1. For Monday, January 7, I need you to have watched the video below, which gives you a quick summation of imperialism - the state of the world prior to WWI.
2. For class on Tuesday on January 8, you need to have watched this video for a very fast but entertaining presentation on WWI - it's an overview of the whooole thing but goes by very very fast.
Your homework is to create a one page mind-web that introduces the main concepts - not all the little details - but the main concepts and big ideas that this speaker thinks is important to know about the war. You may do this mind-web as a Paper document, an Inspiration or MindMeister pdf, a Notability pdf, or a hard copy, freehanded and on paper.
In the weeks to come, we will break everything down bit by bit, but this is meant to give you a quick overview.
The main concepts I wanted you to identify were:
- that war was perceived as noble and glorious before WWI
- the war itself destroys that idea, due to casualties, suffering etc
- that the war started by a criminal act and dragged nations into it by the alliance system, but also by nationalism and war-fever
- that suffering was unprecedented, and sparked by both increased technology and disease
- that no good came out of the war - that both winners AND losers suffered after the war, and the soldiers become bitter and cynical, and that the idea that war was glorious ended forever
3. Before coming to class on Wednesday, January 9, you need to have watched these two "vodcasts" on the origins of WWI: part one and part two
Below, this is the document we will analyze in class (task - annotating document to explain the feelings in Europe prior to war considering origins, value and limitation and context):
crown_prince_wilhelm_on_war.pdf | |
File Size: | 77 kb |
File Type: |
This is the "worksheet" we are using for document analysis (you will also find it on Edmodo). You do not have to write your responses directly into it, but make sure to use it for a rubric:
primary_source_analysis_worksheet.pages | |
File Size: | 207 kb |
File Type: | pages |
4. For Friday, January 11, you should have watched these videos before coming to class:
An overview of the horrible nature of WWI combat is here and below (watch as much of this second video as you like - it is much longer than I wanted but is all I could find. ten minutes is okay):
The documents we are analyzing in class [task - annotating (or comparing) document(s) to explain the reactions to and experiences of combat, considering origins, value and limitation and context] are:
Option 1 Doc: War Letters
Option 2 Docs: War Letters, Duhamel on WWI, an Extract from Storm of Steel (by Ernst Junger)
Remember to follow the primary source analysis worksheet to record your responses, though you don't need to type into the actual document (which is posted in the entry above)
Option 1 Doc: War Letters
Option 2 Docs: War Letters, Duhamel on WWI, an Extract from Storm of Steel (by Ernst Junger)
Remember to follow the primary source analysis worksheet to record your responses, though you don't need to type into the actual document (which is posted in the entry above)
war_letters.pdf | |
File Size: | 61 kb |
File Type: |
duhamel_on_wwi_edit_first_chapter.pdf | |
File Size: | 83 kb |
File Type: |
extract_from_storm_of_steel_for_comparison.pdf | |
File Size: | 241 kb |
File Type: |
5. Before coming to class on Monday, January 14, you should have watched this video which explains why and how the US enters the war, but the stress is on the way the US gov't reorganized itself to fight the war "properly"
For class, you will be analyzing the following documents (task - annotating documents to explain the role of governments during war considering origins, value and limitation and context)
Option 1 Docs: various posters and "President Wilson's Call to Americans"
Option 2 Docs: The above documents plus "the Four Minute Men"
Remember to grab your primary source analysis rubric as a guide
woodrow_wilson_call_to_americans_1_page_edit.pdf | |
File Size: | 39 kb |
File Type: |
four_minute_men_edit.pdf | |
File Size: | 82 kb |
File Type: |
6. For Wednesday, January 16, you should have watched this video, which explains how the war actually ends, before coming to class:
The documents we are using (the task - annotating document[s] to explain the feelings in Germany regarding the armistice, considering origins, value and limitation and context):
Option 1: Erich Ludendorff & President Ebert
Option 2: "Germany surrenders docs" - notice that you have a very specific prompt to follow that differs from our standard primary source analysis rubric. Create an answer to the prompt, but use your primary source analysis skills to create that response.
