For your next blog experience, I want you to listen to the following podcast:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/6mt4wl
Dan Carlin presents a very interesting set of arguments regarding the changing of the world during and after World War I. You are asked to identify and offer analysis on the theses or arguments presented. Do you agree or disagree with Dan Carlin? Follow the normal rules of our blogging: no repetition, allow your intellectual curiosity lead the discussion, and add links/videos that would enrich our knowledge of the subject.
You will be responsible for posting on at least TWO of his theses/arguments. You may either propose a thesis/argument, expand on one that has already been presented, or take the conversation in a new direction.
If you are expanding on a thesis/argument that was already presented, make sure to use the REPLY tab.
The most interesting thing that I thought Dan Carlin said was how World War I terminated the idealized view of warfare. People all over Europe were excited to go to war to fight for their king and their nation. But after witnessing the interminable wrath of machine guns and poisonous gases, both of which were new deadly developments of warfare, they realized the true horror of war. The French soldiers had entered the war with high spirits, white gloves, and bayonets. They used fighting tactics that were a century old and turned out to be very suicidal in this traumatic war. Many of them were so brutally and helplessly killed that eventually, during late 1916 and early 1917, they started to mutiny against their generals during the Nivelle Offensive. They refused to climb out of their trenches into no man's land and get mowed down by machine guns and artillery and smothered by gases. This clearly shows the tremendous fear that replaced the ignorant excitement the soldiers had coming into the war. They had no idea what they were getting into, and after the war, post-traumatic stress disorder was not uncommon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike that one of the most interesting things that Dan Carlin mentioned was how the views of warfare in general had changed after WWI. War had always been looked at as being something heroic. If you were a soldier, you often felt honored to fight for your country and your king or ruler. War, throughout the earlier parts of history, especially when you look at it in the U.S., was surrounded by propaganda. The promotion of war bonds was common, and people were pushed into joining the army in order to show their partitions and loyalty to the country, which is why you had so many people join the army during the earlier days of warfare in the first place. The main question that Dan Carlin posed towards all of that though was why would someone be willing to fight in a war like that? World War I was the first major world war, so people going into it did not expect anything that did happen, to happen. People going into WWII though, knew what the horrors of war really were, after seeing what had happened after WWI. During the period of WWI, tactics used by war generals and such were horrible. Thousands of men would run out of their trenches only to be shot down by machine gun fire from the opposing side, which Mike had briefly mentioned. It is hard for us to imagine why someone would be willing to do that, which is why there are so many changes in the mindset of most people after the first world war. Many soldiers had traumatic experiences in regards to the war, and many felt as though fighting for the so-called, “heroic” cause, was not worth losing their life over. The soldiers who actually made it through the war had reflected the horrors of the war itself. Soldiers returned home wounded, some missing limbs and such, and everyone was to be haunted by their horrific wounds. Even though the war was over, people couldn’t get the images of war out of their heads.
DeleteAs Matt and Mike mentioned, WWI had a huge effect on how war in Europe was perceived, initially being though of as honorable, but later being hated for its gruesome death and somewhat senseless violence. This change in the mentality of war was very important, but even more important than this, were the social issues that resulted from WWI. As we all know, after the war was over, soldiers returned home to their families and had a much different view on war. They found it more cynical and their entire outlooks on life changed after this war. Soldiers became depressed and developed post-traumatic stress disorder. A majority of people developed serious mental problems and society collectively tried to work its problems out. The stark reality of WWI was that along with the fact that the war almost killed an entire generation of people through its brutality, it also left thousands upon thousands of people sick. In his podcast Dan Carlin mentioned that the Great Gatsby perfectly shows the world after WWI. I one hundred percent agree with Dan Carlin’s statement because having read the Great Gatsby, I could clearly see the “live for today” attitude that so many people of the decade had. The future was not very important to the people of that era and even today some of this type of mentality is still seen when people go on shopping sprees and later acquire debt up to their eyeballs. The ideal world before WWI was completely transformed by WWI and Dan Carlin shows this clearly through his podcast. The social consequences of WWI have made the society that we see today and have shaped us as people. I personality love the complexity of WWI and Dan Carlin’s podcast is perfect for explaining all of the different ways that WWI has effected society as we know it.
