The Great War Changed the Definition of War

War has always been an interest of man. He who has the strongest army tends to hold the power. In the feudal society, the lords had access to armies which resulted in their dominance over the common man. In imperialistic Britain, the British were the most powerful, and thus, the economically wealthy nation in the world. With a dominant army, came a correlation of a strong economy. People saw war as romantic because the most skilled warriors determined a victory. World War 1 turned these ideas around.

Howitzer artillery gun used in World War I

World War 1 introduced the first mass killing machines. The introduction of the machine gun changed warfare forever. No longer was a war dependant on who was a better-trained shot, because with a machine gun, a spray of bullets into the enemy did not require skill and it was much more efficient. Artillery meant shells could devastate large groups of enemies.

One's skill with a rifle or a sword no longer determined if they would win a fight. The machine gun was the great equalizer where the only thing that mattered was how strong a position was. Mortar shells no longer required soldiers to even have to see their enemy to kill them. For the first time, a war was turned from an art or skill to an extermination effort. Whoever could kill more in less time, wins the war. The devastation was unprecedented.

Today, war can often be performed from different sides of the world. Rarely are conflicts large outright invasions because death can be delivered on a scale that would make large masses too easy with too large of costs of lives. War is impersonal. It is disconnected. Killing enemies is closer related to exterminating pests with a drone strike screen and hunting high-profile leaders like rodents.

Image credit: Howitzer gun Turkey World War 1, by WikiImages. Licensed by Pixaby under CC 2.0

Romantic Nationalism

I went to a Dead Soldiers Debate today, which was a presentation where actors portrayed four deceased military personnel from World War I to honor those who fought in that Great War on this 100th anniversary of Armistice Day.

One of the more interesting aspects for me was the opinions of Lt. Young, an African American fighting for the US, and Col. Junger from Germany, both of whom had very Romantic views of the war. This was exaggerated greatly by the contrast with the US private who hated the war and lived a miserable, traumatized life after it ended.
Both Lt. Young and Col. Junger were driven by a deep drive for Nationalism. Junger was convinced that the war was necessary to protect the Germans form their rivals. Young wanted desperately to be given the opportunity to prove his allegiance to his country.

Lieutenant Colonel Charles Young

Junger spoke very lovingly of his country, citing all the genius and invention that Germany had given birth to. He wanted to protect that, and saw the war as the best way to do that. Additionally, he saw combat as an ideal avenue to prove his skills and test his abilities. This was much more Romantic and in stark contrast to Allred, who viewed the war as unconstitutional servitude.

Lt. Young also idealized the war as a way to prove himself. What he wanted to prove was his loyalty to the United States. However, he also mentioned that he wasn't quite sure what democracy the US was fighting for if African Americans were banned from public office and women still weren't allowed to vote.

It is so interesting, that despite all of this, he yearned to show his loyalty to a country who had not been loyal to him in any way. That, to me, is a very Romantic sense of nationalism. It was less about what the country was or had been, but what it could be, what you believe it stands for, even if its actions don't fall in line.

All in all, it was a fascinating program that taught me a lot and showed an intriguing cross-section of opinions.

Image Credit: US Army

Dead Soldiers' Debate: Where is Nationalism Now?

German damage to the Statue of Liberty

“I didn’t want to serve in the war,” Private Leonard Allred expressed with heaviness in his voice at the Dead Soldiers’ Debate on BYU campus.  Sorrow and brokenness weighed down his tone as he expressed the pains he experienced in war: body lice constantly biting him, rats and bugs, the stench of death, trekking over hills, the moaning of wounded men.  He hadn’t wanted to be a part of any of it, but he’d been drafted, “involuntary servitude” he labeled it.  This was infringing on their rights protected in the 13^th amendment.  Was this the nationalism he wanted to be a part of? 

And the affects didn’t end when he left the battlefield.  Private Allred’s wife welcomed home a veteran who was abusive and beat her, driving her to attempt suicide.  He lived as an outcast for years before spending the last part of his life in a veteran’s hospital with others who had the same psychiatric case.  Where was the help he needed?  Where was his nation now after he’d served them in war?

