World War I

The aspect I find the most interesting about the war is the shift in the popular vision of the definition and implications of "war".  As the book states, "war was seen as a test of 'manhood'" (27) and those sent to fight were viewed as heroes.  The book discusses the involvement of conscription in this phenomenon as well as the ability to rationalize motivations for the fighting.  I find myself wondering about the impact of changing gender roles in shifting the idea of war valor/duty.  It seems as though the Victorian notions of masculinity are largely at play.  The idea of the male being the guardian protector and agressor fits with the notion of war as a duty.  However, since the role of women at home and in the workplace was becoming more independent, I would like to research a bit more about the possible influence on war attitudes.

What stands out the most to me so far, based on the readings in The First World War: A Very Short Introduction, are the reactions and feelings of the citizens of individual countries as the war affected their lives. At the beginning of the building of unrest in Europe, the vast majority of the countries seemed to have their citizens’ support. The individual countries saw this war as a subject of national pride, and the citizens of individual countries felt that their rivals could not be allowed to continue in their seemingly arrogant and, in many cases, violent ways. As the war continued into its first year, national pride seemed to remain strong in spite of what was becoming a very atrocious war. Then as the war was slowly continuing through its second and third year, national pride was slipping. National pride could not hold up in what was becoming a war that hit home with shortages of food and basic goods. The basic struggle for survival turned the war from a battlefield war to a home front war, and the main struggle then was merely to keep their governments from collapsing for longer than their enemies’ governments.

One way I would enjoy learning about the struggles within the battling countries might be through journals, diaries, or even fictionalized but realistic accounts kept by the people affected by this war. Before our recent reading, what I most enjoyed reading about was the personal struggles within the soldiers’ camps, but I already know some of what happened in those camps. After reading the first six chapters in The First World War: A Very Brief Introduction, what is now interesting to me is what was happening in the towns of Berlin and Petrograd during the war and how the war was changing everyday life for normal citizens so drastically. I also hope some of the books we read this semester will help me understand the countries’ views of each other from the civilian point-of-view which would also give a better understanding of how the war propaganda affected the citizens of the warring countries.

One of the most interesting aspects, at least to me, of WWI and the events leading into it is the continual moves made on all sides that are lacking in any common sense. The textbook makes note of this at several points and my personal favorite is in the last paragraph of page 23, discussing the almost incomprehensible reasoning behind Germany’s beginning acts of war. “There was certainly no logic in the decision by the German General Staff that, in order to support the Austrians in a conflict with Russia over Serbia, Germany should attack France… and do so by invading Belgium.”

In the years preceding the war, a good number of political decisions made on all sides made no logical sense, most of all the alliance systems. Historically, alliances are formed because nations are on good terms or have a unifying religion/ideology, but not in these cases. Besides a  uniting fear of Germany, France and England hate each other’s guts; Russia really doesn’t fit in anywhere because of its autocracy and lack of civil rights; and Italy is basically just a spectator hoping someone will get into a fight.

As a side note, somewhere in the reading Howard mentions a prediction made before the outbreak of war (by a Polish man, I think) though I can’t find it in the text now. I think that an even better example of pre-war predictions would have been the 1914 Durnovo Memorandum, in which a Russian statesman hashes out, with stunning accuracy, the war and a good number of its outcomes.

http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/classes/durnovo.html

It’s a pretty fascinating read

     Reading over the general summary of WWI provided by Michael Howard, two particular details immediately stood out to me. The first, and I suspect this will be a recurring theme throughout the semester, was the horrific enormity of the war. I had a vague sense of the casualty figures incurred during specific battles throughout the war, but it was sobering to read the mortality totals for each campaign. It seems to me that many WWI generals bore responsibility for the human cost of this war on an unprecedented scale. Reading about how General Cadorna lost almost 1 million men "launching suicidal attacks in the mountains beyond the Isonzo", or how Haig's arrogance at the Somme cost the British 21,000 men in one day, really hammered home the impact each general could have on the forces they were responsible for.

     The second aspect of our reading which I found interesting was the civilian involvement in the war. The enthusiastic response to the war from the home front was something I had expected to find, but the degree to which civilian institutions stepped up to fill the gaps in governmental war preparations was suprising to me. I was under the impression that during the war, each government asserted nationalistic dominance over every part of civilian life; reading about initiatives of Walther Ratheneau or the Russian Zemstva introduced a new dynamic of civilian cooperation with the war that I was unfamiliar with. 