erich_ludendorff_on_the_new_german_government.pdf | |
File Size: | 49 kb |
File Type: |
president_ebert.pdf | |
File Size: | 82 kb |
File Type: |
germany_surrenders_docs_edit.pdf | |
File Size: | 128 kb |
File Type: |
***Doc Analysis Option 1 Exemplar***
note how this student builds a case to argue that the inherent weakness of using these documents to understand the past is that they are both seeking to evade responsibility for Germany's defeat:
note how this student builds a case to argue that the inherent weakness of using these documents to understand the past is that they are both seeking to evade responsibility for Germany's defeat:
***Doc Analysis Option 2 Exemplar***
note how this student refers to the documents to make a case that these documents aren't supportive enough of each other to come to any real conclusions as to who is fault for Germany loss:
"These documents are very contradictory to each other. Between the first and second documents, they really went against each other in a way that was most confusing. Both were written by the same person, yet the first one blames Democrats, and the second blames the German Army. The second one talks about how the army becoming unreliable was the cause of them losing the war. While the first, the one we were supposed to use the basis of the group of documents, written later is saying that the reason the war was lost is because of the Democrats. So, this man is contradicting himself, although written far later, the first document is refuting his original statement. The third document is another interesting case. It’s refuting the argument of Erich Ludendorff. At one point, it says that the Kaiser must step down, because the Social Revolution had spread, and the Social-Democrats couldn’t hold the rebels back. So, there was three groups present during the revolt, and the Social-Democrats weren’t responsible for even bringing down the government. This again refutes the first document. Yet, also in a different way than the second. Suddenly, we’re presented with three contradicting arguments on how Germany lost the war. The fourth document is the Peace Treaty and forces Germany to give up a lot of land, supplies, troops, money, and many different things. In some ways, this technically supports Erich’s arguments. However, it has no proof of who to blame, and simply helps support his idea about how life in Germany pretty much went to crap after the war. The last document, is a speech by President Erbert, the leader of Germany after the Social-Democrats took over the government. So, of course, his speech refutes Erich’s argument. However, he assigns the blame to the Monarchy, the exact opposite of what Erich was doing. So what we end up with is each side blaming the other, with no real proof that either side did anything conclusive to send Germany into the state it is currently in. So, to know what really happened, we need to find some sort of conclusive document that will tell us what really happened to make Germany lose the war."
7. Over the weekend (Jan 19-21) watch the three videos below, for class on Tuesday, January 22, taken from the BBC's Great War series. They will walk you through the Versailles Treaty, which featured the US, France, Britain, and Italy trying to figure out how to deal with the losers of the war - but mostly Germany - while ensuring such a war never happened again.
Your homework is to create a one page mind-web that introduces the main concepts - not all the little details - but the main concepts and big ideas that these videos suggest is important to know about the Treaty that ended the war. You may do this mind-web as a Paper document, an Inspiration or MindMeister pdf, a Notability pdf, or a hard copy, freehanded and on paper.
As you watch, pay close attention to the goals of, and pressures on, the conference participants at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The first video ends with the question- what will happen to Germany?
This video below, the sequel to the one above, explains what happened to Germany, despite Wilson's best efforts
Wilson's efforts to achieve world peace failed rather spectacularly, if you know about World War II, but he also failed to convince his own country, the US, to go along with his dreams for reorganizing the world. This video below explains what happened, from the 5 minute mark
Our in-class documents feature the following two options,
Option 1: Documents from the Versailles Treaty option 1 & the maps below This time, instead of doing your basic primary source analysis, your job is to use the documents to answer these 2 questions - your response length for both questions should be about a page and half, which you will submit to me either on Tumblr or via email. Please also submit your mind-maps electronically (as a picture or electronic file.)
Use the Doc Analysis option 2 exemplar I posted above these videos as a model for how to refer to the documents in your answer.
Question 1. What do the maps suggest happened to Germany and Austria-Hungary as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
Question 2. Read the "documents from the Versailles Treaty option 1" and then explain, with reference to those documents, who, between the US, Great Britain, France, or Germany, can be said to have gotten the best deal out of the Treaty - that is, who can be said to have "won" the peace. You should use your mind-map to help you as well. Keep in mind, the answer may not be what you think it is.
Option 2: versailles thoughts_option 2 This time, instead of doing primary source analysis, your job is to use the documents to construct a one to two-page answer to these questions: Who can best be said to have "won" the peace? How would you balance these various documents (considering when they written and by whom) to determine whether the Treaty was fair or not? What was the real problem with the treaty? Whose opinion do you trust the most, and why? Use the Doc Analysis option 2 exemplar I posted above these videos as a model for how to refer to the documents in your packet.