DeleteIn comparison to what Matt, Mike and Nazar said the ways of fighting style and their appearance changed as the war went on. Before the war, majority of the Fighting was done in lines and the fighting consisted of one line of firing then the other and it was a crazy way of war. They then in WW1 had dug trenches and had high powered machine guns that were able to shoot more than one round a minute and had several other new techniques that could give them an advantage over their enemy. The appearance that the French had entering the war consisted of them wearing a suit of armor, a helmet with horse hair on top, and having swords for close combat. The Germans had changed their appearance also, but they looked more modernized throughout the two world wars. As Nazar was saying about how Dan Carlin was talking about the Great Gatsby and how the people’s mentality changed after the war, he also speaks about how schools didn’t want to show the truth about the war in the 70’s. Instead saying how the book “All quiet on the western front” could depict the war and what went on he said how the book “Storm of steel” by Ernst Jünger, showed the actual action that went on and what the soldiers went through day in and day out. This is a series of diary entries that the German officer wrote while on the Western Front.
DeleteI also found it interesting that ideals of war changed as warfare changed. While i think part of that reason may be because we are back looking at WW1 with a thorough understanding, reasons for fighting changed. The brutality of the war defiantly opened the eyes of many soldiers, who, in turn questioned the purpose of war. As mentioned, revolts and mutinies occurred frequently. If soldiers knew what we know now what war was going to be like, they would have never joined (but i think they never had much of a choice anyways).
DeleteWhich is again, part of the reason why WW1 was so revolutionary, new weaponry, new tactics, and a depletion of the old style of war. Dan definitely argued a good theory on the impact of WW1 and how it was the clear line between the world that was and the world we know now.
I totally agree with the previous posts 100%. The idealized mentality of the 1914 old world versus the brutally realistic outlook in a 1918 Post WWI world is certainly the most notable aspect of the podcast. People went into machine gun fire fiery with nationalistic feelings and arranges gallantly in Napoleonic line-style fighting. I couldn’t help but feel incredulous when Carlin began to talk about ostentatiously uniformed men parading across “No Man’s Land” intending to drive the enemy out with a bayonet. Then, the men would stay on the defensive in the trenches, stalemated with the enemy (many suffering from trench foot → http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/trenchfoot.htm). It almost seems impossible to think of men fighting in this horrible conditions – including braving gas attacks with a canvas bag – and running into sprays of machine gun bullets for their countries and its respective ruler. It shattered the illusion of war and ushered in a new cynicism that, as the previous posts mentioned, changed war ideology forever.
DeleteI would also like to voice how i am also completely agree with what Carlin said about the idealized nature of war changing. In the begining people were enthusiastic about defending their countries honor, however once war actually waged on the horrors came to life and people saw it for what it really was. One comparison i started to make was to the civil war in America. People would show up in the begining and have picnics as battles waged on before them, however after az while that practice ended because they would see these horrible massacres unfold as theuy eat lunch even falling victim themselves. Also as the technology advanced like cameras and video the news spread to the people showing all of the dead just like in WWI.
DeleteI enjoyed Jose’s comment about the war and the advancements. This was the “new war era,” if you will. The new weapons, the new advancements, the new tactics of war and the switch to the modern warfare type of fighting. The heavy machine gun was used. This was an automatic weapon that could mow down the opponent one by one and did not need to be cocked-back every time a bullet was fire. Before this you had guns that needed black powder and needed to be reloaded after almost every shot. This was primitive compared to what they had now. It gave anyone yielding it a better chance than their opponent. You also began to see who really wanted to go defend their country and fight for what was right. War was hard, grueling and frightening for anyone who was in it. The post-traumatic stress has been talked about numerous times within the blog. The horrors that people faced haunted them mentally for the rest of their lives and upset them to the point of death for some. The war was also now documented. Photos and videos began to show the true horrors of the new age of war instead of the idealized paintings that showed the glories of war in the previous eras.
DeleteI like how everyone has summarized the new feelings on warfare. To young people back in the day, war to them was like professional sports and Hollywood to us. Instead of being seen as a serious situation that could very likely cost someone their life, it was seen as a chance to hit the spotlight. Almost all of these young soldiers got a serious wake up call when their time came to hit the battlefield. Back in the old days of Napoleonic warfare, the soldiers knew there was a chance of survival due to the pitiful accuracy of the weapons at the time. WWI had weapons that revolutionized the fighting of the time. There was no more standing in line taking volleys of shots because if they tried that, the casualties would be through the roof. One nation could just set up an MG and tear apart the opposition. Hence why trech warfare came about. I believe the trenches aided in making people realize how scary war was. I don't mean to go all horror story right now, but I imagine that being huddled in a dark trench with your buddies while taking heavy MG fire from the enemy is pretty terrifying. Dan Carlin is very right in saying that WWI completely changed the way we look at war.
