War and Culture: Case Study of The Great War
The Great War,
also known as World War 1, was a worldwide war that originated in Europe and
lasted between 28 July 1914 and 11 November 1918. It is one of the world’s largest
wars with 16 million casualties; 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians. (Eksteins,
2000). These huge casualties were occasioned by industrial and technological advancement
and also tough fighting in the trenches. The large casualties during the war
has led to banality of violence in today’s society, with lives not been held in
high esteem. Moreover, language and literature about mass deaths has become
acceptable and commonplace (Winter and Baggett, 1996).
The war pitted two different
political alliances, one based on the Triple Entente of France, the British
Empire and the Russian Empire and the other the Central Powers featuring
Germany and Austria-Hungary. As the war progressed, these alliances were
expanded with Italy, Japan and the United States joining the Triple Entente to
form the Allies and Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire joining the Central Powers.
The nations making up each of the opposing sides had historical and cultural
connections except Italy which broke ranks with the Central Powers.
The war was triggered by a
political and diplomatic impasse when Austria-Hungary gave Serbia an ultimatum
following assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne in
Austria-Hungary, by a Yugoslav, Gavrilo Princip. It has been pointed out that
this was the nemesis of international terrorism since it was a provocation of a
nation state with the aim of it reacting to its detriment (Winter and Baggett,
1996).
Indeed, the provocation invoked
international alliances formed over the previous few decades, embroiling the
major world powers and the entire world within a matter of weeks. Notably,
Germany had by then grown industrially and economically to rival Britain, which
was then the most powerful nation. But then Germany did not have the political
might of the British Empire, a disadvantage it seemingly wanted to redress as
pointed out by Jay Winter and Blaine Baggett, “"But where comes the
political equivalent of economic and industrial power... The instability of
European life is that Germany grew too rapidly for the political structures
which were old, and nobody knew how to change them, short of war" (Winter
and Baggett, 1996).
It has also been argued that the
Great War was unnecessary, and was the result of an imaginary war created by
those too old to fight who romanticized warfare (Lee, 2011). This ring true due
to the fact that the warring parties, especially the Triple Entente, had in the
past fought and won many wars. As such, they were bound to view the war in
terms of noble knights and conquered lands.
This uncertainty surrounding the
motive of the war leads many people to even today question wars. There is a
thin line between the high-mindedness and the hypocrisy of war, with the Great War
and the Iraq War being prime examples. Further, the Iraq War was apparently
waged to impose democracy in Iraq; a political system championed and imposed on
Germany after the Great War by American President Woodrow Wilson.
Germany, then the major force of
the Central Powers, invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg in its march towards
the Triple Entente nations of France and British Empire. This shows the war sociologically
impacted the immediate neighboring society regardless that the society was not
part of the conflict. Further evidence of this is evident during the Armenian
genocide, a civil war entrench in an international war. Hence, the Great War
gave the world a precedent in terms of killing neighbors.
After invasion of Belgium and
Luxembourg, Britain declared war on Germany and buffered the frontline in
France (West Front) that led to a battle of attrition for a few years, popularly
known as the Battle of Somme. The deadly response of the Triple Entente can be
attributed to the fact that these were composed of major Western powers who
ruled most of the world by then, who some military historians view as
“aggressive and straightforward” (Lee, 2011). Indeed, conscripts in the
Dominions required little persuasion to fight for the motherland with an Australian
minister during the time declaring that they were ready to fight to “the last
man and the last shilling” for the motherland. Britain subsequently sent troops
from the Dominions to the frontlines.
Russia made great headway on the
Eastern Front, overcoming the Austro-Hungarians. The Germans however stopped
Russia’s invasion of East Prussia. This was followed by other nations joining
the war based on their political and sociological leanings: Ottoman Empire,
Bulgaria and Romania joined the Central Powers whilst Italy, Japan and United
States joined the Allies.
One of the outcomes of the war was
the collapse of the Russian government and subsequent Russian Revolution of
March 1917, directly contributing to the rise of communism. Collapse of Russia
led to the Brest Litovsk Treaty between Russia and the Central Powers
spearheaded by Germany. Collapse of
communism in the early 1990s led to a repeat of the violence experienced during
the Great War in some states that attempted to use the same tactic used to
start the Great War e.g. in Serbia and Bosnia.
The German victory on the Eastern
Front during the Great War gave the country momentum on the Western Front where
it waged an impressive offensive codenamed Operation Marne-Rheims. Suffice to
say this German offensive led to successful counter-offensives by the Allies,
led by the Allies supreme commander Frenchman Ferdinand Foch, which ultimately
led to the end of the war and a win for the Allies on 11 November 1918 (Meyer,
2007). Germany was again to invade the Eastern Front later leading to World War
2. These show that success in battle gives a nation a boost to pursue other
seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
There are several reasons that led
to a win for the Allies during the Great War. One was the reinforcing of
British troops on the frontline with renewed authorization of troop replacement
and redeployment from the concluded Sinai and Palestine campaigns. Italy and
United States had also joined the war and sent troops to the frontline, with
the American Expeditionary Force ubiquitous. The Australians had also launched
an offensive on German forces, known as peaceful penetration, which had
considerably weakened the German defense. Germany was also experiencing internal
revolutionaries that made this major Central Powers force agree to an armistice.