The maps below represent, in order,
A. the two sides in 1914 (notice the size and place of Germany and Austria-Hungary)
B. How France wanted Germany divided after the Armistice (1918)
C + D. The actual division of Germany according to the Versailles Treaty (1918)
E. Europe after 1919
F. German Colonial Losses
Option 1: Documents from the Versailles Treaty option 1 & the maps below This time, instead of doing your basic primary source analysis, your job is to use the documents to answer these 2 questions - your response length for both questions should be about a page and half, which you will submit to me either on Tumblr or via email. Please also submit your mind-maps electronically (as a picture or electronic file.)
Use the Doc Analysis option 2 exemplar I posted above these videos as a model for how to refer to the documents in your answer.
Question 1. What do the maps suggest happened to Germany and Austria-Hungary as a result of the Versailles Treaty.
Question 2. Read the "documents from the Versailles Treaty option 1" and then explain, with reference to those documents, who, between the US, Great Britain, France, or Germany, can be said to have gotten the best deal out of the Treaty - that is, who can be said to have "won" the peace. You should use your mind-map to help you as well. Keep in mind, the answer may not be what you think it is.
Option 2: versailles thoughts_option 2 This time, instead of doing primary source analysis, your job is to use the documents to construct a one to two-page answer to these questions: Who can best be said to have "won" the peace? How would you balance these various documents (considering when they written and by whom) to determine whether the Treaty was fair or not? What was the real problem with the treaty? Whose opinion do you trust the most, and why? Use the Doc Analysis option 2 exemplar I posted above these videos as a model for how to refer to the documents in your packet.
The maps below represent, in order,
A. the two sides in 1914 (notice the size and place of Germany and Austria-Hungary)
B. How France wanted Germany divided after the Armistice (1918)
C + D. The actual division of Germany according to the Versailles Treaty (1918)
E. Europe after 1919
F. German Colonial Losses
documents_from_the_treaty_of_versailles_option_1.pdf | |
File Size: | 109 kb |
File Type: |
versailles_thoughts_option_2.pages | |
File Size: | 254 kb |
File Type: | pages |
I thought this was a really interesting response to the option 2 question (by Kris K):
I think that the country that “won” the peace, is no country. No country out of all the ones who fought in the war had won peace. They had been excited, such as our former president, trying to make the world in peace and preventing all other wars, which failed. The british wanted more power and to never let france rule Europe. All of what they wanted and conceived in their little heads as peace and victory was all wrong. I get Wilson’s peace treaty a little, I mean I get the main points but I don’t fully understand it. All the while everyone else was just wanting to strip Germany and all its people of everything that could cause harm, and make it pay back its debts of the war. Even though Germany already had lost everything they were expecting a whole lot out of it. I think this is why no one won the peace. Because no one came to peace with Germany or tried to help, Germany (under new leadership) took the little burning kindle of hate left from the first war and let it smolder, smolder, until it had found the curtain it was waiting for to catch on and ignite the whole thing back again.
I can understand why no one would help though. Gasses, bullets, bombs, poisons, grenades, barbed wire dead children wives husbands moms dads and friends all dead I just can’t imagine whats going through all of their heads but war is so extremely stupid and unnecessary, I don’t know what this world would be like without it. Hopeful I guess.
I can understand why no one would help though. Gasses, bullets, bombs, poisons, grenades, barbed wire dead children wives husbands moms dads and friends all dead I just can’t imagine whats going through all of their heads but war is so extremely stupid and unnecessary, I don’t know what this world would be like without it. Hopeful I guess.
This is a good, thorough response to the Option 1 question (from Bobby E:)
WW1 was mainly blamed on Germany, Hungary, and Austria. When I looked at the maps that were provided, I saw how loosing the war really took a toll on Germany, especially since they took the most of the blame for the war out of the three of them. They had to give up a lot of land to Poland, known as the Polish Corridor. Germany and Austria were not allowed to unite, and Germany had to give up all of its colonies, and had to pay 6.6 billion euros in reparations. Germany was only permitted to have 6 battleships but was not permitted any tanks, airplanes, or submarines, and their army was reduced to 100,000. France got back some land that they had lost back in 1871 to Germany.
