The Great War in History: Debates and Controversies, 1914 to the present
By Jay Winter and Antoine Prost
‘Soldiers: How did they wage war?’
Winter and Prost provide a detailed explanation for the historiographical changes that concern the experiences of soldiers during the Great War. Beginning with the historiography at the time of the First World War and continuing until the present day, Winter and Prost discuss the various changes in approach towards studying soldiers and the attitudes of society surrounding them.
During WW1 and the following Inter-War period, historians engaged little with first-hand accounts of soldiers and focused primarily on the politics and big facts of the war. Historians considered the soldier’s perspective as too limited and belonged in the field of literature rather than “serious history” (p.83)
However, accounts and memoirs of soldiers sold well in Europe as citizens wanted to know the hardships their countrymen had endured and preserve the memory of those who had died. However, historians still considered this only excessive literature. (p.87)
It was not until the 60s/70s that British and French historians began taking the soldier’s perspective more seriously. The rise of social, labour, and military history meant there was an interest in first-hand knowledge of the war front as the individual soldier’s experience was needing to be explored. (p.90-91) It was during this time that areas such as psychological impacts, social divisions, resentment, consent, sexual frustration, fear, disobedience, among many other more personal experiences for the solider began to be explored.
There were several hindrances to this new historiographical pursuit. For example, Interwar pacifism made it difficult for some historians to explore the history of combat with support, especially amongst the French Left. Sources were limited for the French since soldier memoirs were not considered official documents, sources had to be approved by the archives. (p.98-9)
What I find noticeable is that the authors suggest that violence has become greatly censored and avoided in recent times, given the grisly decades that followed WW1 has exposed us to the brutal reality of war. (p.101-2) Further, the harrowing accounts of soldiers provide us with a front-row seat to these destructive theatres of the past.
Interestingly, one would expect that these accounts should make us wince and turn away, but this is not the case. Many of us continue to engage with these gruesome sources whether out of respect or fascination and occasionally we are horrified, but perhaps not horrified enough.
Word count: 380
Alan Kramer – The burning of Louvain
(Catherine M)
In ‘The Burning of Louvain’ Kramer summarises the events of August-October 1914 as the German army inflicted a wave of massacres and violent destruction on civilian towns in Belgium. The article is split into 4 sections, each focusing on a different aspect of the events.
Louvain and the atrocities of 1914
– Kramer summarises the events of Louvain. He uses this section to give context to the events.
-On the 19th of August 1914 German troops arrived in Louvain, Belgium. All weapons had been confiscated to avoid altercations before their arrival. Yet, the troops falsely identified a threat and began their rampage. 248 killed, 1500 deported, 1120 houses burned, many tortured, and the 14th century university library destroyed. This was widely seen as an attack on culture and was a focal point of the media coverage.
-He also raised further examples of Dinant and Rheims
A ‘German Way of War’? German self-justification and the international response
-Kramer looks deeper into why the violence occurred at both Louvain and other occasions.
-Louvain may not have been premeditated as the town would have been much more use as a base. German soldiers may have shot into the dark misinterpreting each other as francs-tireurs. There were also tensions between the protestant Germans and Catholic Belgians, according to a rector of the university the soldiers only burned the library as they mistook it for the catholic University.
– Though, the massacres at Denant were clearly premeditated and the soldiers had orders to destroy.
International law in 1914
-Belgium went to the USA for help against the German crimes against culture and civilisation as they were leading in international law. Germany had signed the Hauge convention yet did not adhere to the rules. Kramer provides evidence that German soldiers were specifically trained to avoid them as these didn’t comply with the ‘German viewpoint.’
The Intellectuals response to atrocities
-The opinions of intellectuals are often an important viewpoint to consider. Kramer uses this section to look at the response of scientists, scholars, and artists who had close links and access to international academic communities.
-These German intellectuals were largely on the side of the troops. They believed it is worth destroying valuable culture to save lives. When artist Ferdinand Hodler signed a protest ginst the destruction he was quickly, completely disowned by the German arts community.
Overall, Kramers article was very easy to follow. He made great use of evidence and no point he made was unsupported, and in a way that let them speak for themselves. This came across very matter of fact and read as though each angle of the event had been analysed.
I really liked the way Jamie has concluded on the soldiers’ accounts of WWI. This peculiar fascination for first-hand testimonies of violence has lasted over time, and it may induce a more moderate feeling of horror nowadays.
However, I would argue that (emotional) detachment is also what allows us to analyse these events with greater objectivity, as Kramer tries to do. Kramer attempts to give a certain rationale and motivations for German atrocities in Louvain, Dinant, and Rheims. In reading it, I felt that Kramer hinted upon a more philosophical question: can there be a just/fair/moral war?
Definitely, I agree Kramers objective look at events is useful as I think it can be really difficult for anyone to remove their previous biases towards the ‘enemy’ (German troops) and consider that things may have kicked off unintentionally, especially with the horror of what was committed at Louvain. The amount of primary sources he uses also helps keeps it very factual and un-opinionated which adds to this.
Thanks, Catherine and Jamie, for these summaries. I’m sorry that it’s taken me so long to get to the blog; ordinarily I’d be commenting on Tuesday. You’ve covered important points here and thanks for including your own reflections. The fascination or interest in violence is a slightly uncomfortable question, I think; there is a danger that in this kind of module we can move too far into philosophical abstraction or, in the other direction, a form of titillation. (I find that Prost/Winter’s remark that scholars of warfare violence have not often experienced violence themselves to speak directly to me!)
I’m interested in this question of objectivity that has emerged. Is this simply a result of Kramer’s historical method – of contrasting sources carefully – whereas primary sources are necessarily more subjective, particularly when we’re looking at accounts by soldiers themselves? In that sense I’m not convinced Jünger and Kramer, for example, are directly comparable. What I do find interesting about Kramer, though, is that he does include some emphasis on emotions (e.g. panic) in his analysis.
I agree with Catherine, Kramer’s article was very easy to follow and his use of primary source accounts furthers his argument. I think it is important to consider whether the attack on Louvain was sheer panic or a premeditated attack as a result of religious tensions. However, I do not think Louvain was an isolated incident as similar events took place in other towns and on the Eastern Front.
I think Catherine summarised Kramer’s article brilliantly. There are definitely patterns that follow in WW1 that are similar to the incident of Louvain with the destruction of cultural buildings but also the outbreaks of panic amongst German troops where they aimlessly open fire and seem disorganised. I think there definitely could be a religious element to Louvain but it should not be overplayed as there were many German Catholics however, the burning of Catholic buildings were intentional and German troops knew this would strike Louvain at its core and cause as much hurt and destruction as possible. Louvain is very telling of the nature of violence that would persist throughout the war and for that reason and the global attention it received, it is a very significant event.