began to prepare for another war.

Ellen Parton: "The war had not shifted attitudes fundamentally enough to mean that women's contribution to the world of work wasn't anything more than for the duration, to be wound up as soon as the war was over."

What is certain is that the war had changed the world and Britain in immeasurable ways. Not all changes brought about by the war stayed in place, but it is possible that it laid the groundwork for greater change to come. When war was declared again in 1939, this time women were readily factored into the war effort.

Thanks for watching this episode, don't forget to like and subscribe for more videos from IWM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Things You Didn't Know About Women In The First World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First World War brought many changes in the lives of British women. It is often represented as having had a wholly positive impact, opening up new opportunities in the world of work and strengthening their case for the right to vote. The reality is more complex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From 1898 onwards, Germany began to create a battle fleet. A shipbuilding arms race with Britain soon began. From 1906, this naval race became focused on the construction of a new class of battleship developed in Britain - the dreadnought. Designed around the firepower of heavy guns and powered by steam turbines, these huge vessels made all earlier warships obsolete. In both countries, the public - encouraged by the press, popular authors and naval pressure groups - demanded more battleships.

In fact, Germany could not hope to match the Royal Navy in the short term and, in 1910, began to redirect much of its defence spending to the Army. However, the damage to Germany's relationship with Britain proved irreversible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Naval Race Between Britain And Germany Before The First World War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between 1900 and 1914, Germany became identified by Britain as the chief foreign threat to its Empire. This was, to a large extent, the outcome of the policies pursued by Germany's leader, Kaiser Wilhelm II - most notably his eagerness to build a battle fleet to rival Britain's.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 4000 free audio and video lectures, seminars and teaching resources from Oxford University.

The British response to the outbreak of War in 1914.

Dr Catriona Pennell, Lecturer in History at the University of Exeter, explains how the reaction to the outbreak of the first world war was much more complex than traditional accounts would lead us to believe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rethinking British Volunteerism in 1914: A Rush to the Colours?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 4000 free audio and video lectures, seminars and teaching resources from Oxford University. The British response to the outbreak of War in 1914. Dr Catriona Pennell, Lecturer in History at the University of Exeter, explains how the reaction to the outbreak of the first world war was much more complex than traditional accounts would lead us to believe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeremy Paxman explores the lasting effect the First World War had on our nation. Using extensive archive footage, these films show how this new type of total warfare changed the lives of the British people and helped to shape our modern society.

Alongside each, there is more information about the content of the film, and suggestions of how it could be used in the classroom.

These resources are suitable for use with pupils aged 11-16.

The films are hosted on an external, non-BBC platform. The BBC cannot take any responsibility for recommendations or content promoted by third party sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeremy Paxman explores the lasting effect the First World War had on our nation. Using extensive archive footage, these films show how this new type of total warfare changed the lives of the British people and helped to shape our modern society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
THEY SHALL NOT GROW OLD Trailer (2018) Peter Jackson WWI Restored Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen: Read by Christopher Eccleston | Remembering World War 1 | C4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Suicide in the Trenches by Siegfried Sassoon: Read by Stephen Graham | Remembering World War 1 | C4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - History - Historic Figures: Wilfred Owen (1893 - 1918)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read a brief analysis of Wilfred Owen's life. Discover why his poems, including 'Dulce et Decorum Est' are some of the most poignant English poetry of World War One.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First World War 100 - The National Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are marking the centenary of the First World War with an extensive programme, spanning a five-year period between 2014 and 2019. Find out more about our programme, which explores major anniversaries and key aspects of the war through themes (such as technology and the Middle East), special projec…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disabled Ex-Servicemen's Experiences of Rehabilitation and Employment after the First World War

Oral History aims to contribute to developments in the theory and practice of oral history. It welcomes contributions, whether long or short articles, news items, reviews or reports of meetings, conferences or new projects. The joint editors welcome contributions from a wide range of disciplines and practices, for example, women's studies, sociology, cultural studies, anthropology, politics, social policy, social administration, museum studies, archive work, health studies, education, library and information services, community publishing, folklore, media studies, photography, broadcasting, nursing, social work, psychology, psychiatry, and in fact any area where the significance of orality, personal testimony and remembering is understood and valued. We welcome a variety of approaches from people from different countries and from different backgrounds.

