I think the Gerwarth and Horne chapter highlights the British centric nature of our existing knowledge of The Great War. The conventional picture we have is of a slow war, fought in straight lines in the fields of France, between two clearly denoted sides which came to an end with a specific act on a specific date. The insight into the paramilitarism of eastern Europe paints a far more complicated picture of the violence, with secular or ethnic lines being drawn within failing empires and newly formed states. This is also far from the structured trench warfare and the ‘us versus them’ rhetoric of a war viewed by many as simply being between Britain and Germany.
I think it was really interesting, as Robbie highlighted, about the contrast between winners and losers. As the victors in the war and at the time a fairly ethnically homogenous place, Britain was able to return to some normality in 1918, so we perhaps don’t give much consideration to how a nation can recover following defeat and the dysfunction of the break up of empires with ethnically diverse populations.
It also highlights the fact that we view 1918 onwards as a time of peace in Britain, despite the Irish War of Independence following in 1919.
Thanks, Robbie, for this summary and critique, and Neil, for your thoughts so far. I think your emphasis on the central role of the state in the Luptak/Newman article is important and it makes me wonder if L/N could have developed this more. Czechoslovakia was a new state emerging from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire and I wonder if there is more to the question (that we can’t answer with more research, of course!) of why there was such a heavy emphasis on the state. The authors do argue that there was a ‘hierarchy’ of veterans, but this isn’t always clear to me in the article itself and I wonder if it could be developed in more detail. You’ve also had a good stab at summarising a very wide-ranging article from Gerwarth/Horne – and I wonder if the article is too wide-ranging. Do we think it covers too much, and generalises overly?
You’ve both picked up on the authors’ emphasis on victory and defeat. But do you think the authors actually agree here? I wonder if Gerwarth/Horne generalise too much about the situation in each nation-state, while Luptak/Newman try to dig down into the reactions of different communities, but ultimately don’t develop this point as much as they could.
One of the reasons I gave you these two articles was precisely to get away from a British- and western-front-centred view of the war. Does it make sense to argue that in central/Eastern Europe the First World War carried on beyond 1917/8, or should we be labelling this period something else?
Matt
To answer your question Matt I do believe we could argue that the First World War lasted longer than 1918 as we are commonly led to believe. As the Gerwarth and Horne mention, areas within Europe created their own paramilitary forces in response to the rise of the Bolsheviks, they believed their cause would “infect” the rest of Europe as they put it. These states included victors such as Britain and France as mentioned in the article so i believe it would be fair to say while the war was technically over for them, the threat was never far away and European states were affected by this. Further to this, they mention that there was many different nationalities that fought alongside each other against Bolshevism so I believe that could be considered an extension of the First World War rather than creating a new label for this period.
I think both articles highlight the struggles that came with forming new states and as previously mentioned there was a heavy focus on victory and defeat. Masculinity seems to be a theme throughout both articles as the Gerwarth and Horne half mention it as a possible reason for the rise of paramilitary response. Further to this Luptak and Newman mention the fact that blind veterans were emasculated by their family and society due to their disability. Gender roles could be a factor for further explanation in both cases but it does highlight the time period of the First World War where it was seen as masculine and brave to fight for your country.
Siobhan
Thanks, Siobhan. I wonder if those fighting against the emerging Bolshevik state in Russia saw, however, the conflict as one that is different? I certainly don’t know and it’s the kind of question that would require further research.
Masculinity is an interesting and important theme to point out – and it’s something that we’ll return to over the coming weeks.
I think the Gerwarth and Horne chapter highlights the British centric nature of our existing knowledge of The Great War. The conventional picture we have is of a slow war, fought in straight lines in the fields of France, between two clearly denoted sides which came to an end with a specific act on a specific date. The insight into the paramilitarism of eastern Europe paints a far more complicated picture of the violence, with secular or ethnic lines being drawn within failing empires and newly formed states. This is also far from the structured trench warfare and the ‘us versus them’ rhetoric of a war viewed by many as simply being between Britain and Germany.
I think it was really interesting, as Robbie highlighted, about the contrast between winners and losers. As the victors in the war and at the time a fairly ethnically homogenous place, Britain was able to return to some normality in 1918, so we perhaps don’t give much consideration to how a nation can recover following defeat and the dysfunction of the break up of empires with ethnically diverse populations.
It also highlights the fact that we view 1918 onwards as a time of peace in Britain, despite the Irish War of Independence following in 1919.
Thanks, Robbie, for this summary and critique, and Neil, for your thoughts so far. I think your emphasis on the central role of the state in the Luptak/Newman article is important and it makes me wonder if L/N could have developed this more. Czechoslovakia was a new state emerging from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire and I wonder if there is more to the question (that we can’t answer with more research, of course!) of why there was such a heavy emphasis on the state. The authors do argue that there was a ‘hierarchy’ of veterans, but this isn’t always clear to me in the article itself and I wonder if it could be developed in more detail. You’ve also had a good stab at summarising a very wide-ranging article from Gerwarth/Horne – and I wonder if the article is too wide-ranging. Do we think it covers too much, and generalises overly?
You’ve both picked up on the authors’ emphasis on victory and defeat. But do you think the authors actually agree here? I wonder if Gerwarth/Horne generalise too much about the situation in each nation-state, while Luptak/Newman try to dig down into the reactions of different communities, but ultimately don’t develop this point as much as they could.
One of the reasons I gave you these two articles was precisely to get away from a British- and western-front-centred view of the war. Does it make sense to argue that in central/Eastern Europe the First World War carried on beyond 1917/8, or should we be labelling this period something else?
Matt
To answer your question Matt I do believe we could argue that the First World War lasted longer than 1918 as we are commonly led to believe. As the Gerwarth and Horne mention, areas within Europe created their own paramilitary forces in response to the rise of the Bolsheviks, they believed their cause would “infect” the rest of Europe as they put it. These states included victors such as Britain and France as mentioned in the article so i believe it would be fair to say while the war was technically over for them, the threat was never far away and European states were affected by this. Further to this, they mention that there was many different nationalities that fought alongside each other against Bolshevism so I believe that could be considered an extension of the First World War rather than creating a new label for this period.
I think both articles highlight the struggles that came with forming new states and as previously mentioned there was a heavy focus on victory and defeat. Masculinity seems to be a theme throughout both articles as the Gerwarth and Horne half mention it as a possible reason for the rise of paramilitary response. Further to this Luptak and Newman mention the fact that blind veterans were emasculated by their family and society due to their disability. Gender roles could be a factor for further explanation in both cases but it does highlight the time period of the First World War where it was seen as masculine and brave to fight for your country.
Siobhan
Thanks, Siobhan. I wonder if those fighting against the emerging Bolshevik state in Russia saw, however, the conflict as one that is different? I certainly don’t know and it’s the kind of question that would require further research.
Masculinity is an interesting and important theme to point out – and it’s something that we’ll return to over the coming weeks.
I wonder if anyone else has anything to add here?