Roger Ayers wrote:
"Then what of the Epitaph of War? I firmly believe that Kipling was
referring to those who failed to accept the necessity for National Service,
long promoted by Lord Roberts and the National Service League and supported
by Kipling, to provide a force and a trained reserve for the defence of the
British Isles. Their refusal to accept that National Service was necessary
had deceived the young men of the country and left them unprepared and
untrained for the war that they, the young, and not their fathers, had
inevitably to fight."
Under this interesting interpretation, it wasn't simply that the 'fathers'
failed to understand the need for military preparation in the years leading
up to 1914; on the contrary, they understood the need, but concealed it. As
far as I can see, that is the only way in which they can be said to have
'lied' about the matter - as opposed to being irresponsibly optimistic or
mistaken.
My off-the-cuff reaction is that this is a somewhat far-fetched
interpretation of Kipling's grim epitaph. Is there anything to support it?
Will Stevens
|