Teaching WWI

[AndyHollinger]

This is probably a weird subject or question for this forum, but - hey- I'm only a Lance Corporal!

I teach History at the Local College Level. History, being a state requirement, is not exactly their subject of choice, but I love the job since it is the one chance I get to form better voters and jurors. Now the question.

I can put most wars into proper perspective - and although the course really talks about social and political aspects of the origins of conflicts and the results - the military aspects often fill a couple of lectures.

My question is How do you present the Great War? When you look at the origins, the costs were totally out of line with what most societies would tolerate ... especially in today's mind. WWII is easier done, as it seems to be the great crusade against evil ... but WWI?

It is easy to present the triumph of "the machine" and "the system" over 19th Century Progressive Humanism ... but that's philisophical and vague ... I am looking for ideas here, not arguments ...

During my lectures on the American Civil War ... I relate the courage and motivation of the soldier of standing 50 meters apart and fire half-inch lead slugs at each other till one side wavers and the other side charges (not too much unlike Fontenoy) too finish each other with bayonets and hatchets ... but that was a highly charged, emotional war between vastly different views of society and while one side fought to repell an autocratic invader, the other side fought to preserve the union and then, after Sharpsburg, to set men free ... WWI?

When I show them my pictures of Ypers and try to describe both daily life and the three or four battles held there ... their eyes go blank and they can't fathom anyone doing that ...

I close the section on the war with Woodrow Wilson's speech " Because they believe their boy's died something that vastly transcends the temperal results of the war." speech trying to get that mood of saving the world type feeling.

Okay ... enough ... help me out here ... You guides ... Your English students can't be too much different than my West Texas young men and women ...

Andy

[David_Blanchard]

... but that was a highly charged, emotional war between vastly different views of society and while one side fought to repell an autocratic invader

This seems to be an apt description of the Great War to me. Certainly the Germany of the Kaiser was an authoritarian 'Prussianised state', who were doing a spot of invading in 1914. As much as Gary Sheffield's 'A forgotten Victory', has its flaws, the introduction and first chapter are very convincing: concerning the need to fight a just war. An edit version of these two chapters could be a good starting point for discussion.

I also include below a number of pieces of evidence I use with my Year 10 classes(15year olds) as an introduction to a unit I teach on General Haig and the way the war was fought, and the reasons for fighting it.

Extract 1.

‘The First World War was a tragic conflict, but it was neither futile nor meaningless. Just as in the struggles against Napoleon and, later, Hitler, it was a war that Britain had to fight and had to win. This achievement has become obscured by myths. For instance, the image of the British army of 1914-18 as being inept, 'lions led by donkeys', is highly misleading. In fact, against a background of revolutionary changes in the nature of war, the British army underwent a bloody learning curve and emerged as a formidable force. In 1918 this much~maligned army won the greatest series of victories in British military history…it was not a pointless war had Germany kept the land it had conquered in 1914 (including the Belgium coast and its ports) then British security would have been fatally undermined. Britain was defending in Flanders what it had fought for in continental wars for the previous 400 years- security in the North Sea and a favourable ‘balance of power’ in Europe.’

(‘Forgotten Victory’ Gary Sheffield 2001)

Extract 2.

‘A generation of innocent young men, their heads full of high abstractions like Honour, Glory, and England, went off to war to make the world safe for democracy. They were slaughtered in stupid battles planned by stupid generals. Those who survived were shocked, disillusioned and embittered by their war experiences, and saw that their real enemies were not the Germans, but the old men at home who had lied to them. They rejected the values of the society that had sent them to war, and in so doing separated their own generation from the past and from their cultural inheritance.’

(‘A War Imagined’ Samuel Hynes 1991)

Extract 3.

A few years ago, in a Radio 4 discussion about the public schools, a female novelist remarked 'and that is why we lost the First World War'. Since no one challenged this revisionist view I wrote to the chairman suggesting that the victory celebrations had been held in London and Paris rather than Berlin or Vienna. 'My dear professor', Robert Robinson replied, 'You may well be right', but it seemed I had voiced a politically incorrect opinion. Many people do indeed apparently believe that the war had been lost, especially those influenced by the film Oh What A Lovely War! Its poignant culminating scene shows the whole landscape filled with white British crosses. If everyone had been killed how could one speak of victory? More recently the theme of a whole generation of 'lions' needlessly sacrificed by 'donkeys' had been reinforced by that authoritative source - Blackadder!