The Oral History Society promotes the collection, preservation and use of recorded memories of the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disabled Ex-Servicemen's Experiences of Rehabilitation and Employment after the First World War on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disabled Ex-Servicemen's Experiences of Rehabilitation and Employment after the First World War Oral History aims to contribute to developments in the theory and practice of oral history. It welcomes contributions, whether long or short articles, news items, reviews or reports of meetings, conferences or new projects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The destructive power of the weaponry used during the First World War dramatically changed the nature of military medicine. The wounds some men sustained tested the expertise of doctors to the limit and new innovations were required to deal with the wounds of war. East Sussex played host to hospitals and doctors who battled to rebuild their patients.

The manner and location of the fighting during First World War on the Western Front was greatly removed from the environment that the British Army was accustomed to operating in. Conflicts across the Empire, such as the Boer War, had meant very particular forms of battlefield medicine. The change from African battlefields to those in the fields and countryside of France and Belgium was to initially prove a tough obstacle for the Army Medical Corps to overcome.
The Western Front
The large scale use of weaponry, such as machine guns and artillery, coupled with the deployment of armies into the trenches meant that, if suffered, wounds could be incredibly serious. Artillery shells could easily remove men's limbs or inflict terrible damage upon their bodies. Machine gun bullets could fracture bones and pierce organs. The muddy and watery conditions of the Western Front, large portions of which had been well-tended and manured farmland before the war, were also ripe for infection.

As historian Joanna Bourke explains, the war produced wounded men in staggering numbers:
In France there were 5 casualties for every 9 men sent out, compared with 2 for every 9 in the Dardanelles and only 1 to every 12 in Salonica and East Africa. Furthermore 31 per cent of those who served in the army were wounded, compared with only 3 or 4 per cent of those in the navy or airforce. In the first year of the war, 24 per cent of officers and 17 per cent of soldiers in Other Ranks were wounded. Between October 1915 and September 1918, 12 to 17 per cent of soldiers of Other Ranks were wounded each year. The severity of these mutilations was unprecedented ... All parts of the body were at risk: head, shoulder, arm, chest, intestines, buttock, penis, leg, foot. Over 41,000 men had their limbs amputated during the war - of these 69 per cent lost one leg, 28 per cent lost one arm, and nearly 3 per cent lost both legs or arms. Another two hundred and seventy two thousand suffered injuries in the arms or legs that did not require amputation. Sixty thousand, five hundred were wounded in the head or eyes. Eighty-nine thousand sustained other serious damage to their bodies.
During large scale operations, field hospitals would often become overwhelmed with casualties. In the initial years of the war, before its conditions were fully understood, infection could fester in men who could otherwise have been successfully treated and saved and led to loss of limbs and lives. Army medicine was undergoing a steep learning curve and many techniques would have to be re-written or invented to deal with the numbers of wounded men.
Treatment
The initial, and obvious, aim of treating men wounded in the First World War was to save their lives and as much of their bodies as possible. The first stage of this process lay with the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC). The RAMC composed of doctors, stretcher bearers and ambulance drivers were often the first to begin structured treatment of soldiers who had been wounded. There were also large numbers of female nurses operating within field hospitals in the various theatres of the war, as well as in the established hospitals on the home front. Many of these women were members of the the Volunteer Aid Detachment (VAD). The VADs fell under the control and administration of the War Office during the conflict and it is from them they drew their pay. Some VADs who were abroad in one of the British Red Cross Hospitals or those run by the St John's Ambulance drew their payment from the Red Cross. The conditions at the front were not conducive to swift medical treatment.