On the other hand, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Young was an African American born shortly after the end of the Civil War.  He’d led several cavalries and had experience in combat.  He wanted to serve the United States of America and express his loyalty to the country in which he hoped to experience liberty.  However, the African American soldiers were initially denied military service.  Eventually they were allowed to fight but still experienced measures of segregation: they weren’t allowed to fight overseas, and their units were segregated by color.  Colonel Young wanted so bad to demonstrate the loyalty he felt to his country yet was constantly being rejected that opportunity.

Both accounts illustrate nationalistic feelings.  Private Allred wanted the America he already supported—the one that protected his rights.  Colonel Young wanted to be part of America not only because of where he physically lived, but he wanted his people and his sacrifices to be seen and accepted as his loyalty to the country.  Did their participation in the war do more to preserve or hurt nationalism?

Image credit: German damage to the Statue of Liberty (via Spartacus Educational)

Romance with War

A Very Long Engagement was clever mélange between a romance and a war film. Romanticism is built into every bit of the film. A young couple who are deeply in love is separated by a brutal war. She refuses to accept the fate of her soul-mate and a romance with the trail of his death begins.

All things considered, this is a mystery/romance however it was a painfully drawn out version of the genre. The film is great and it is really hard not to be emotionally involved with the characters. That being said, the nature of the film is to frustrate the viewers as poor Matilde runs into dead end after dead end. A well-made film should make people feel things during it or I do not feel like it is worth watching.

This film brought a stark realization of the realities of war. Every person shot has a family who misses and loves them back home. Every person has a background that is effectually erased when their lives are meaninglessly snuffed out. Too often when we talk of wars, we state the death statistics like that is all they are. Each number represents a person. Although we romanticize the idea of war because of the honor and glory it brings.

Ultimately, I feel this film wraps up the storyline as you would expect. The final scene is the bow on top. “Does it hurt when you walk” is the same line he used to first catch Matilde’s attention, and it ties the whole experience together as they are reunited. She watches him as he performs a meaningless task. “Elle le regard” a simple phrase repeated as a smile spreads across her face. I could not help but feel my own heart stir.

Image credit:WW1 Trenches, by bmewett. licensed by cc 2.0 by Pixaby

We Are All Miners

Going into Comradeship (Kameradschaft in the original German), I didn't know exactly what to expect or how it would connect with World War I. After watching the movie, thankfully with English subtitles, I still wasn't entirely sure what it had to do with WWI. Thank you Wikipedia! After getting a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the events of the film, I finally understand it's significance to the First World War and to romanticism.

To give you a quick recap of the movie, Comradeship portrays the real-life event of a French mine, with the structural integrity of a Jenga tower, near the border between France and Germany catching fire and a German rescue team comes to save the surviving miners. This all happened not long after WWI, so France and Germany weren't exactly on the best terms with each other. As an example, there is one point where one of the rescue crew members goes to save a miner and the miner, seeing the German facemask, suddenly flashes back to fighting German soldiers in WWI and proceeds to attack the man. Granted, this is due to PTSD, but it's not the only instance of the tension between these two peoples. There is also a group of three German miners that the film focuses on who are shown as not really liking the people of France, so you get to see the discrimination from both sides.

The movie ends with both peoples realizing that they don't need to dislike each other anymore, because they're all miners! In all seriousness, the overarching message of the film is truly that different countries can, and should, live in harmony with each other, deconstructing the idea of nationalism to some extent because they were only able to fix the situation after looking beyond their national identity and pride, their romanticized, individualistic view of themselves, to see that, whether French or German, they're all human and other labels don't matter. This is definitely a message that is still pertinent to our time and should be something we all strive to live by.

Image Credit: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022017/ Eureka Entertainment

Nationalism, Compassion and a Star-Spangled Tattoo: Wings

Isn't he just the funniest "German" you've ever seen?