(‘A Victory worse than defeat?: British Interpretations of the First World War’ Prof. Brian Bond 1997)

Extract 4.

1990 a Hull teacher, Barrie Barnes, published a book, This Righteous War, about the 'Hull Pals' - the 10th to 13th Battalions of The East Yorkshire Regiment and their record in the Great War. In its preface the Member of Parliament for Hull East and now Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party, John Prescott, stated:

'Senior officers well behind the enemy lines (sic) seldom felt the conditions of horror, or the bitter consequences of their own orders, ignored the growing list of casualties and enforced a barbaric discipline which saw the shooting of shell~shocked soldiers. "

Even if one allows for the fact that Mr Prescott presumably meant 'Senior officers well behind our own lines', it is inconceivable that, so recently as 1990, such a well placed person should still continue to propagate such untruths.

Mr Prescott's opinion was hardly published in isolation, however, nor was his bland statement ever challenged for its lack of accuracy, probably as it largely agreed with the popular perception, or more correctly misconception, in the minds of the general public, of the conduct of senior British officers in the Great War.

(‘Bloody Red Tabs’ Davies and Maddocks 1994)

Finally I include the cover of the book by John Laffin, 'Butchers and Bunglers of World War One'

This seems to generate discussion in a British school not sure how it would translate to an American classroom, without any focus for national involvement.

[AndyHollinger]

Thank you for your lengthy reply ... while most restate the negative view of the war, the first is certainly one I can and will use.

I think WWI is immensely important for Americans to understand ... not only because our own involvment is often over rated and because it set the stage for WWII ... in its own right, it defined much of why Nations fight total wars ...

The idea of having all those crosses and still be a victory is what probably baffles most Americans as well ...

Thanks again, I hope I get some other views to add to your fine response.

[ianw]

Andy,

I have had the honour of talking to WW1 British veterans (one as recently as a week ago !) . The vast majority would not countenance their just war being presented as "futile". Most were intensely proud to do their duty to their country and take up arms to punish and repel a hated invader who threatened their way of life. I do not think they drew too much of a distinction between the Kaiser and Hitler.

[john w.]

Out of context, I always try to find a way into the student, to look at capturing their attention, and to bringing it home via their own experience.

My students and I have no war experience so that puts us on the same level. so how can I get my message across in a non political fashion.

In your case the students are thousands of miles away from the 'action'. do you do it from books? watch 'All quiet on the western front' ? debate the rights and wrongs of the causes of WW1?

The answer is difficult to respond to.

I am not a history teacher but have been called on to deliver lessons on WW1.

John

[Alan Lines]

Could be worth asking your students if they think they could ever endure what the soldiers of WW1 endured given how much "softer" today's generation are always told they are. The next question then could be how and why they endured it.

[Guest paddy]

Andy

Given that "what actually happenned" appears to be a relatively small segment of what I see to be current history teaching, might I ask you a question from left field. In the context of WW1, do you know what happenned at Hamel?

Regards

Pat

[Mark Hone]

Andy,

There was quite a long thread on this some time ago which you should be able to find via the 'search' facility. I try to get pupils to consider the different interpretations of the causes and conduct of the war.

[Tom Morgan]

Wecome to the Forum, Andy!

Don't know if this will work in Texas, but when I visit schools I often start with the suggestion that WW1 couldn't possibly take place. Then we consider how it did, starting with what the students know.

Best wishes to Lauren!

Tom

[Tim Birch]

Trying to analyse the causes opens a can of worms! I have been studying the Great War for about 40 years and am still not sure if I fully understand why it happened! Many of the reasons and triggers seem so hollow viewed from this distance in time. That's not surprising given the current controversy over the Iraq War, one wonders how history will view that in 80 odd years time?

I particularly liked a cartoon which appeared in the 1960s. It shows a news paper boy shouting out "Arch-Duke found alive! First World War fought in error!"