DeleteWWI is like the turning point of warfare, with the new mindset and technology. Like everyone before me said, the war was brutal. Humans were decimating fellow humans in the cruelest of manners. It was easier to kill people with new technology and weapons. And the reasons for killing were far from heroic. Like the motives for imperialism just before the war, countries were fighting over each other for power. Everything is about money and power, and nations seemed to be willing to do anything to get that, including brutally destroying a large percent of a generation of people. It’s depressing.
DeleteTying into how the war affected the future, in Russia upwards of 7 million children were left homeless. What has humanity come to? Also, many of the poverty and human cruelty comes from European expansion: slavery in Africa, war and oppression in the Middle East. I think WWI epitomizes this concept of doing terrible things to other human beings for material gain.
I also agree with Mike's ideas. In this podcast, Dan Carlin was able to explain the true glorified thoughts of warfare that Europeans had during world war I. Since there hadn't been a war in more than fifty years, the European population had quickly forgotten how devastating warfare really is. French soldiers showed up to battle in pressed, colorful clothing, with white gloves on. The European armies had no idea what disgusting aspects of war that were lying ahead of them. As Steph mentioned, Trench-foot was a major problem in during World War I, but in order to have a chance at success in this war, it was imperative to hide in the trenches. The style of warfare had drastically changed since the last giant war European nations encountered. Many soldiers showed up to the fight with a single shot gun and a knife. This was obviously not going to work against the new war weapons, such as the machine gun. Carlin perfectly explained that the style of warfare had drastically shifted, and due to nationalistic feelings in Europe at the time, a majority of the population was too blinded by the glorified aspects of war in their nation's propaganda.
DeleteThere were many arguments that I picked up on from Dan Carlin in the pod cast, but one of the ones that I really wanted to discuss was how WWI had changed the fate of the world, and how its affects are still visible today. When you look at WWI, some might not think that it had a major impact on many countries after the war was done. Dan Carlin mentioned a few results of the war on different nations. We can take Germany for example. Germany had always been a power hungry country during the first world war. After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was humiliated in having to be blamed for the start of the war. This later affected the mindsets of the Germans during WWII. Hitler rose to power due to his growing support from the Germans. He used WWI as an example of how Germany had been mistreated and deserved to rise to power over the rest of the country. Dan Carlin had not only looked at individual countries in Europe, he looked at how war had affected the entire continent of Europe. Back then, Europe was a country of total warfare. Nations would be pitted against one another over territorial disputes, and you would always see the people fighting over the king. There are not as many major conflicts going on today in the nation as compared to before though. Europe was the most powerful, most militant nation of its time, but today, it is somewhat more peaceful, and the U.S. seems to have taken its spot at being the most militant. Besides Europe though, the first world war changed the U.S. WWI was the first time the U.S. had gotten involved with disputes in Europe. Today, we have the U.S. all over the nation, fighting war in countries outside of our own boundaries. (example: the war in Iraq) The U.S. had gotten involved due to a few reasons, one of the biggest was Germany’s constant attacks on U.S. passenger and cargo ships. (one of the most famous ships that was sunk by submarines being the Lustitania) If not for the emergence of the submarines in the war, a bigger conflict would have been avoided. WWI led to the creation of new weapons, new attitudes of the soldiers who were fighting in the war, and changes throughout the world that can still be seen today.
ReplyDeleteMatt brought up many key points in his discussion of how WWI changed the fate of the world and how its effects are still seen today. I would like to expand on his thesis by mentioning the heavy shelling that happened during WWI. On the western front, shelling of the battlefield was very common and usually thousands upon thousands of shells were dropped on the battlefield as a means of killing any soldiers that wandered out of their trenches and into no man’s land. Many of the shells that were shot at the time of WWI still exist today, buried underground in many European countries. Dan Carlin in particular mentions France as one country in which many shells were dropped and as a result, still are buried to this day. Dan Carlin mentioned that countless people die everyday in France because they stumble upon active shells left over from WWI. France even has bomb crews that wander around the entire country searching for active shells of shell fragments that are buried underground and that may be dangerous. It is incredible how something left over from WWI can be dangerous and how people have particular jobs in excavating these remnants. A war that occurred almost 100 year ago is still affecting the people of Europe and even KILLING them as though the causalities of the actual war were not enough.