    I'll be interested to see how the literature we study over this course respond to these two conditions. Taken in tandem, these two factors -- the civilian cooperation with the government's wartime efforts, and the heavy costs incurred in human life by command incompetence -- suggests to me that post-WWI writers might harbor an anti-authoritarian streak, but that's just a guess.

My name is Lauren Mitchell, and I am a senior English and Film Studies double major graduating this spring.  After a grueling year of attempting to pursue a more practical career in chemistry, I decided I would much rather focus on a profession I would enjoy than on one that would lend financial security.  I switched to English because of my long-term passion for reading, writing, and analyzing literature, and I have not regretted it since.  The decision to add a Film Studies major began as more of a fun distraction than a serious stategy, but the writing classes I've taken in the film department have led me to discover one of my greatest passions in life: playwriting.  

I chose to take this course for two reasons.  Firstly, many of my fellow students had mentioned Professor Druin as being a great instructor, and I was eager to learn from him.  Secondly, I have always been interested in the two world wars, yet I feel that I actually know very little about the first.  I'm excited to learn more about it, particularly through reading new (to me) works of literature.

(I apologize for the lateness of this post, I somehow failed to note the 8 pm deadline previously.)

I’m a sophomore history major, and the First World War has always interested me, though this is the first chance I’ve had to take a class that covers it in depth. I’m a history major because I think it’s incredibly fun to learn and read about figures from history, especially during times of war. The Punic Wars are probably my favorites, closely followed by pretty much anything that involves Russians.

 I’ll admit that I’m a little nervous about this class solely because of the readings; it’s been a while since I read anything but textbooks and primary documents for my classes and I’m not the best at analyzing actual literature. Still, I’m super excited about getting to work with artifacts in Special Collections and looking at WWI from a more artistic perspective.

My name is Toby Decker, and I am currently a junior at TU.  Like most college students, my interests have changed throughout my academic career.  Originally I wanted to be a minister, but after a couple of years of apprenticeship in Mexico City, I decided to complete a liberal arts degree.  Choosing to be an English major happened by circumstance while I was attending Tulsa Community College.  I was in the honors program there, and since the majority of honors classes at the school are offered by the English department, I became an English major.  Since transferring to TU, I've found it necessary to double major in Education in order to be eligible for grants that will help me complete my education.  So maybe I'm something of a sellout for simply pursuing the degree that I can pay for, but times are hard...it's a recession/recovery out there!  I took Dr. Drouin's digital humanities course last semester, and that's when I found out about this WWI course.  The idea of working with primary source material in special collections is what especially appeals to me.  During the digital humanities course I worked with a classmate on a project in which we used orginal publications of both The Dial and The Criterion--the two periodicals that first published T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land.  I enjoyed that opportunity, so I decided to pursue this class.  I look forward to working with and learning with you all!

Hello there.

My name is Victoria McGouran. I am currently a freshman and I am double majoring in English and Education. I wanted to take this course for many reasons, the primary one being that I love literature (as evidenced by my major) and learning how one of the most deeply impacting wars in human history affected literature was an incredibly interesting prospect. The widespread repercussions of the war appear to have been found long after the fighting ended and have had such fascinating ripple effects through the many eras and styles of literature. 

Hello, I am Jeanine de Leon-Maestas I am currently a sophomore in the ENS college; however I am seriously thinking of changing majors.

I loved learning about WWII in high school, but I realized I know less about the first World War. I have always loved learning the history and events surrounding a war,even though it sounds gruesome. I feel like I will gain a new prespective of the events of 'the War to end all Wars.'  I hope that by taking this class, it might lead me to explore new majors that might interest me.

Hello everyone, my name is Elizabeth Hartney and I am a senior English/French major. I knew I wanted to study French from the first course I took in middle school because I feel that it's a subject that comes easily to me. It challenges me and I always feel as if I'm learning something, but it never feels like a chore to work on my French. When I started TU, I decided to add an education major to my French in order to make it seem more pratical. Last semester, however, I studied abroad in Nantes, France and took part in a teaching internship which showed me that teaching is not a career that I'd enjoy. In addition, due to scheduling conflicts, my education major was going to keep me at TU for a semester longer than I planned. So I very recently dropped the education major and chose English because I've taken a few literature courses while at TU and I love reading and writing. So far, it feels like a good fit. I decided to take this course in particular because I have a courseload full of older English topics that date back a few centuries and I felt that a WWI class would balance out my schedule a little and give me something more recent to focus on. I am also interested in gaining an historical perspective because I know very little about the time period.