The treaty of Versailles marked the end of the war, and made sure that everything was evened out in the end. In the war guilt causes section (articles 231-248) it assigns Germany as the one responsible for the war. The treaty also lead to the creation of new nations from colonies that were taken by the allied powers, along with the League of Nations which would prevent international conflict. What I’m looking for specifically though is who got the best end of the bargain in the treaty. All that the U.S. asked for was peace, safety, no fighting to continue, so that events like the Lusitania sinking won’t happen again. Britain wanted the destruction of the German fleet and colonial empire, along with a bit of colonial land for themselves in the Middle East so that they may obtain oil resources. They also wanted for the prevention of any country dominating Europe, and also for the European trade to continue. After seeing Germanys complaint of how the treaty would too extremely impact Germany, France asked that Germany receive proper punishment for how harshly they fought in the war, such as unrestricted submarine warfare, poison shells, and destroying towns, just to destroy the enemies morale. It was also pointed out how if Germany had won the war they would have undoubtedly taken a lot land from other countries, and that the treaty was kind in not taking much land from Germany. In the end I think that Britain got the best deal since they received land and resources, while most others just required peace or justice. I think that the reason why most other countries just asked for this was because everyone was worn out by the war, and were looking for an end.
The treaty of Versailles marked the end of the war, and made sure that everything was evened out in the end. In the war guilt causes section (articles 231-248) it assigns Germany as the one responsible for the war. The treaty also lead to the creation of new nations from colonies that were taken by the allied powers, along with the League of Nations which would prevent international conflict. What I’m looking for specifically though is who got the best end of the bargain in the treaty. All that the U.S. asked for was peace, safety, no fighting to continue, so that events like the Lusitania sinking won’t happen again. Britain wanted the destruction of the German fleet and colonial empire, along with a bit of colonial land for themselves in the Middle East so that they may obtain oil resources. They also wanted for the prevention of any country dominating Europe, and also for the European trade to continue. After seeing Germanys complaint of how the treaty would too extremely impact Germany, France asked that Germany receive proper punishment for how harshly they fought in the war, such as unrestricted submarine warfare, poison shells, and destroying towns, just to destroy the enemies morale. It was also pointed out how if Germany had won the war they would have undoubtedly taken a lot land from other countries, and that the treaty was kind in not taking much land from Germany. In the end I think that Britain got the best deal since they received land and resources, while most others just required peace or justice. I think that the reason why most other countries just asked for this was because everyone was worn out by the war, and were looking for an end.
Finally, this response to option 2 did a great job of identifying the limitations and usefulness of the documents (by Kai W)
The view points I have stated and explained have all been very biased towards the treaty. Almost all the people who wrote or are protected by the treaty are supporting it. All of the ones that are left our, turned away, or put down upon by the treaty are wanting it gone. Many of these documents were written right after or close to the end of the war or the creation of the treaty, except one. #9 “Lessons of History: the Paris Peace Conference of 1919” by Margaret O. This document was written many years after the end of war and closer to the present. I believe and support the view point of this document. Also I support #5Captain E. N. Bennett #6John Maynard Keynes #7Georges Clemenceau. Because of their big picture view, their grounded argument and their realistic judgment.
8. Wednesday Night, Jan 23, watch the two videos below before coming to class on Thursday. The first video is a continuation of the one above, which ends the story of Woodrow Wilson, and then takes us through the after effects of the war on the veterans who fought in it. This one will be hard to watch, a little.
Then Watch the video below, which finishes the story of Otto Dix, to the 2 minute mark, or watch it in it's entirety if you want.
Our in-class document analysis (task - thinking about the effects of the war on the social scene of Europe) will feature the following two options
Option 1 docs: War poetry & paintings of Otto Dix & Crown Prince Wilhelm on War. Your task is to first to do a document analysis for either 1 poem or 1 painting, and then compare and contrast the War Poetry and the Paintings of Otto Dix with Crown Prince Wilhelm. Are they similar or different? How so? And what explains the similarities or differences? The topic you are being asked to think about is - what were the feelings about war before and after WWI? Did WWI change anything in Europe?
Option 2 docs: War poetry, paintings of Otto Dix, and the document entitled "Paul Valery" - which contains the views of two writers - Paul Valery and Oswald Spengler. If you look at the all the documents, how do they support the statement made in our original video on World War 1 that no good came out the of war, and that the world was a very different place ideologically after WWI ended?