DeleteFurthermore, Dan Carlin mentioned that today’s problems in the Middle East are essentially due to the conflict that was WWI. The many countries that are reacting in dangerous ways, such as Iran and Iraq, are all countries that were once in the Ottoman Empire and are now free, but have turned reactionary. Dan Carlin states that today’s Middle East is in “disillusionment” due to WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. One of the most interesting examples of how the Middle East can be linked to WWI is the Super Weapon that Saddan Hussein tried to build to threaten the world with. The Supper Weapon, when leaked to the world, made people very uneasy, because it promised to fire a shell from Iraq all the way to Israel. What we have realized today is that this weapon was planned and designed to simulate a different weapon that way invented during WWI. The Paris Gun was invented in WWI and it could hit the city of Paris from 75 miles away. This was truly an incredible feat for the day and Saddam Hussein tried to recreate a gun like this for his own use in Iraq. From this example it is easy to see how the events of WWI truly have affected the events of the world around us today and how they will continue to affect the world around us for years to come.
This is a video about the super gun that Nazar talked about. During 1988-1990, Dr. Gerald Bull, an aerodynamic artillery expert, was building a super gun for Saddam Hussein.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fbMEb5O_FE
Like Matthew and Nazar said I found it kind of interesting how Dan Carlin managed to connect this big war from the past to the present day now and some other things in the past. Though im not exactly sure that I believe that our world today is an aftershock of WWI being that the war happened a while ago. Its often said that the past helps to explain or lead to the present and future, but Dan Carlin took it to a whole other level when he said that WWI explained our century now. Like Nazar mentioned the French people are still being affected by WWI. I just found it really interesting that a war that happened so long ago could still be killing people today. The idea that the past really does affect the future and that one thing always eventually leads to another. I also found it interesting that the war with France was basically the left over part of the war from the Napoleonic code and that the middle east was still dealing with stuff from the ottoman empire. I really enjoyed hearing him talk about how the past connects with the future and present. Especially how he connected it all with WWI.
DeleteLike Mike and Nazar, I was especially interested in how the events occurring in the Middle East today are directly related to WWI. The Ottoman Empire was finally torn apart in WWI and new nations emerged (a power vacuum of sorts) as a result of its disappearance. The Ottoman Empire, in 19th and early 20th century Europe was regarded as of another world and almost primitive. It was holding on desperately to a time passed and was wrought by inner turmoil and external conflicts. This is very much like the Middle East today. In contrast to the rest of the modern world, the region is very underdeveloped and internal strife plagues the lands. It is also worth noting that Wilson entered the conflict to make the world “safe for democracy.” He wanted fight for justice and promote the flourishing of democracy. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING ON NOW IN THE MIDDLE EAST. We obviously fought for own protection, but we also had the intent of bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. How is that going? Right. This promotion for democracy by the US (even in places where it has little hope of working) was created in WWI.
DeleteAnd that super gun? Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Mike, I enjoyed (and was a little frightened by) that video. I cannot believe the size of the Paris Gun. Insanity. It is obvious that the ideology and reality of WWI is still affecting, and inspiring, the minds of modern individuals.
I definitely agree with you guys it’s very interesting how Dan Carlin expresses how WWI is directly linked to aspects of today's day and age as he expresses the backwardness of the war; as many of those same qualities of warfare are seen today in our fight overseas. He seems to look at WWI as an experimental phase of warfare though as the times transitioned from barbaric systematic engagements to a developing age of defensive warfare. The description of the trenches and the warfare that occurred during the time seemed so grueling and devastating as people literally ran through a field of gunfire, barb wire, and gas attacks to hopelessly attempt to invade the enemies’ trenches. It definitely caught my attention how Dan Carlin questions humanity, and how they managed to put up with such carnage for so long without surely saying this is enough. However he explains that’s a key importance of WWI is that we developed from it, as it served as the trial period essentially to new philosophy, warfare, and living. Also the description of the Paris Gun is insane, it’s crazy to believe what we as a human race can fathom as times of warfare arise. In essence we are our own biggest weakness as ideas like the “Paris Gun” still manifests in our minds as times of desperation arise; hopefully we as people can learn from such wars like WWI and reevaluate what such ideas can truly mean in the success of us as a race rather than a segregated people.