It's a lot easier just to accept that it happened, and then get down to the detail of studying what occured once it started.

Tim

[Tom Morgan]

Absolutely agree with you, Tim. The effects of the war once it had started are crucial to any study of it. "Ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times" is how I often think of it. When helping prepare students for battlefield visits, I'm introducing them to these very aspects, but I think a quick consideration of the crazy roller-coaster ride to war is useful too - if only to let the students (like us) scratch their heads and ask, "How did they get into this?"

When visiting the battlefields with students, "How did they get into this?" is a recurring question!

Tom

[Tim Birch]

Yes I see the problem

When asked why the war happened I suppose the inquiring mind is not going to be satisfied with "Because it did!" any more than than trying to analyse why it takes a certain number of people to change a light bulb.

The generation of 1914 was quite prepared to go and die for "King and Country" or "The Fatherland" or "Motherland" without really understanding why other than accepting that the enemies were their enemies. That was a simple but understandable reason. Thereafter the situation was self perpetuating in that subsequent drafts had to carry on because they "owed it" to those who had gone and died before them for the "cause". Once territory became occupied then evicting the invador became another sacred cause, and so the whole ghastly business snowballed and became unstopable.

Tim

[Tom Morgan]

A wonderfully concise summary, Tim. When talking to students to introduce them to the battlefields, that's as far as I'd normally try to go in terms of explaining it!

Tom

[Steven Wright]

Greetings Andy --

I've always found one great way to get anyone interested in history is to get them to realize that the people involved "so long ago" were actually a whole lot like them. Afterall, the students you are teaching are essentially the same age as the guys in the trenches.

Today there are all kinds of wonderful resources available to help to do this: virtual libraries of personal recollections, diaries, letters, etc.; wonderful websites such as Chris Baker's "The Long, Long Trail" or Tom Morgan's "Helfire Corner;" and even collections of veteran reminiscences on CD available through the Imperial War Museum "Forgotten Voices of the Great War." (These are 12 hours long and are truly spectacular! Unfortunately, I'm not sure that they are available here in the US yet so you might have to order them from the IWM -- but it is definitely worth the expense and effort.)

Congratulations and good luck! Inspiring young people in matters of history is certainly a worthy pursuit!

[AndyHollinger]

Wow! Thanks, guys ... I'll admit, I joined the board when I saw Tom was a member, but your suggestions have been great!

First To Paddy (and I appolgise for this being too long):

When you say what actually happened doesn't seem to be important in what's being taught, the statement doesn't do justice to what I and many, many others are attempting to do in our classrooms. While my experience is only American, I don't believe it is much different than what is going on in the UK. The great majority of our young people are being trained, not educated. More, the huge majority of those in upper level forms of "education" get history as an add-on, put there almost by accident through the general belief that "History" brings about a more enlightened citizenry.

In Texas, in order to get a degree from a Public (meaning state sponsored) college or university, a student must take two American history courses - Columbus to Reconstruction and Reconstruction to Iraq II and a Texas Government Course. Most private colleges and universities have similar requirements. Few people look at the job market in History and decide to take in-depth education about history and most of these are looking at it as a basis for some other profession, principally Law. In Undergraduate school, this consists of seeing the progression of facts; at the Master's level, it is the details of specifics, at the PhD level, it becomes the learning of the process of producing history.

To make History, one must gain some level of prominence in terms of interpretation of facts which means accepting some and discarding others - or the simple "change" of which are more important or represent a view of what we think went on. New evidence, new ways of looking at evidence and, new paridigms about how to look at the human experience become important. When you add the "aims" of society into that curriculum - it all gets very hazy.

History is a cassorole - and what makes Chili (like we have in Texas) different than stuff they call Chili in Cincinnati, OH or, heaven forbid, the stuff we tasted in a real "Tex-Mex" restaurant in London? It's all Chili, right?

The majority of my students are not University bound nor are they particulary interested in the finer aspects of what happened along a ten-mile strip of France and Belgium to their Great Grand Father's generation. Most of them just want a better job and don't really care what happened yesterday, they want to "better" themselves. My job, of course, is not only relate what I believe the evidence suggests actually happened, but make an effort to try and put it in some sort of perspective so that it means something - and since I have between 22 and 30 hours (including tests, etc.) to do this - along with all the other things that happened in the 150 years I have to cover - "What happened" and "Why it happened" and "So What" have to be presented a heck of a lot more concisely and profoundly than one of my marathon posts, here.

