Jack
Major
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 6,347
I am reading an article entitled 'Modelling for War? Toy Soldiers in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain' and came across this passage-
...it was the prevalence of militarism in Europe rather than alliances and assassinations which was ultimately responsible for the outbreak of the First World War...it is certainly difficult to see how, in the absence of just such a deeply held engrained militarism, Britain was able to sustain its armed forces on a voluntary basis for well over a year of the most demanding war in its history'.
The author then links the 'toy soldier craze' in England prior to 1914 (Britains alone was turning out 200 000 figures a week in 1910) to the preparedness of the Brits to go to war in 1914 and once there, stay there!
Could toy soldiers, therefore, have helped win a 'real' war?
...it was the prevalence of militarism in Europe rather than alliances and assassinations which was ultimately responsible for the outbreak of the First World War...it is certainly difficult to see how, in the absence of just such a deeply held engrained militarism, Britain was able to sustain its armed forces on a voluntary basis for well over a year of the most demanding war in its history'.
The author then links the 'toy soldier craze' in England prior to 1914 (Britains alone was turning out 200 000 figures a week in 1910) to the preparedness of the Brits to go to war in 1914 and once there, stay there!
Could toy soldiers, therefore, have helped win a 'real' war?