DeleteIt’s interesting that this conversation lead to a discussion about problems in the Middle East, because the other day at youth group we were talking about some of the conflicts going on between the Israelites and the Philistines in the Old Testament of the Bible. Many Bible stories, like David and Goliath, Jonah and the Whale, The Good Samaritan (which is actually in the New Testament), and Joshua and the battle of Jericho reflect the hostilities between different groups of people in the Middle East. A while after that the Ottoman Empire was created in 1299, which included many of the areas in which these popular Bible stories took place. There has always been unrest in that area, and WWI was only a chapter of it. The war still rages today in a seemingly endless struggle for power. No wonder it was nicknamed the powder keg; they’ve always been fighting, and probably always will.
DeleteFun Fact: The Garden of Eden, the most sacred and holy place of all Judism/Christianity, is speculated to be located around the area of Baghdad, Iraq.
In response to the horrible trench warfare in World War I, the Allied forces were the first to develop the tank. The tank was originally designed as a special weapon to solve an unusual tactical situation: the stalemate of the trenches on the Western Front. It was a weapon designed for one simple task: crossing the killing zone between trench lines and breaking into enemy defenses. The armored tank was intended to be able to survive artillery bombardments and machine-gun fire, and pass through barbed wire in a way infantry units could not hope to, thus allowing the stalemate to be broken. Though initially crude and unreliable, tanks eventually became a mainstay of ground armies. By World War II, tank design had advanced significantly, and tanks were used in quantity in all land theatres of the war. The Cold War saw the rise of modern tank doctrine and the rise of the general-purpose main battle tank. The tank still provides the backbone to land combat operations in the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that Dan Carlin talked about the shock of the war and how very unprepared everyone was when they got into it. Like Mike mentioned they eventually had to develep and modernize their weapons for the new style of fighting. For WWII the soldiers were prepared for what they were to endure, yet in WWI they were not ready for the modern styles of warfare. The soliders as Dan Carlin said looked almost the same as they did a bunch of years ago. And they still had the same weapons, they were not prepared for the new artilairy and weapons that would come as time advanced. The people in the trenches also develeped a what doesnt kill me, makes me stronger mentality.
DeleteI like the way Avary put it when saying that WWII, people had an idea what they were up against but in WWI it was all new to them. I think this is a good representation of survival of the fittest. War is simple in that you either adapt or die. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. WWI could have been many years longer if the Allies didn't develop the tank. Let's say that it wasn't invented and there was only trench warfare. It would have been so much harder for soldiers to advance toward the enemy. Guns and mustard gas can only get you so far, eventually you have to advance and push your enemy back. And were not talking about today's warfare where there are anti-tank weapons/explosives to fight the armor off. If you could get a tank through enemy lines back in WWI, you were golden because there weren't many ways to combat a tank. This is a good example of how retaliation plays a big role in warfare. Countries are always trying to outmuscle other nations with their new weapons and technology. The tank is evidence of how armies will stop at nothing to invent a more efficient way to destroy the opposition.
DeleteThe main theme that I discovered from this podcast was that World War One was unbelievable. This war was extremely devastating to civilians and soldiers across Europe. As Mike said post traumatic stress disorder was common at the end of the war. I found a video of the affects of shell shock on World War One veterans. The link is :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRv56gsqkzs.
Dan Carlin mentioned that these people were the people that were on the streets of Europe at the end of World War One. They were the poor and neglected. I also agree with the idea the Mike stated. Everyone went into the war with an idealistic view. This is evident with the French and their light blue uniforms and white gloves. They expected it to be as glorious as the other wars. It made me think of how people in the US Civil War would have picnics during the battles. This was common at the time. War was glorious to be involved in. However, Dan Carlin did stress the brutality of the war. It involved crossing no mans land that was littered with dead bodies. If you survived this there was brutal hand to hand combat in the trenches. An interesting aspect that was left out was the use of tunnels to destroy enemy trenches. The French for instance would higher civilians to dig tunnels from the friendly trenches to the enemy trenches. The civilians for the French were the men who dug the sewer systems in Paris. A torpedo would be carried and detonated under the enemy trenches to kill the enemy.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtunnelling.htm
This website has a good picture of tunneling in WW1. This along with tanks, poison gas and airplanes was a concept that was used to try and break the stalemate on the western front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTY7v1Q_vnc
Here is a video of soldiers in WW1 actually loading and launching gas canisters out of artillery pieces.