Plus, I am competing with TV, The History Channel, and Mel Gibson's Braveheart type "History" .... so excuse me if I gloss over some stuff in the process of teaching history. (And, if you don't think BAD history matters - look at the difference Mel has made to Scottish Independance in the last 20 years!)

Okay, that said: Why WWI? Why teach what actually happened to get all those ordinary people into the grinder? Well, because it matters. It matters to me and I am in the front of the classroom, but must sell both what happened and why to my students.

Why it matters is because me and my generation found ourselves in Viet Nam, my Dad flying B-24s over southern Europe and spending most of 1944 in Spain and now, these guys getting killed a couple at a time in Iraq-Nam. Maybe if they see the similarity between our spendid little war in Cuba - starting in April and over by August, they can also see what we got into for years in the Philipinnes - maybe, just maybe they'll not get sucked into the morass by newspapers, governments and people - all trying to do what's right - into something that could be settled another way.

So, as a History Teacher, I have to try and make some sellable sense of what happened and present it in such a way as it matters. Most Americans will never stand at Tyne Cot at dusk with Tom and have that image strike their hearts and minds. Most of my students don't understand why their fathers will tear up when they see the Long Black Wall of names in Washington DC - but when I show them the Meinen Gate, there is a glimmer.

There is also another aspect of why teach WWI ... and that is, while the above seem to present the negatives - there are times when each person is called upon to act - in extraordinary times - and walk, for King and Country - or for the Flag or for the freedom of our fathers - into the grinder. Some will not return and some return in pieces. It is all too easy to see all wars as the "Big Money" making a profit and wanting to expand, etc. It is all to easy to sink into the morass of Graves and Sassoon, there are times when old men of 50 must inspire young men and women to go in harm's way as did the BEF at Ypers. And, of course, I have to make it understandable and exciting enough to compete not only with Accounting 101, but also the girlfriend/boyfriend's desire to go out and eat after class.

*************

The generation of 1914 was quite prepared to go and die for "King and Country" or "The Fatherland" or "Motherland" without really understanding why other than accepting that the enemies were their enemies. That was a simple but understandable reason. Thereafter the situation was self perpetuating in that subsequent drafts had to carry on because they "owed it" to those who had gone and died before them for the "cause". Once territory became occupied then evicting the invador became another sacred cause, and so the whole ghastly business snowballed and became unstopable

I believe I will use this as a preamble - it says much and hopefully will cause some to think about what this means in today's terms.

wow ... thanks guys.

[Guest paddy]

G'day Andy

Thanks for that!

I've crossed the "Don't Know" Box for you.

ooRoo

Paddy

[armourersergeant]

Being a salesman i often find that the best way to sell is to create the opening for the customer to sell them the product themselves. Lead them along and create an interest. Make them ask the questions then give them the answers.

This may seem like a crappy idea but what the hell....

You could ask them all to stand up,ask them to close their eyes and imaging they are on a battlefield in Iraq. Tell them that whilst their eyes are shut if you tap them on the shoulder they should sit down. After tapping two or three ask them to open their eyes. Tell them those standing are the non wounded or dead. Then repeat the exercise but this time tell them it is 1st july 1916 on the Somme. Those left standing tell them they will die/fall tomorrow!!!!!!!

If this does not get their attention put the kettel on and have a cuppa tea!

Belated welcome Andy hope this is of some help.

Arm.

[AndyHollinger]

One of the things I've been playing with is to use Hollywood to put some of the battle life in perspective ... the first 10 minutes of Glory / the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan / maybe a bit of Barry Lindon / the soviet charge scene in Enemy at the Gates / The airborne invasion from Apocolypse Now / but I am stuck for a WWI scene ... I can't remember if there is something in All Quiet that would show, realistically, what our forefathers went through ...

any ideas?