- The conditions on the front line meant a lower standard of medical care, unhygienic equipment, lack of water, inadequate lighting and poor supplies of operating instruments, including ligatures, needles and supports. When this is considered against the remarkable fact that it took, on average, between eight and twelve hours to evacuate a wounded soldier from the front to a Casualty Clearing Station (CCS), it is not surprising that so many men returned home without a limb. The even starker situation at Gallipoli, where a soldier had to face a voyage of two to three days, led Major Stanley Argyle to despair at the number of limbs that were amputated and lives lost that would otherwise have been saved. William Birnie

However, whilst the treatment of wounded men was a priority, the objectives of this treatment could fall into two different lines depending on the wound. Were wounded soldiers being treated so they could recover from their wounds and go on to lead as happy and normal a life as possible, or were they being treated so they could recover their strength and return to the war? Some wounds would, of course, prevent the man from returning to action. But this split objective manifested itself most obviously in the treatment of shell shock. Medical professionals such as William H Rivers and Lewis R Yealland had conflicting approaches to the treatment of shell shock or 'war neuroses'. Rivers preferred a form of counselling whilst Yealland favoured a more regimented system of punishments, autosuggestion and, if required, electric shocks. The use of electric shocks to stimulate recovery of muscles and limbs was also pioneered by the women of the Almeric Paget Military Massage Corps.

For men who had lost arms or legs, their immediate future was difficult to say the least. Before the First World War, prosthetic arms and legs were incredibly heavy and unwieldy designs that often cause the wearer a great deal of pain and discomfort. Over time they would degrade and break and they were expensive to acquire or repair. They also paid very little regard to functionality and, as a result, were - particularly in the case of arms - almost useless as usable replacements. Additionally, whilst servicemen were permitted to receive free artificial limbs (before the war they had only ever been free to those who had lost limbs in military service), the demand for them completely outstripped supply. The huge numbers of men who lost limbs in the war prompted a revolution in the treatment of amputees and the design of prosthetic arms and legs.

Two American firms, Rowley and Hanger, were invited by the government to set up subsidiaries in Roehampton, London, in the grounds of a former mansion commandeered by the Imperial War Office. This site became Queen Mary's Hospital and opened its doors to its first 25 patients in 1915. During the war it became known as one of the world's leading limb fitting and amputee rehabilitation centres, providing treatment and training opportunities so that patients could later find employment. Demand was high and often men left hospital with artificial arms without the proper training in their use. Artificial limbs were made on-site, yet, despite this, limb provision remained a struggle and it was only after the armistice that the situation was brought under control. New mechanisms were patented and lucrative government contracts enabled new research and developments to take place. - William Birnie

Prosthetic arms, such as the one on the right, were designed during the war to overcome some of the deficiencies of older designs. These include new features such as;
Made from aluminium, this prosthetic left arm has a canvas coated hand to give the appearance of a gloved hand. The fingers of the hand are set in position. The joints of the arm are adjustable and the hand is removable. Aluminium was preferred to wood as it was much lighter and was more comfortable for the wearer. As such it is one of a new generation of metal limbs that appeared in the 1920s and which gradually replaced the predominantly wooden ones. The arm is strapped to the shoulder with padding. The McKay Prosthetic Limb Company who made this arm was one of a number of companies set up during and immediately after the First World War. They were seeking lucrative government contracts to supply soldiers who had lost limbs in the conflict. - Europeana
Whilst it is more commonly know as a hospital for the treatment of Indian soldiers during the war, the Royal Pavilion at Brighton also served as a hospital for 'limbless soldiers'. The local magazine the 'Brighton Season' covered the activities of the hospital in its 1917-1918 edition.

Once the lives of the men were saved, the focus moved on to providing them with the skills and trades to support themselves in civilian life. The men who had gone to war were, generally speaking, the backbone of the country's working classes and productivity. It was important for the country's economy for such men to contribute again after being medically discharged. A Queen Mary's Workshop was opened in the grounds of the Pavilion and, inside, men were taught new skills and new trades such as cobbling and engineering in order to find civilian jobs. Whilst staying at the hospital some soldiers got involved with producing the hospital newspaper ' Pavilion Blues '.

Other men were sent to establishments such as Chailey Heritage School where they would undergo ' educative convalescence ' and learn how to overcome their injuries from children who were also missing limbs or had other physical impediments.

Following their treatment in hospitals like the Pavilion and also once they had undergone a period of retraining, wounded men would be sent to Roehampton for fitting of their final prosthetic limb. New jobs and industries began to open in Brighton and East Sussex to provide careers for these wounded men. The diamond merchant Bernard Oppenheimer opened a diamond polishing factory in Brighton and recruited heavily from the population of wounded soldiers.