According to Lee, an oft ignored
reason for the end of the war was British nationalism vis-à-vis operational
concerns and decisions (Lee, 2011.). This give rise to what he refers to as
“national moments”. National moments in the Great War include Gallipoli amphibian
landing for Australia and New Zealand, which differentiated Britain from the
Dominions and established the place of Australian and New Zealander soldiers as
gallant despite the Allies’ defeat in that battle. The Gallipoli Campaign is
also a national moment for Turkey, marking the last successful stand for the
Ottoman Empire and launching Turkey’s struggle for independence (Meyer, 2007). Vimy Ridge became a national moment for
Canada. Innovation, planning and training helped the combined forces from
Canada push back German defense lines; showcasing Canada’s advancement. The
gallant Canadian Corps consequently became respected and feared during the rest
of the Great War.
This widespread nationalism
intertwined with operational concerns and decisions. For example, Field
Marshall Douglas Haig kept Dominion troops separate from British troops and
gave them some autonomy, hence stoking nationalist fervor. Yet it was necessary
for Haig to do so because of their larger size, perceived valor and political
pressure from the colonies (Lee, 2011). Moreover there was a political need for
Britain to collaborate with other nations in the British Empire and also recognition
of their martial virtues, as gathered from Haig’s dispatches. Moreover, that
national troops were segregated meant they organized and trained on their own
hence becoming more effective and efficient tactically. Hence, when deployed,
the national troops performed well since they had lean command structures,
could move easily and had nationalism fervor. The subsequent increased
self-awareness and self-confidence of the Dominions and their troops fed
nationalism and vice-versa.
Literature disseminated during the
war aimed at political expediency, security and fueling nationalism in respective
countries. Field Marshal Douglas Haig’s dispatches recognized and congratulated
the Dominion troops, prepping them for more battles ahead. General Sir Henry
Rawlinson lied to his immediate troops to disguise offensives that were mostly
conducted by the Dominion troops. For the Dominion commanders, they fed the
self-awareness, self-confidence and nationalism among their troops and in their
countries (Eksteins, 2000).
The Great War brought an end to
some major world empires, especially on the side of the losers, including the
Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian
Empire. It also weakened the British Empire, leading to its eventual collapse. There
was redrawing of national boundaries leading to restoration and creation of
certain independent nations. This fueled immigration around Europe, a trend
later exacerbated by the fall of communism in the 1990s (Winter, 1996).
The winners of the Great War shared
the spoils, with Germany’s colonies being parceled out. The Big Four that
constituted Britain, France, Italy and United States imposed their terms at the
Paris Peace Conference of 1919, including formation of the League of Nations to
prevent a similar conflict in future. Formation of a European economic unit,
which eventually led to formation of the European Union, was floated in Paris
after the Great War, though it took another world war for this to materialize.
World War 2 was a recurrence of
conflict in Europe due to Nazism. Nazism can be traced to the ensuing economic
depression, renewed European nationalism and humiliation of Germany after the
Great War. The League of Nations also
had weakened member states as a result of the treaties signed after the Great
War (Eksteins, 2000).
The winners’ perception of the war
prevailed after the war ended, albeit with varying versions to pander to
nationalistic tendencies. The discourse soon degenerated to “who” won the war
rather than “how’ the war was won, with the Australians, Canadians and
Americans all claiming credit in the aftermath. The narrative hence became an
explicit and often comparative study of the contributions of the various
nations to the victory (Lee, 2011).
For the Dominions – Canada,
Australia and New Zealand – the victory was not only against the Central Powers
led by Germany, but it was also a victory against the limitations of Britain,
hitherto the perceived superpower.
This postwar analysis of the Great
War was a failing in that rather than investigate the “how” of the war, the dominant
“who” narrative failed to interrogate and acknowledge the levels and causes of
the huge casualties to both victors and losers during the various battles. It
was a postwar historiography that reshaped the events during the war to suit
national myths, hence obscuring the truth (Lee, 2011). In so doing, history was
bound to repeat itself.
The historiography of the war also
focused on the operation, forgetting the logistics. La Voie Sacree, a 72-kilometer
road, was a triumph for French logistics both in 1916 and 1918, ferrying many
men, ammunition and materials to Verdun. The British also contributed much to
logistics during the Great War (Meyer, 2007). But these logistical feats have
been largely ignored by the triumphalism literature.
The Great War also led to decline
of Britain and collapse of the British Empire as well as the emergence of
United States as a superpower. Britain suffered horribly during the war in terms
of soldiers and materials. Its colonies also started agitating for more
independence after the war because they recognized the mother country was not
that powerful. Ultimately, Britain had to involve United States in the war,
marking the passing of the superpower baton from Britain to United States.
Conclusion
Participation and evolution of
Britain’s colonies affected operations during and after the war. Nationalism
and a shared culture were crucial in bonding among troops from the same nation,
leading to a redrawing of national boundaries and signing of treaties that
still affect the world today.
While the Great War had many
financial, political and social costs, it led to a revision of national
identity for many countries especially those involved in the war (Lee, 2011).
Whilst national interests still remain very important for many countries, the European
countries involved in the war pursue this through other means, often soft
power, rather than resorting to military might (Winter, 1996).
References
Eksteins,
M., (2000). Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age.
Boston: Mariner Books.
Lee,
W. E. (ed), (2011). Warfare and Culture in World History. New York: New York
University Press
Meyer,
G. J., (2007). A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, 1914 to 1918. New
York: Delacorte Press.
Winter,
J. and Baggett, B., (1996). The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century.
London: Penguin.
Comments
Post a Comment