War today is a series of images and screens, especially for Americans ... If there was good footage of something from the Falklands ... what I am trying to portray is the personal courage and fortitude shown by the men involved to go in harm's way ... not in the Computer Games sense ... but real people willing to be there and do the job without any of the propaganda about bad officers, etc. Just, as said above, Ordinary Men caught in extraordinary situations.

Yes, I know Charile doesn't surf and yes, I have smelled diesel fuel in the morning ... my own little brush with enemy fire left me scared beyond anything and exillerated (sp) more than jumping out of helicopters at night in battle gear ... however, remembering Jefferson Davis' advice when preparing for battle in Mexico in 1846 to NOT eat breakfast the morning of one's first battle, I did not lose it from both ends!

[David_Blanchard]

The attack on the Anthill in 'Paths of Glory' Kubrick.

[Neil Burns]

David,

Excellent suggestion.

I concur.

Neil

[Chris_B]

Forget all the slow mo shell casings in Private Ryan etc. Please take another hard look at All Quiet on The Western Front.

[Annette Burgoyne]

Hi Andy

I can't remember if there is something in All Quiet that would show, realistically, what our forefathers went through

If the scene of the first French attack (I think its first attack) on German lines, with M.G. mowing all the French down, and those left alive putting their arms in the air for help, does this fit the bill.

Annette

[Dragon]

Andy, is there a place for using drama with your students? If so, I can make some suggestions of ideas which I have found to be successful.

(By drama, I mean both scripted texts and improvisation.)

Gwyn

[Graham-McAdam]

but I am stuck for a WWI scene ... any ideas?

I've been showing a low ability Y9 group bits of "The Trench". Yes I know its a grotty movie to anoraks, but its got great sets and some good killing scenes so they're happy for a little bit!

[AndyHollinger]

Andy, is there a place for using drama with your students? If so, I can make some suggestions of ideas which I have found to be successful.

(By drama, I mean both scripted texts and improvisation.)

Gwyn

By all means .... please do ...

Thanks for all suggestions ... the Kubrick "Paths of Glory" is an interesting idea ... had dismissed it because of the anti-officer sense, but a snipit might be cool. For all the suggestions for All Quiet - I am assuming we're talking the 1930 Lew Ayres version ... there have been, I believe, two since. So let me know.

Movies have been becoming more technically realistic since the sensors will let them show more blood - even if the "themes" are and historical accuracy are still out there somewhere. The History Channel's series about History versus Holleywood is pretty good for this. I still remember walking out of the MelMovie (he has his own genre) shaking my head and finding Braveheart a worthless waste of film - my wife of course loved it .... only to find it's changed the political map of the UK! Such is the power of images, ideas and history being told effectively (I didn't say accurately!) Where's Stamford Bridge?!

So here's the idea ... WWI is our first really technical war ... and a war much maligned by popular conception IF it is remembered at all. Added to that is almost every generation since has added a couple of stones above it's grave to say it was a waste or simply senseless killing ... "Where have all the Flowers Gone" is frequently accompanied by pictures of Tyne Cot ...

To give my students some ideas about Civil War armies, I have used the concept of showing them uniforms being heavy wool and asking about how often they think they got to wash these uniforms, the heat of the Virginia summer, etc. ... and then asked about Do you think the armies could smell each other? Take any group of 50K - 100K of guys wearing these and put them in the same square mile and what do you think it smelled like??

For WWI I've used pictures, my own and those I've picked up here on the net to try to show what went on, some pictures of WWI re-enactors doing Christmas at Ypres but to give it the impact, I think movies work best ... so that is where the question came from. B&W stills can not compare to moving color with sound -

All this said ... there is nothing like "knowing" ... it is much different to me because I've heard/felt small arms fire against the side of my tank and been "around" artillery coming in ... its completely different when you've smelled the inside of a tank after a couple of main gun rounds have been fired and spent two or three days covered with hydrolic fluid and diesel ... Heck, I swear the average American takes two showers a day!

Also, it's to cover that I am an emotional guy ... it is hard not to tear up when discussing things like the boys from Va and NC crossing that ground in Pennsylvania ... or showing them pictures of Ypres - using these allow me a couple of needed minutes to "recollect" myself.