The end of the war would not bring about the end of the difficulties for the men who had been wounded in it. In an attempt to write them out of wartime experience, no wounded men were part of the victory parades through London in the aftermath of the armistice and the peace. Additionally, whilst wounded men were entitled to a war pension, the amount they received was commensurate with the level of their wound.

- The loss of two or more limbs, for example, entitled a man to a 100% pension, whereas amputation of a leg above the knee was assessed at 60% and below the knee at 50%. Psychological and functional somatic disorders, such as shell-shock, were more difficult to categorise Edgar Jones et al

A pension would be paid to the widows of those men who were killed in the war or died of their wounds but, again, the exact amount was often influenced by various factors such as the man's rank, his wife's occupation (if any) and the number of children (either legitimate or illegitimate) that they may have had.

In the years after the war, men who had obvious war wounds found themselves shunned by a society that no longer wished for visual reminders of the conflict. The lack of any substantive welfare system meant that many men found themselves in increasingly dire financial and medical situations. Whilst some care homes and facilities continued to operate in the post war years many stopped or closed shortly after the conflict. The implication being that their war work was now completed.

But, for a time, many of the men who had suffered such horrific wounds found treatment and solace in East Sussex. The view and treatment of disabled people changed dramatically during the war and in its aftermath. The treatments and techniques required to save the lives of those wounded on the battlefield, had a huge impact on modern understandings of medicine. The fields of prosthetics, skin-grafting, and psychiatry and counselling, were revolutionised by the First World War. The medical profession would never be the same again.

Julie Anderson - Wounding in the First World War

William Birnie - Object of the month: First World War amputees

Joanna Bourke - Dismembering the Male

Edgar Jones et al - War Pensions
This story was written with support from The Royal Pavilion and Museums, Brighton & Hove
Scarletfinders.co.uk - British Military Nurses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The destructive power of the weaponry used during the First World War dramatically changed the nature of military medicine. The wounds some men sustained tested the expertise of doctors to the limit and new innovations were required to deal with the wounds of war. East Sussex played host to hospitals and doctors who battled to ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A century ago it was wounded soldiers, rather than celebrities, getting the latest plastic surgery. The First World War saw a huge rise in the number of drastic facial injuries. Surgeon Harold Gillies developed a new method of facial reconstructive surgery in 1917. His work marked the dawn of plastic surgery as we know it today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A century ago it was wounded soldiers, rather than celebrities, getting the latest plastic surgery. The First World War saw a huge rise in the number of drastic facial injuries. Surgeon Harold Gillies developed a new method of facial reconstructive surgery in 1917.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The terrible global human cost of the First World War was an estimated 9.5 million dead and 20 million injured.

In Britain alone, almost one million soldiers, sailors and airmen had been killed. Around two million came home with some level of disability: over 40,000 were amputees; some had facial disfigurement or had been blinded. Others suffered from deafness, tuberculosis or lung damage caused by poison gas. There were thousands of cases of shell shock from the horrors of warfare, diagnosed today as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Header image: A group of recovering disabled servicemen. © C.E. Morton
There was a national debate about how best to care for veterans with disabilities. The majority were young men who had their whole lives before them. To avoid a future of misery and hopelessness, and an enormous drain on the state, they needed to try and live independently and support their families.

The government, burdened with war debts, put its main emphasis on providing war pensions based on the level of impairment.

These ranged from a full pension for the loss of two or more limbs, loss of sight and very severe facial disfigurement, to 50% for amputation of a leg below the knee or right arm below the elbow, and 20% for the loss of two fingers either hand. Many considered the pensions inadequate to live on.

Businesses that employed the men were given preferential consideration for contracts and could display the royal crest. However, the tendency was to employ those with low level disability, leaving the severely disabled out of work.

The state did not create sheltered employment opportunities or provide retraining. Britain was the only European state to rely entirely on voluntary effort to employ disabled ex-servicemen.

When it came to housing, there was also no comprehensive government plan to provide suitable long-term accommodation.

However, there were developments in disabled housing, largely driven by the voluntary sector, along with early initiatives in rehabilitation and retraining and major advances in prosthetics and plastic surgery.

Prosthetics and plastic surgery

Before the First World War prosthetic legs and arms were mostly wooden, heavy and caused pain and discomfort. There was little regard for functionality and, as a result, were almost useless as limb replacements. A new generation of comfortable prosthetic limbs was created in the 1920s made of light aluminium with adjustable joints.

