Paste your essay in here… The Great War, also known as World War I, took place in 1914-1918 and was a fight for freedom that ended up leading many people into a state of disillusionment. Disillusionment, or a feeling of disappointment that results from the discovery that something is not as good as one believed it to be, was the reaction of the majority of the world to the Great War. However, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien represented an alternate faction of people who reacted in a different way. The topic of debate that was present after the war and continues to be talked about today, such as in the Imperial War Museum and Westminster Abbey’s Grave of the Unknown Soldier, is whether the slaughter was meaningless or necessary.
In June 1914, the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was murdered. This was the trigger that put into motion the events leading up to the Great War. Britain entered the war on 4 August 1914 because Germany invaded Belgium. Belgium was a neutral country and the German invasion violated a treaty system that had preserved European peace for 100 years. According to Joseph Loconte, “Britain had signed a treaty with Belgium in 1839, guaranteeing its neutrality in the event of a European conflict. After Germany declared war on France, London issued Berlin an ultimatum not to invade Belgium. But the Kaiser ignored the warning and masses of German troops poured across the border” (33). This mobilized the Britons and within hours they were officially at war. The horrors of the War were indescribable. The use of modern warfare gave way to intense annihilation. Loconte accounted: “Artillery carried the advantage not only of distance but of speed: thanks to hydraulic mechanisms and timing devices, the “shells” could be delivered to the enemy more rapidly, accurately, and for longer periods than anything ever seen in warfare…’It did more killing between 1914 and 1918 than any other weapon’” (64). Not only were the weapons extremely deadly, the trenches were home to some of the worst scenes of war. There lay dead bodies everywhere “with woeful eyes or faces blown off entirely” (67). As said by Loconte, war correspondent Sir Philip Gibbs remembered, “They [the men in the trenches] ate and slept with the stench of death in their nostrils” (67). The soldiers in the trenches dealt with some of the most horrifying aspects of war.
Over the next four years, this war would become the deadliest war in European history. Overall, approximately 60 million men were mobilized with 10 million military deaths. On top of that, there were 6-7 million civilian deaths and 37 million causalities. This does not even include the millions of deaths after the war due to tragedies like the Spanish Flu. In the Great War, Britain lost 750,000 men that were killed in combat. This was a loss of 9% of men aged 18-45. The entire British Empire lost an additional 250,000. These numbers, however, do not include the number of men shell-shocked or men that were invalids.
Due to this intense loss of life, society has since wondered whether this slaughter was meaningless or not. The belief that the war was caused by a high game of politics due to rival empires and alliances among Europe’s blundering leaders lead to the interpretation by many people that it was a needless war. The governments were said to have whipped Europeans into a nationalistic war fever which led to a whole generation of youth sacrificing their lives to the horrors of modern mechanized warfare. These youths had loyalty to their friends and, if their friends died, then had hatred for the people who killed their friends. This attitude kept most of them going during the war, not God or politics. All of this led them, and many others, to disillusionment. Meanwhile, another interpretation is seen in relation to whether the war was meaningless. Germany was seen as a real threat in their economic growth. This steered people to the idea that the war was not meaningless. For example, in manufacturing, Germany grew from 5th in the world in the 1860s to 2nd, ahead of Britain, in 1913. In share of global trade, they went from 10.3% in 1880 to 12.3% in 1913. Meanwhile, Britain went from 22.4% to 14.3%. Germany was associated with militarism and dictatorial politics. The German values challenged British values and the Britons believed that the Kaiser had too much power, as he reminded them of the Glorious Revolution. Britain saw Germany as a militaristic bully due to some real atrocities that occurred. Britain believed they had to fight for civilization itself, leading to the belief that the war was necessary and not just meaningless slaughter.
There were many reactions to the Great War in history, ranging from believing that it was meaningless and therefore leading to disillusionment to believing that it was necessary, along with everything in between. Much of the world experienced disillusionment, which was “a new cynicism about liberal democracy, capitalism, Christianity, and the achievements of Western civilization” (105), after the war. They believed in the Myth of Progress and were gravely disappointed. “By the start of the twentieth century, attitudes about war and what it could accomplish were bound up with a singular, over-arching idea…that, with the help of modern technologies, wars could be fought and won with minimal cost in life and treasure” (2). This was what is called the “Myth of Progress”. People believed that, because of modern warfare and technology, wars would be swift and relatively painless, making the world more moral, peaceful and spiritual. However, the exact opposite occurred. The war lasted 4 brutal, bloody years with no end in sight for many soldiers. Disillusionment was brought about by this war in the lives of soldiers and their families, as well as much of society.