Wings is a story, a film, about World War One, in a time before it was known that there would be a "World War Two". During that perilous time of conflict nationalistic ideologies were on the rise as anti-"blank" sentiments heated up, mostly due to the "monstrosities" each side was perpetuating in their propaganda. The American characters, both main and side, use deragatory terms to refer to the German forces, and steal trophies from their destroyed vehicles. It is in the midst of this hatred that the film's comic relief figure, Herman the German (played by El Brendel), is introduced. While not the focus of the film, it is Herman's personality and actions which help to truly show the positive aspects of what it means to be an American. Being of German descent and having a German name, Herman is looked down upon at best and physically assaulted at worst multiple times for being a percieved "spy" when trying to enter the armed forces. It's only when he can reveal his right bicep, which has a tattoo of the stars and stripes on it, that the others are convinced of his patriotism. Throughout the film he is the target of slapstick humor, constantly being punched and shoved, and in one of the film's more serious moments, gets kicked out of the Air Force. Despite all of this, he always gets back up, ready to take more if needed, and after losing his chance to become a pilot becomes a mechanic instead so that he would still be involved in the aviation program. His determination and "never-give-up" attitude help show the reader the core behind the American spirit, along with his willingless to always help others. In the last scene he is featured in, one of the most dark in the film, he discovers the lost good luck charm, a small teddy bear, that one of the protagonists drops before he goes off to fly. Running as if for his life, he only just barely misses the pilot as he flies off, but makes it in time to hand the teddy bear off to the second protagonist of the film, an item that becomes extremely important later on. His compassion and patience with others is easily seen in his interactions with the rest of the cast, and with his inclusion the film moves from a dreary drama of the horrors of war to having a sun beam of hope as the audience feels the beauty behind the American Dream.

Wings is a film that starts bright and cheerful and ends in sorrow, albeit with a spot of hope, and in this review I wanted to do the opposite. To be truthful, there is no character in this film that I would ever more want to be than Herman the German. Where others might look towards the resourceful and playful Jack, or the rich but humble friend David, or for the ladies the deterministic and stereotype subverting Mary, I see Herman as the best source for inspiration in this film. I wish I could have even a smidge of his patience and good nature as I go about my time here on Earth, and I hope that one day I can help another like he helps everyone he meets.

Image Credit: "El Brendel" obtained via Wikimedia Commons

That's Not the Point

There is no glory in war. I know that. I don't know it first hand, of course, but I've been taught over and over throughout the years by study of war after war that there is nothing glorious, nothing to be sought after in man's conflict against man. That said, studying WWI drives that home to me more poignantly than any other conflict. Maybe it's the dull waiting of the stale-mated trenches. Maybe it's the bleakness of no-man's land. Maybe it's the devastation and inescapability of mustard gas. Or something else. I don't know.

Art inspired by "In Flanders Feilds" by John McRae

No one knew. WWI was a war that came at the end of a line of dominoes. No one knew why anyone was fighting, really. And it dragged on. It got messy. It became big. Broken. Incomprehensible. I can't say that I've studied WWI in depth, but every brush I've had with it through art or film or literature has left me with a longing to understand. It seems to pour out of the souls of everyone who was involved in the conflict, either directly or indirectly. "Why? Why did this happen? Why did we allow this to destroy so many lives?"

"A Very Long Engagement" speaks to that longing for truth. It's a beautiful movie that embraces the Romantic ideal of letting some things be too big to be resolved. The heroine, Mathilde, sets herself on a seemingly impossible journey to find the truth of what happened to her fiance in the war. She follows her heart. She leads with her irrationality, and it leads her to rational discovery upon rational discovery. That was actually one of my favorite parts of the film. At crucial moments, when everything seemed to be suspended in uncertainty, hovering over the void of crushing disappointment, Mathilde would seek the truth in the mundane. She'd say to herself, "If my dog comes in before dinner is ready, then there's still hope." She'd wait. Often, the parameters she'd set for her hope wouldn't be filled. But she'd keep going.

She wanted her fiance to be alive. That was her driving purpose. But it wasn't the point. The point was finding the truth. Mathilde hardly wasted time asking "why". She accepted that "why" was too big. To incomprehensible. "What" was what concerned her, and it was the only thing that mattered. The truth could have been hideous, and often was, it wouldn't matter. She needed to know.

Nothing was really resolved at the end of the film. The war had still ruined the lives of almost everyone depicted. People were dead. Holes were blown in reality. Nobody had any answer for why any of it had happened. But resolution wasn't the point. Mathilde found the truth. One unknowable became known,though it was at the price of uncovering a thousand more unanswerable questions. Nothing was fixed. But that was fine. Fixing things wasn't the point.

Photo Credit