These videos and websites represent the brutality that was not conceived by the people of Europe in 1914.
As Chris was saying about how the tunnels being used for underground ambushing and the trenches were where the soldiers spent most of their time during the war. Here are some links that show the trench systems and what went on.
Deletehttp://jimmythejock.hubpages.com/hub/World_War_1_Trench_Warfare
This website gives an example for what the trenches looked like and what went on. The second Picture on this site shows the depth of the trenches and how large they actually were.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/Trenchsystem.jpg
This picture shows the trench system of the allies in how they had their front trench, then the support trench and then finally the reserve trench.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOjOVFQoAoM&feature=related
Shows life in the trenches
I found it interesting when Chris talked about how the French thought this was going to be a glorious and a clean sort of war. Movies over the years have shown the brutality of the trench fighting. This hand to hand combat was not as clean as one would think it to be. Sometimes shovels or other blunt objects were used to subdue the opponent in the most horrific of ways. It was life or death. If you were even brave, or some would say even stupid, enough to step foot outside of the trench, you would most likely get your head blown off by the awaiting sniper teams. The stale mates that went on during the war got to be long lasting and people began to become restless. They would step foot outside of the trench and bang, goodbye. This was also one of the times that poison gas was used to fight the enemy. A truly brutal war and the ignorance shown by the people involved were ridiculous.
DeleteNazar mentioned the Paris gun that was actually used to bombard Paris in the war.
ReplyDeleteThis video below shows the Paris Gun. The size of this gun is crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-QX_SZwDeE
Another theme was that WW1 was a break in the world. It is a time period in which everything stopped in Europe. Before WW1 Europe was still influenced by the Napoleonic era. People still believed in monarchies and sought to preserve the peace in Europe. An interesting point the Dan Carlin mentioned was that French Cavalry in 1914 wore the same basic uniforms as the French Cavalry under Napoleon. This shows that the era before WW1 was influenced by the Napoleonic era. Also, the pointy German helmets that were worn during WW1 were objects of the former Napoleonic era. Dan Carlin also mentioned the effects of WW1 on communism. WW1 would lead to the Russians exiting the war. This was because of a successful revolution by the Bolsheviks under Lenin. This was the first country to experience communism in all of Europe. This was the beginning of communism in the world. He also mentioned that it even affected the Cold War that was experienced at the end of WW2. Also, I found it interesting that Germany made France surrender in the same rail car that Germany surrendered in WW1. Everyone sat in the same spots as in WW1. As Dan Carlin said, this was very symbolic as revenge for the suffering that Germany experienced with the treaty of Versailles.
While looking at youtube videos I found two videos of lego WW1 trench warfare. They go together so watch the first link first.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXjOxP8cQ_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMKasigzjKU&feature=related
Dan definitely shed some new insight in the significance of WW1. You really do see the war a new when we hear it through the European perspective especially how this war, like Dan said, killed the old tactics of warfare and introduced the way we are familiar with.
ReplyDeleteOne thing i think we haven't discussed as much is the impact we still feel from WW1. One of the physical impacts i found interesting in the podcast was the shells that are still being found today and are still posing a hazard to the lives of the French. He mentioned how certain sections of France are closed off from the public because of those shells, which, millions are still being found. A physical impact we still see, and yes the conflicts between nations we still see such as the conflicts out in the middle east.
I also found it interesting that the world we live in today wouldn't be the same without WW1. Now i know arguments of whether it could have been avoided could come into play, but whether WW1 happened or not, the lives we live could be radically different. Dan mentioned how WW1 directly caused WW2 with Germany becoming enraged by being treated poorly. Communist Russia arose due to the effects of both world wars, and the cold war as well as the middle eastern conflicts come from the first world war. What he was trying to say i guess is that our lives now are a direct result from the actions taken from WW1.
This is a very good point Jose. He did a great job with showing how this war affected modern times. This first world war allowed for catastrophic detriment in things such as the holocaust, world war 2, communist Russia, and the cold war. Without these events our lives would be extremely different. We would have been void of radical dictators such as Hitler and Stalin. The first world war set the stage for all of the major events that took place in europe between then and now. WW1 made Germany disgruntled causing Hitler to come to power and to massacre all those who challenged his ideal race. Carlin's way of showing this was very interesting.