Renowned sculptor Frances Derwent Wood, too old to join up, volunteered at the Third London General Hospital. Having seen the terrible injuries that the war's new mechanised weaponry - such as shells and machine gun bullets - inflicted on soldiers, he dispensed with the prosthetic rubber masks of the past and pioneered masks of thin metal, sculpted and meticulously painted to replicate a patient's pre-war appearance.

Harold Gillies is considered the father of reconstructive surgery. He pioneered the use of the patient's own tissue, rather than the practice of attempting skin grafts from other people or animals, and focused on aesthetics to try and make the patient appear as they were before their wounds.

Shell shock

About 25% of those discharged from active service during the war were 'psychiatric casualties'. Most were suffering from shell-shock, a condition viewed by the public as a sign of emotional weakness or cowardice. A growing number of centres such as the Royal Victoria Hospital in Southampton and Seal Hayne in Newton Abbot specialised in such cases.

Arthur Hurst, an army major at Seal Hayne, pioneered revolutionary treatments for 'war neurosis', which had puzzled doctors who often prescribed harsh treatments such as electric shocks and solitary confinement.

Hurst believed in occupational therapy. The men worked on a farm in the peace of the countryside and were given intensive therapy sessions, including hypnosis. 90% of his patients were cured.

Rehabilitation and learning new skills

The Queen Mary's Workshops, one of many such centres across the country specialising in rehabilitation and retraining, opened in the grounds of Brighton's Royal Pavilion. It had the slogan: 'Hope welcomes all who enter here' - a positive reworking of Dante's 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here.'

Amputees learned skills in a wide range of trade and professional occupations, including electrical engineering, carpentry and motor mechanics to prepare them for civilian life.

Pilkington Special Hospital also specialised in the treatment and rehabilitation of disabled veterans through re-educative workshops and provided a room for remedial gymnastics.

St Dunstan's - established by Sir Arthur Pearson who lost his sight due to glaucoma - provided a hostel where ex-servicemen went to 'learn to be blind'.

The emphasis was on pioneering vocational training, often involving adapted forms of technology, including typewriters and telephones. Pursuits such as music, dancing and sport were also encouraged. The men learned braille and, once they left St Dunstan's, were given symbols of independence such as braille watches.

Housing

For the majority of disabled veterans who didn't need lifelong care in an institution, there was an urgent need to provide independent living, suitable homes and a way of earning an income for them and their families. With no national plan from the government, the voluntary sector stepped in, building new housing ranging from cottages to mansion flats and entire villages.

This memorial village, built after the war and including sheltered workshops, was specifically created for disabled soldiers and their families. Such villages were few and far between and were reliant on voluntary donations. The leading landscape architect and town planner of the time, T.H. Mawson saw such segregation as protecting disabled veterans from 'the struggle of the crippled man with those who are able-bodied.' Other voices felt that disabled veterans' housing should be integrated within existing urban communities.

Stoll was a philanthropist whose Oswald Stoll Foundation built the London mansion flats pictured - with lifts, a medical centre and gymnasium - for disabled veterans and their families. Work was available across the road at the Lord Roberts Memorial Workshops. Family accommodation was relatively rare as much was for single disabled men only.

Veterans from modern conflicts occupy the flats today.
Further Reading
The Poppy Factory, originally established by The Disabled Society in 1922 to make poppies for the British Legion poppy appeal, was staffed entirely by disabled servicemen. Three years later, with 350 veterans producing poppies in its sheltered workshops, it moved from its original home in London's Old Kent Road to new premises in Richmond. The Howson flats close to the factory were built in 1926 to house its most severely disabled workers, with the larger flats for employees with dependents.

This move was made possible by the British Legion, which was founded 15 May 1921 to campaign for better support for disabled ex-servicemen and women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Home From the War: What Happened to Disabled First World War Veterans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The terrible global human cost of the First World War was an estimated 9.5 million dead and 20 million injured. In Britain alone, almost one million soldiers, sailors and airmen had been killed. Around two million came home with some level of disability: over 40,000 were amputees; some had facial disfigurement or had been blinded.