The Documents:
Option 1 docs: War poetry & paintings of Otto Dix & Crown Prince Wilhelm on War. Your task is to first to do a document analysis for either 1 poem or 1 painting, and then compare and contrast the War Poetry and the Paintings of Otto Dix with Crown Prince Wilhelm. Are they similar or different? How so? And what explains the similarities or differences? The topic you are being asked to think about is - what were the feelings about war before and after WWI? Did WWI change anything in Europe?
Option 2 docs: War poetry, paintings of Otto Dix, and the document entitled "Paul Valery" - which contains the views of two writers - Paul Valery and Oswald Spengler. If you look at the all the documents, how do they support the statement made in our original video on World War 1 that no good came out the of war, and that the world was a very different place ideologically after WWI ended?
The Documents:
Poem 1: Wilfred Owen (1893-1918): "Dulce et Decorum Est "
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! -- An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . . Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under I green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, -- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. |
Poem 2: Wilfred Gibson (1878-1962) "Back"
They ask me where I've been, And what I've done and seen. But what can I reply Who know it wasn't I, But someone just like me, Who went across the sea And with my head and hands Killed men in foreign lands... Though I must bear the blame, Because he bore my name. |
The Paintings below are by Otto Dix, and are titled, in order,
Wounded Soldier
Barbed Wire
Prager Strasse
Skat Players
War Cripples
The Match Seller
Shock Troops
Trench Warfare
crown_prince_wilhelm_on_war.pdf | |
File Size: | 77 kb |
File Type: |
paul_valery.pages | |
File Size: | 153 kb |
File Type: | pages |
Some students' Option 2 responses
This is nicely put, as well:
"In the paintings it is a representation of no good can come from war because in each picture there is either a man suffering or a man that has been killed. The pictures present men who are coming back to their home or surviving with their disfigured body. They have no legs or part of their face has been missing all because of the war that was never won and nothing came out of it. The paintings were depressing because the colors and their faces made it very hard to take. From reading and looking at these documents they say what has happened before and after the war. In one of the documents I think that they are trying to convince people into joining in because they say, “Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.” Which means it is sweet and right to die fighting for your country. Nothing good came out of the war because in these documents it says there were so many wounded and were “fearful rather than having hope” because they might be afraid of another war to come. In the poems it says that men have become more brutal because of went through. The poem also says that the amount of killing they saw and did changed them because they have to live in guilt and have to live knowing that they took lives from people that they didn’t even know. The war did no good, messing with their minds and letting them watch their friends being killed right before their eyes. They were no longer able to trust the government and others."
And finally, here's another:
The first poem talks about how the soldiers who fought are disabled and are a sore sight. But they lost more then their physical attributes when they returned from overseas. They lost the mental security that most people take for granted. Flashbacks of the battles strike into your head without warning and you relive the pressure and chaos of war when that is the last thing you want on your mind. The 2nd poem is trying to say that it wasn’t him that fought in the war but he shares the blame and the hardship because it was his country that slaughtered on foreign soil. The pictures are saying that war basically kills a person without stopping the beating of his heart. Soldiers get deformed, they have night terrors, and make life seem like a burden because they go through so much it seems easier to just be put out of their misery. The Paul Valerie document is basically summed up in its first sentence, “The storm has died away, and still we are restless, uneasy, as if the storm were about to break.” All of the soldiers are so paranoid that they will have to go thought the pain and hardships they suffered that they cower in fear even though the war is over. It’s almost when you get injured in sports, your tentative in how you play because you don’t want to get hurt again. In baseball of you get beamed,from then on you back up in the box and cringe as the pitch comes. It’s a psychological thing that holds you back from being stress free. It’s almost like you psych yourself out. The second paragraph says armies and war destroy countries. That armies do not protect against war, they want war, they are war. And the last country standing will be the country that keeps its cool the longest and doesn’t sabotage itself by going to some pointless war that will ultimately lead to its destruction"
"In the paintings it is a representation of no good can come from war because in each picture there is either a man suffering or a man that has been killed. The pictures present men who are coming back to their home or surviving with their disfigured body. They have no legs or part of their face has been missing all because of the war that was never won and nothing came out of it. The paintings were depressing because the colors and their faces made it very hard to take. From reading and looking at these documents they say what has happened before and after the war. In one of the documents I think that they are trying to convince people into joining in because they say, “Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.” Which means it is sweet and right to die fighting for your country. Nothing good came out of the war because in these documents it says there were so many wounded and were “fearful rather than having hope” because they might be afraid of another war to come. In the poems it says that men have become more brutal because of went through. The poem also says that the amount of killing they saw and did changed them because they have to live in guilt and have to live knowing that they took lives from people that they didn’t even know. The war did no good, messing with their minds and letting them watch their friends being killed right before their eyes. They were no longer able to trust the government and others."
