At the end of 1914, most of the nations of Europe were locked in to a brutal struggle which tested their endurance to the utmost. In 1917 the United States entered the war and Russia collapsed into revolution. Both events raised new and utopian visions which profoundly influenced all of the combatants. Finally, in 1918, German representatives crossed the Allied lines and sued for an Armistice. Why did Germany lose the war? Were other outcomes possible? Early allied success? German victory? Compromise peace? Popular revolution throughout Europe?
The First World War was a cultural trauma, which in certain respects is perceived as being ‘outside’ history, a massive human tragedy which defies normal explanation. Yet it is a good test case for thinking about decision making, the constraints on and the possibilities open to politicians and generals. This Further Subject is intended to reflect ‘total war’ with a ‘totalistic’ approach to historiography, one which examines and relates the spheres of political, military, economic and social history.
The focus of the paper will be on the great battles. Were the battles the futile slaughter of popular myth or the very essence of industrial war? Was Verdun ‘a meaningless battle in a meaningless war’ or a true turning point in the twentieth century? Was Douglas Haig an incompetent butcher or one of the greatest generals in British History? Was the war in other theatres fundamentally different to that in the West? The paper will examine the writings of the military and political decision makers, often written as conscious apologias for their actions. It will also examine their contemporary critics. In addition, it will examine the writings of the subjects of these actions, the ordinary soldiers and civilians who had to live with the consequences. It will seek to examine the relationship between the two, how far did the decision makers have to act with the consent of their ‘victims’?
The comparative perspective plays a valuable role in this exercise. Did the nations face variants on the same problem or substantially different problems? Were they pursuing similar strategies or fundamentally different ones? Were the generals the ‘donkeys’ of popular legend or genuinely creative figures (or a mixture of both)? Did anyone really win? To answer this, we should ask about the relationship between history and popular memory. Much of what we think we know about the war has been shaped by artistic representation: poetry, novels, film and painting. We should examine these sources critically to try to discover how far they aid our understanding and how far they hinder it. The film of ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ and the poetry of Wilfred Owen have shaped our understanding of the war more than Haig’s diary or Ludendorff’s Memoirs, but should they? Few subjects raise larger questions about the critical examination of sources. Finally, did these years ‘make’ the Twentieth century with all its subsequent horrors?
