I found that the first article, ‘Vectors of Violence: paramilitarism in Europe after the Great War, 1917-1923’ was the more complex of the two articles. I thought that the author(s) provided good, critical insights into arguments accounting for the “uneven distribution” of paramilitarism in Europe, particularly regarding the “brutalization” effect and the power of defeat. I also found that the article is effective in conveying the way in which paramilitarism normalised violence under this disguise that it was a necessary and perfectly ‘justified’ response towards an enemy who posed a perceived threat to the state
I found that the second article ‘Victory, Defeat, Gender, and Disability: Blind War Veterans in Czechoslovakia’ was slightly easier to comprehend than the first article. I found that it conveyed the treatment of blind war veterans in Czechoslovakia well, from different angles and perspectives also (the state, media, family). The article emphasised the varying treatment of blinded war veterans by the state, essentially depending on what side of the war the veteran fought on. This exposes the inequality, and lack of universal approach, which seemed to be evident in the support of such veterans. The only thing I would note is that I thought the article was slightly contradictory at one point as the author(s) noted that the state and popular media were “similarly sympathetic” to blinded war veterans – which may have been true in the medias case, however, the article has emphasised this varying treatment towards war veterans, with real sympathy and support being primarily directed towards legionaries (the minority) contradicting the idea of a universally sympathetic approach.
Bethany
Thanks Rhys, for this summary and critique, and to Bethany for your thoughts. I like the fact that you’ve identified the discussion of the ‘brutalisation theory’, which is an important idea for historians working in this area. G/H reject brutalisation, but do we think they perhaps go to far here in downplaying its importance?
Thanks also for pointing out your frustration that G/H don’t really move beyond 1923. I wonder if there is anything in their argument that could help us understand, even if implicitly, why paramilitarism disappeared from 1923? (Of course it reappeared at the end of the 1920s).
The idea of a ‘culture of defeat’ (and a culture of victory) is currently quite fashionable amongst historians and as you’ve noted, it plays an important role in these articles. But do you think there are flaws or weaknesses in this idea/approach? I wonder, for example, about the relative lack of voices of disabled veterans themselves in the L/N article.
I agree, Bethany, that the L/N article is easier to get your head around (G/H cover so much!) and you’ve done an excellent job of close reading and pulling out some inconsistencies. The authors point to a hierarchy of veterans, but it is not an idea that they develop as much as they could. I also wonder how far veterans themselves actually saw themselves as part of a hierarchy.
Do these articles change the way we think about and approach the end of the First World War?
Matt
Hi Matt, I think G/H definitely downplay the importance of the brutalisation theory within their article as they reject the idea rather than accept it may have played a factor within paramilitarism. In my personal opinion I think the theory played a key role within as the violence more than likely didn’t come from nowhere and I believe that with there no longer being a war the need to let out this violence continued, hence paramilitarism rose from the ashes of the war.
In response to the disappearance of paramilitarism in 1923 it is argued that is didn’t quite vanish but lay dormant and rooted itself beneath the peaceful politics which were returning to nations.
There are certainly flaws and weaknesses when it comes to the culture of defeat/victory, as is there flaws with all ideas within history. For example, whether a country won the war, does it feel like they won with the sacrifice of life etc they made, or does this make them feel as though they have lost the war in a different sense. Vice versa for the losers of the war, in a way may feel like they won in terms of possible land expansion etc. All countries would respond differently dependent on the outcome and the L/N article certainly lacks the voice of the Czech people.
I would say these articles do change the outlook of the end of WW1 as it makes you question when the war ended in 1918 or 23, officially 1918 but based on the paramilitarism in the years which followed, did the war end then?
Rhys
I agree Rhys that it often comes down a question of balancing the different theories and that there are aspects of brutalisation that should not be necessarily rejected. Certainly WWI foregrounded the idea that violence could be used to resolve political problems, or else reshape and forge new nation-states and political projects.
One thing that I would like us to bear in mind in this module is the idea of a European civil war throughout the period. As you note from G/H, a lot of the violence appears to dissipate from 1923, but that doesn’t mean that conflict disappears…
Sorry that I am a bit late commenting, I completely agree with Rhys and Bethany’s viewpoints on this.
The biggest thing for me personally that stood out on the Luptak and Newman reading was the extent of the difference in approaches by countries towards First World War Veterans. The opinions of some family members also stood out for me, especially the comments from wives about their husbands being a burden and the imagery of a ‘small boy as opposed to a young man’ illustrates the true impact of being injured at war.
The Gerwarth and Horne reading was an interesting one. When I think about paramilitarism, I automatically think about Ireland. However, the impact of the First World War, as well as social and economic concerns, exacerbated tensions on the continent and led to a complete change in the landscape across Europe. The fall of the great continental empires and the issues of political legitimacy stood out for me as it created the image of a largely unstable continent with newly created nation-states born out of the ashes of previously great empires. The expansion of paramilitarism and violence compounds the image of division and perhaps of an archaic social and political order that extended over the majority of Europe.