DeleteIn listening to the podcast, I couldn’t help think about the similarities and differences between Europe post- Napoleonic Era and post –WWI. In both cases, a superpower had been defeated – Napoleonic France and the newly supreme Germany – and settlements revolved around suppressing that enemy. However, while the Congress of Vienna planned to keep France, and all European powers, from becoming too powerful with the “Concert of Europe,” Germany was absolutely humiliated, as it had to accept guilt for the worst war in the history of mankind. I don’t understand why Europe didn’t learn from the success of the Concert of Europe and putting peace above all else, including punishment of the defeated. Maybe WWII would’ve been prevented! I also connected the Congress of Vienna/Concert of Europe with Wilson’s League of Nations. Both organizations were established after a period of aggressive and costly (although nothing compares to WWI losses) warfare and sought to maintain peace at whatever cost. They both shared a common goal: a war of the proportion just witnessed was to be never again a reality in Europe. Negotiation and compromise was to supersede any kind of armed conflict for the benefit of everyone. In both instances, the grim reality of war and the fear it instilled affected the doctrine of international relations and diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteI think the part of the podcast that affected me the most was the descriptions of the experience of the men fighting in the horror of “The Great War.” As Chris and David already explored, the trench warfare was brutal, as millions of shells were raining from the sky. The gas attacks, in my opinion, were the most frightening – not to mention impossible to combat with 19th outdated gear. The men had to use pieces of canvas bag to protect themselves from the deadly gases that covered them and remained fueled by their nationalism and idealism. I wouldn’t experience a gas attack in a high-tech modern suit, let alone a piece of canvas. That’s really “cray.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22w1UVGv71M → this video has some footage of early chemical warfare.
Dan Carlin’s description of the photographs he had seen in college also made me reanalyze the conflict. Instead of thinking about battles and nations, I began to think of the individuals involved who were in the trenches. Fathers, brothers, and husbands – millions dying by the day. And those that did survive? They would never be the same physically, emotionally, or mentally. Nothing better than the pictures in the link below summarizes the disillusionment of the war and personal suffering.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba0_1254306023
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtrench.htm
This website had some amazing pages, too! I recommend checking them all out!
"Post-Traumatic Stress"
ReplyDeleteThis idea that Dan Carlin presents in his podcast really stuck with me throughout listening to it. He explained how after warfare people often brush the history of it under the rug, and continues to go on with their own lives. In essence that is why history often tends to repeat itself as people don’t want to re-call the horrors of such wars specifically that of WWI where the death and destruction was like no other. He then began to make the connection that Germany during such time was one of the most militarily equipment countries in the world, yet today they are one of the most peaceful European countries as they remove themselves from European affairs quite often. Almost as if traumatized from WWI Germany has taken a step away from the war-like philosophy in which they once held on a highly valued pedestal. We as people take the war into consideration, but however we can’t truly progress from it yet because we are still feeling the effects of it to this day. Traumatized, forever turning the other cheek as we live in fear for such a reoccurrence of carnage and destruction. Hoping to never relive the horrors what was an shall forever be the” Great War”.
This is an interesting take on the subject Carlos. I too was interested in the topic of post war trauma. You see it time and time again, yet i'm going to take a varied approach. I find it interesting how veterans are affected on a personal/individual level. Often times they go to war and come back a completely different person. This is exaggerated in many war movies of our time. It is also notable in the everyday lives of those who are in contact with a battle tested war veteran. In further research of post traumatic stress, i found that 1 in 8 returning soldiers suffer from this issue. The witnessing of death is bound to disturb soldiers in some way. Many face depression, and are in a severe state of detrimental stress. The trauma that veterans and active serving military members face is something that is nearly impossible to cope with and Mr. Carlin brings this to light in his description of post-traumatic stress.
DeleteThe thing I found the most interesting is the perspective i gained on just how big WWI really was in the grandscale of Europe's history. As we grow up in America WWI often means little to us WWII is where we really pay attention. However WWI is the one that changed everything in the Europe.
ReplyDeleteIt’s like what we talked about in class, at least about the start of the war: it’s simplified to just the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but it’s so much more complex than that, but no one knows that unless they really study it.
DeleteI thought so too! The assassination of Franz Ferdinand really did set off an entire chain of events that rapidly led to the reshaping of Europe. Not to make light of the fact that he was assassinated, because if that had happened in America, we probably would have gone to war as well, however, I felt that it was interesting that due to the alliance systems, nations were obligated and nearly willing to go to war, (with the exception of Great Britain). Also, I feel that due to the ending results of world war I, (the way Germany was treated), it pretty much directly led to world war II. Without the new and ineffective alliance systems, and secret treaties, world war I wouldn't have happened, therefore, world war II could have definitely have been prevented.
