Jump to content
Posted 11 November 2011 - 03:11 pm
Posted 12 November 2011 - 06:44 am
Posted 12 November 2011 - 03:57 pm
Posted 12 November 2011 - 10:11 pm
Posted 13 November 2011 - 01:08 pm
Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:40 pm
When men were handed a white feather in the street, the person doing so would not normally give their name. The letter is simply following that form. With reference to the article, I am not at all sure that the campaign was ' very effective'. There were far too many instances of feathers being given to men who had been invalided out or were engaged in reserved occupations. After the hysterical jingoism of the first few months faded away, this despicable practice was generally seen for what it was.
Posted 10 December 2011 - 06:16 am
Posted 10 December 2011 - 03:56 pm
I wonder how many of these 'white feather' women later felt guilt or remorse at their actions, particularly after the war when all the thousands of memorials throughout the land were unveiled in the 1920s.
Paradoxically, I reckon the practice of anonymously posting a white feather to a perceived 'trench dodger' was an act of cowardice in itself.
I cannot imagine the sickening feeling these blokes must have felt after receiving one of these white feathers.
Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:57 pm
Posted 11 February 2012 - 12:38 am
Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:30 pm
Posted 11 February 2012 - 03:58 pm
The long answer is effectively given by the link in MichaelBully's immediately preceding post. The short answer is that it was not illegal to hand out white feathers, but the increasing handing of them to men engaged in work of national importance, to men certified as medically unfit, and ultimately to men "invalided out" of the Army led the concept into the disrepute which it so thoroughly deserved.
Posted 11 February 2012 - 04:25 pm
Posted 11 February 2012 - 06:09 pm
Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:10 pm
Quite correct. The campaign could not have survived without establishment support and that, at the time, meant men. There was always a level of support. People with relatives at the front would not have liked to have seen men who appeared to be able bodied, still at home. On the other hand, as the war wore on, more people became aware that men were needed at home as well as at the front. They were also more aware that not all disabling conditions were apparent to the man or woman in the street. Another factor was that women who handed out feathers were not always contributing to the war effort themselves nor were they going to share in the danger they were urging these men to expose themselves to.
Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:44 pm
Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:27 pm
There was a long standing movement from well before the war for implementing national service. Opposed from a political point of view by much of the Liberal Party and most left wing parties.Supporters of conscription would not be averse to any spontaneous demonstration that voluntary enlistment was not sufficient. From anecdotal evidence from my own family and friends as well as my reading, I believe that the pressure on men to enlist came from two different directions. One, political with a right wing orientation and the other, as the war was prolonged, people who had a man at the front or who had lost a loved one. As you say, conscription removed the need for pressure. There is a tangled political tale here which deserves a thread or three to itself.
Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:31 pm
Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:50 am
I have not come across any mention of this or at least I do not recall having done so. I should think that politicians would have been a bit more circumspect. The admiral was presumably just another example of the many rather eccentric creatures of which the Royal Navy seems to have had more than its share.
Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:16 am