I found that the first article, ‘Vectors of Violence: paramilitarism in Europe after the Great War, 1917-1923’ was the more complex of the two articles. I thought that the author(s) provided good, critical insights into arguments accounting for the “uneven distribution” of paramilitarism in Europe, particularly regarding the “brutalization” effect and the power of defeat. I also found that the article is effective in conveying the way in which paramilitarism normalised violence under this disguise that it was a necessary and perfectly ‘justified’ response towards an enemy who posed a perceived threat to the state
I found that the second article ‘Victory, Defeat, Gender, and Disability: Blind War Veterans in Czechoslovakia’ was slightly easier to comprehend than the first article. I found that it conveyed the treatment of blind war veterans in Czechoslovakia well, from different angles and perspectives also (the state, media, family). The article emphasised the varying treatment of blinded war veterans by the state, essentially depending on what side of the war the veteran fought on. This exposes the inequality, and lack of universal approach, which seemed to be evident in the support of such veterans. The only thing I would note is that I thought the article was slightly contradictory at one point as the author(s) noted that the state and popular media were “similarly sympathetic” to blinded war veterans – which may have been true in the medias case, however, the article has emphasised this varying treatment towards war veterans, with real sympathy and support being primarily directed towards legionaries (the minority) contradicting the idea of a universally sympathetic approach.
Bethany
Thanks Rhys, for this summary and critique, and to Bethany for your thoughts. I like the fact that you’ve identified the discussion of the ‘brutalisation theory’, which is an important idea for historians working in this area. G/H reject brutalisation, but do we think they perhaps go to far here in downplaying its importance?
Thanks also for pointing out your frustration that G/H don’t really move beyond 1923. I wonder if there is anything in their argument that could help us understand, even if implicitly, why paramilitarism disappeared from 1923? (Of course it reappeared at the end of the 1920s).
The idea of a ‘culture of defeat’ (and a culture of victory) is currently quite fashionable amongst historians and as you’ve noted, it plays an important role in these articles. But do you think there are flaws or weaknesses in this idea/approach? I wonder, for example, about the relative lack of voices of disabled veterans themselves in the L/N article.
I agree, Bethany, that the L/N article is easier to get your head around (G/H cover so much!) and you’ve done an excellent job of close reading and pulling out some inconsistencies. The authors point to a hierarchy of veterans, but it is not an idea that they develop as much as they could. I also wonder how far veterans themselves actually saw themselves as part of a hierarchy.
Do these articles change the way we think about and approach the end of the First World War?
Matt
Hi Matt, I think G/H definitely downplay the importance of the brutalisation theory within their article as they reject the idea rather than accept it may have played a factor within paramilitarism. In my personal opinion I think the theory played a key role within as the violence more than likely didn’t come from nowhere and I believe that with there no longer being a war the need to let out this violence continued, hence paramilitarism rose from the ashes of the war.
In response to the disappearance of paramilitarism in 1923 it is argued that is didn’t quite vanish but lay dormant and rooted itself beneath the peaceful politics which were returning to nations.
There are certainly flaws and weaknesses when it comes to the culture of defeat/victory, as is there flaws with all ideas within history. For example, whether a country won the war, does it feel like they won with the sacrifice of life etc they made, or does this make them feel as though they have lost the war in a different sense. Vice versa for the losers of the war, in a way may feel like they won in terms of possible land expansion etc. All countries would respond differently dependent on the outcome and the L/N article certainly lacks the voice of the Czech people.
I would say these articles do change the outlook of the end of WW1 as it makes you question when the war ended in 1918 or 23, officially 1918 but based on the paramilitarism in the years which followed, did the war end then?
Rhys
I agree Rhys that it often comes down a question of balancing the different theories and that there are aspects of brutalisation that should not be necessarily rejected. Certainly WWI foregrounded the idea that violence could be used to resolve political problems, or else reshape and forge new nation-states and political projects.
One thing that I would like us to bear in mind in this module is the idea of a European civil war throughout the period. As you note from G/H, a lot of the violence appears to dissipate from 1923, but that doesn’t mean that conflict disappears…
Sorry that I am a bit late commenting, I completely agree with Rhys and Bethany’s viewpoints on this.
The biggest thing for me personally that stood out on the Luptak and Newman reading was the extent of the difference in approaches by countries towards First World War Veterans. The opinions of some family members also stood out for me, especially the comments from wives about their husbands being a burden and the imagery of a ‘small boy as opposed to a young man’ illustrates the true impact of being injured at war.
The Gerwarth and Horne reading was an interesting one. When I think about paramilitarism, I automatically think about Ireland. However, the impact of the First World War, as well as social and economic concerns, exacerbated tensions on the continent and led to a complete change in the landscape across Europe. The fall of the great continental empires and the issues of political legitimacy stood out for me as it created the image of a largely unstable continent with newly created nation-states born out of the ashes of previously great empires. The expansion of paramilitarism and violence compounds the image of division and perhaps of an archaic social and political order that extended over the majority of Europe.