DeleteIn addition to becoming a direct result of World War II, World War I altered many borders of nations in Europe. The picture below portrays the differences in Europe pre and post world war I. (sorry if the quality is bad, you're able to at least get the point though.)
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/worldhis/chap11/img11_4.jpg
It seems as though we've been getting the quick 4 step lesson of the war when really there is so much more in depth analysis available. We simplify the war to the M.A.I.N. causes with the assassination sparking everything. It is interesting to see how this war really unfolded through the eyes of europeans instead of from across the ocean.
DeleteI really liked how he put the war in the view of all countries. I'm used to learning about how America entered the war and did alot of things. Everytime we study wars in school its always about how America wins and no one else. So it was nice to get an overview on the war and hearing a non-bias voice telling me the point of view of countries that werent America. The podcast really broadened my understanding by including Europe's views and not just Germany. It also included things un-covered in many textbooks you learn from in school. Feelings. Dan Carlin talks about Post Traumatic Stress. How after the war soldiers went home scarred for life from the things they saw. Back then soldiers joined war for the experience and to serve the country but WWI was the change point in warfare. New weapons like machine guns tore down these soldiers. The old school line formation fighting was a thing of the past now. People fought like Guerilla Warfare. It was a dramatic new experience for these men. They were neck-deep in an evolution of war. It was a big change. These men went home with the visions of war. Dead friends and mortal wounds. This left them with the problem of Post Traumatic Stress, which debalitates some men. They re-live the events of the war and are paranoid and scared. Some men commit suicide from this. It was a complete change from the wars of the 19th century. Things were brutal and horrifying and some of these things were brought to light in this podcast. Sergio out.
ReplyDeleteJust like Sergio, I was interested in getting a non-bias, non-American view of the war. I liked how Dan Carlin carried out his podcast, not serving to inform with dates and events but rather with feeling. What I conveyed from his podcast was much more than what I could convey from reading the textbook. Anyway, like I was saying, I liked how I was able to get a glimpse into the war from other countries' perspectives. Dan Carlin talked about "Storm of Steal", a book about the war from a German man's perspective. It's interesting how our schools won't read this book becuase it's not what America wants to teach it's children about war. Okay, I'm veering off topic again. So, although I'd love to talk about the fashionable French before the war, it looks like that was covered, as well as most of the other topics. Therefore, I'd like to bring this idea of "war from another's perspective" further by talking about war from an Australian's perspective. Dan Carlin didn't talk about this, but we briefly mentioned in class yesterday about how even Australians were going to fight in the war. Over 32,000 Australians fought in the Great War. At the beginning of the war, the Australians were loyal to Britain, calling themselves 'Australasian Britons.' Thier view of the war was similar to everyone else's views of the first world war before entering: glorifying and filled with adventure (like Dan Carlin talked about). Coming out of the war, the Australians were no longer just bound to Britain. They had created a new nationalism and new identities of their own.
Deletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/ This is a really great website to go on to get a better glimpse into World War One. Watch some of the virtual tours in the trenches.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/soldiers_stories_gallery.shtml Here are some audio galleries of soldier's horrifying stories during the war. There's no better way to truly understand the war and learn about it without hearing first-hand (or near-first hand)what it was like. Thanks to Dan Carlin and thanks to websites like these, we can do that.
I like everyone else found the feelings that backed WWI very interesting. I agree with Alex and jeff who both stated that the feelings of going to war was one of glory and honor. If you were going to participate in defending your country than you were representing your culture,family, and counrty's struggles and successes. Yet we see that when most of these soldiers came back they were faced with the post traumatic stress caused by the brutality of war. One thing that was also interesting was the obligatory feelings of nations, all of whom feeling that they had to go to war beacause of their alliences with other nations. I agree with Carlin's statement the idealistic view of war and the ironic reality that it entails. While most people found it to be glorious there were many harsh events and aspects of war including the are called no man's land, which was an area filled with dead bodies that had been shot down between the opposing trenches.
ReplyDeleteI also found it very interesting Carlin's point of feelings and finding a view point that was not of the AMerican opinon. There are so many times when we learn history that we are biased to the American view point, opinions, and feelings towards the cause. Yet when the world is involved, it is interesting to take the view point of being informed on the content based on the events rather than opinions
Delete