However, there were two men in specific that avoided disillusionment through their faith and attitudes about war. These two men were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, famous authors known for The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings. The Great War influenced their lives and subsequently shaped the nature and character of their respective book series. The belief in God was obscene to much of postwar Europe. “To many of the best and brightest, Christianity appeared to lack any explanatory power” (125). This was not the case for Tolkien, as he kept his faith throughout the war and eventually converted Lewis to Christianity. They “managed to survive this delirium with their souls intact” (47) unlike many soldiers of that time. “The Christian faith of Tolkien and Lewis offered them a moral vantage point from which to grapple with the meaning of war. Their personal taste of combat, with all its troubling ambiguities, checked the impulse toward self-righteousness. Surely the daily routine of war, its moments of fear, boredom, exhaustion, hardship, and horror, saved them from ever romanticizing the experience” (51). This can be seen in both of their works, as they never glamorized the horrors of war. They chose to not only remember the sorrows of the war but also the courage, friendships, and sacrifice that made it bearable. Lewis and Tolkien rejected both the “moods of militarism and pacifism” equally and they “charted a middle course: a partial return to the chivalrous ideal. Only a society that upheld this ideal – in its art, literature, and its institutions – could hope to resist the dark and hungry forces arrayed against it” (173) and “they assumed that war would sometimes be necessary to preserve human freedom” (181). This shows a middle ground between the two interpretations aforementioned.
The memory of the Great War in modern day is different than how Tolkien and Lewis chose to remember it and the sites I visited played to the second interpretation of the war: that it was a necessary war and should be remembered as such. The Imperial War Museum was a significant site for memory, as it, for the most part, remembered the war as a necessary horror. Plaques in the museum stated “From the beginning of the twentieth century, Germany’s aggressive attempts to compete as a world power worried Britain, France and Russia…Germany had been unified in 1871. Britons admired this new nation for its music, literature, philosophy and science, and initially saw it as a friend…But in 1900 Germany’s industry was overtaking Britain’s, allowing it to build a formidable army and a rival fleet of warships. Britons now began to see Germany as a threat.” This is a direct point to the second interpretation of the Great War. Britain saw Germany’s navy as “a threat to the supremacy of the Royal Navy, and to Britain itself.” Britain was worried that Germany would threaten its security and position in the world. It became obvious that the Imperial War Museum was focusing on the facts of why Britain joined the war, as well as all the countries involved. It spoke of the trenches and the horrors that ensued due to modern warfare but barely spoke on the aftermath and reaction to the war. In relation to why there was no quick victory in 1914, a plaque said “Modern weapons caused enormous numbers of casualties. Endless marching and fighting exhausted men and horses. Generals lacked the communications equipment to control huge armies. On both fronts, the war ground to a halt.” The Museum emphasized how important it was, on both sides, to have a speedy victory. It also further emphasized that “for Britain and France, this was now a war to defend civilisation itself.” They also chose to emphasize just how horrible Germany was, and how appalled people were that Germany, a place once thought to be a nation of “great culture”, had “ignored international agreements intended to prevent such brutality.” Throughout the entire museum, there was little to no talk of God as well as no talk of disillusionment. The directors, run through funds from the government and donations from the people, chose to focus on the facts of the war – with a bias against Germany – and left the reaction of the Great War up to the viewer to decide.
This interpretation of the war being necessary is seen further in Westminster Abbey with the Grave of the Unknown Soldier. The war was not seen as meaningless nor did it speak of the disillusionment soldiers and society went through in postwar Europe. Upon first glance, this memorial seemed to be a wonderful display of respect to the soldiers who died in combat. The audio-guide described the placement of the memorial, right in front of Churchill, and words written on the grave itself as “all people are equally valuable in God’s eye”. It is extremely well-preserved but it is important to look deeper into the size of the words and the phrases emphasized. “His Majesty King George V” is just as large as “For God”, putting politics on the same level as religion, even though the majority of Britain experienced a loss of faith postwar, juxtaposing Lewis and Tolkien’s preserved faith. The memorial’s text focused on who he gave his life for, assuming it was “for God, King and Country”, even when many soldiers were fighting for their lives or for loyalty to their friends. The people who created this memorial glamorized the average soldier as well as de-emphasizing the cause of justice and freedom through the use of a smaller font size. It is as though Herbert Ryle, the man who composed the inscription, wanted the soldier to be remembered as something political, just as the war was, showing a liking for the second interpretation of the war not being meaningless.
In both of these sites, it seems as though the designers and directors wanted to forget the horrors of postwar Europe, and rather display what happened during the war and what they wanted the war to stand for: God and Country. To them, the war was not meaningless. They chose to glaze over the reactions of the people in the early 20th century. Both of these sites and their portrayal of memory is significant because it shows how Britain wants the war to be remembered: a necessary slaughter of young men for God, King, and Country.