And finally, here's another:
The first poem talks about how the soldiers who fought are disabled and are a sore sight. But they lost more then their physical attributes when they returned from overseas. They lost the mental security that most people take for granted. Flashbacks of the battles strike into your head without warning and you relive the pressure and chaos of war when that is the last thing you want on your mind. The 2nd poem is trying to say that it wasn’t him that fought in the war but he shares the blame and the hardship because it was his country that slaughtered on foreign soil. The pictures are saying that war basically kills a person without stopping the beating of his heart. Soldiers get deformed, they have night terrors, and make life seem like a burden because they go through so much it seems easier to just be put out of their misery. The Paul Valerie document is basically summed up in its first sentence, “The storm has died away, and still we are restless, uneasy, as if the storm were about to break.” All of the soldiers are so paranoid that they will have to go thought the pain and hardships they suffered that they cower in fear even though the war is over. It’s almost when you get injured in sports, your tentative in how you play because you don’t want to get hurt again. In baseball of you get beamed,from then on you back up in the box and cringe as the pitch comes. It’s a psychological thing that holds you back from being stress free. It’s almost like you psych yourself out. The second paragraph says armies and war destroy countries. That armies do not protect against war, they want war, they are war. And the last country standing will be the country that keeps its cool the longest and doesn’t sabotage itself by going to some pointless war that will ultimately lead to its destruction"
Here's an interesting take on the "Valery" doc: Two perspectives 1922. On the European mind illustrated the scars left in people’s minds from the war and how that shadow of a thought inhibited their other actions, scared them. It made them callous to the magnificence of life and more aware of the darkness and threats of it. The veil of excitement over life has been lifted and they had been thrust into a dark world of blood and hate.
The decline of the west centered on the prediction that the superpowers of the world will pit themselves against each other in an all out war and the one culture that emerges will rule the world. The weak will be subjected and the strong will rule with an iron fist. The age of freedom and personal liberties will end, and only uniformity and compliance will remain. Much like 1984, this ideal is held as the only way, meaning that killing a culture would be necessary for this. This sounds a little bit like crazy teenage earth needs to grow up and get a job or something. An analogy kind of like that.
The decline of the west centered on the prediction that the superpowers of the world will pit themselves against each other in an all out war and the one culture that emerges will rule the world. The weak will be subjected and the strong will rule with an iron fist. The age of freedom and personal liberties will end, and only uniformity and compliance will remain. Much like 1984, this ideal is held as the only way, meaning that killing a culture would be necessary for this. This sounds a little bit like crazy teenage earth needs to grow up and get a job or something. An analogy kind of like that.
One final excerpt from a different student - on the poems and on the Valery document:
"The poetry, is some of the most chilling things that I’ve read in a while. I love them, personally. The first one, Dulce et Decorum Est, is one that I find very interesting. He talks about watching someone die from the poison gas. The person dies horrifically, choking on the gas, coughing up blood, and all the time looking to everyone as if he’s drowning. He’s coughing up his lungs, blood spilling from his mouth. The person says that the man who died haunts his nightmares and dreams, a ghost who comes to him, begging for help while drowning on air. The second one is one that is even more eerie to me. It talks about someone who went out to the war, and when he came back, people asked him what he’d done and what he’d seen. But, he doesn’t know, because he doesn’t think that it was him that went out. These poets, are scared by what they’ve done and seen. They can’t believe that they’ve done or seen these things, and suffer because of it. This is what happens in war, and these are the people telling us first hand.
“The European Mind”, is someone writings about how the whole of Europe is in this devastation after the war period. Everyone fears what might happen next. How they do hope that something good will come out of it, yet they all have this intense feeling of dread that something bad is going to happen again. The author states that they are a very unfortunate generation. There have been a lot of men lost, and most countries aren’t sure how they’re going to survive with so little people to get their country back into working order. All these young men dead, and not many that come back are able to do much. In all honesty, a problem was probably “how are we going to repopulate?” And yet, these people push on, because they know they have to.
The second document, is one that is far more truthful than most people realize. It talks about how educating the people as a general mass is simply paving the way for the people who will dominate the world. They’re going to reduce the general masses down to a simple, gray mass. While the elite that they choose and themselves will be at the top, enjoying luxuries and ordering people around. Although he states this, he appears to have some contempt for the subject, and dislikes this idea of government.
All in all, the documents point to the generalization that the masses of people in the world hated war after this event was done. Everyone held a small piece of contempt in their heart, and I can bet that there probably isn’t anyone who lives in France, the UK or Germany who doesn’t have a relative who fought or died in the war (if their family came from there). All these people dead, and the only ones left in the world who actually got anything are the politicians sitting in power. Sounds a lot like a world we live in, no?"
"The poetry, is some of the most chilling things that I’ve read in a while. I love them, personally. The first one, Dulce et Decorum Est, is one that I find very interesting. He talks about watching someone die from the poison gas. The person dies horrifically, choking on the gas, coughing up blood, and all the time looking to everyone as if he’s drowning. He’s coughing up his lungs, blood spilling from his mouth. The person says that the man who died haunts his nightmares and dreams, a ghost who comes to him, begging for help while drowning on air. The second one is one that is even more eerie to me. It talks about someone who went out to the war, and when he came back, people asked him what he’d done and what he’d seen. But, he doesn’t know, because he doesn’t think that it was him that went out. These poets, are scared by what they’ve done and seen. They can’t believe that they’ve done or seen these things, and suffer because of it. This is what happens in war, and these are the people telling us first hand.
“The European Mind”, is someone writings about how the whole of Europe is in this devastation after the war period. Everyone fears what might happen next. How they do hope that something good will come out of it, yet they all have this intense feeling of dread that something bad is going to happen again. The author states that they are a very unfortunate generation. There have been a lot of men lost, and most countries aren’t sure how they’re going to survive with so little people to get their country back into working order. All these young men dead, and not many that come back are able to do much. In all honesty, a problem was probably “how are we going to repopulate?” And yet, these people push on, because they know they have to.
The second document, is one that is far more truthful than most people realize. It talks about how educating the people as a general mass is simply paving the way for the people who will dominate the world. They’re going to reduce the general masses down to a simple, gray mass. While the elite that they choose and themselves will be at the top, enjoying luxuries and ordering people around. Although he states this, he appears to have some contempt for the subject, and dislikes this idea of government.
All in all, the documents point to the generalization that the masses of people in the world hated war after this event was done. Everyone held a small piece of contempt in their heart, and I can bet that there probably isn’t anyone who lives in France, the UK or Germany who doesn’t have a relative who fought or died in the war (if their family came from there). All these people dead, and the only ones left in the world who actually got anything are the politicians sitting in power. Sounds a lot like a world we live in, no?"
Here's an Option 1 response, by Reyn: The person who experienced and wrote this poem is Wilfred Gibson. He was in WWI and wrote a poem called "Back". I think he wrote this to himself to relieve some emotions he felt and tired to put it on someone else even though it was him. This document is useful because it is expressing his feelings about what he did. I think his point was that he was trying to make a different person to take some blame off himself. Something I learned from this document is that the war was pretty tough and you can't be the same person to survive the war. He wrote this poem after the war because it says " They asked me where I've been and what I've seen". This author fault in world war 1 so I would think he would be reliable. He has real life experience which makes the poem he is writing valuable.
In this picture by Otto Dix named "Trench warfare." It represents how devastating a war can be. I think the point of this picture was to show how brutal war is and it either kill or be killed in some situations in war. This man fought in the war and this probably is something he saw a lot or everyday. The trenches were a horrible place full with death. I think that the money corpses littered around are fallen friends. This would be very sad to see because if they were to have known them, they would have to see their body everyday because you're not supposed to throw bodies out. The trenches were a truly frightening place that was almost hell.
I think that the two have different views of war, they are related in a way that when you go to war you have to kill people. War is not everyone just sitting there fighting, there is death and so much chaos. The crown prince wants his people to die in glory for the country while the Americans who went to war became mentally wounded and felt no glory at all at the end of the war. The difference is small but it is the difference of dying for ones country and surviving for ones country.