The 100 Project

Page 1

1914‑2014

Stephen Marck



I consider myself to be sincerely fortunate not to have endured the conflict that took place between many nations between the years 1914-1918. Even though I, like the many of us, who look back every year in November, and remember those brave soles who gave their lives, could never know how truly horrific actually being stuck in a trench, on the front line, would have really been. Of course, war has always been horrific, but this was something far worse, than what had gone before. Just reading a few of the letters sent back home by the young men to families and loved one’s you could sense that they must have felt like they were in their worst nightmare. Think then how awful one must have felt to suddenly realise that this was all real. The one hundredth anniversary has now passed, and rightly, we mourn as well as celebrate brave deeds, and actions of the ordinary men on the street, to try

and come to terms with the fact that this was by any means, no ordinary war. Quite rightly so. There is a number of books, souvenirs activity packs, exhibitions and other digital media available to view or on public sale, that cover the first world war. The premise of this project is twofold, firstly to commemorate the memory of those who fell on the one hundred anniversary of the conflict, and second, concentrates on a centenary milestone of a number of little known aspects of the great war, highlighting the number, one hundred, in context to certain actions events that took place during the conflict

The War, the anniversary and other little known facts!

Ste p he n Ma rc k

2


THE WAR TO END ALL WARS!

World War I (WWI or WW1 or World War One), also known as the First World War or the Great War, was a global war centred in Europe that began on 28 July 1914 and lasted until 11 November 1918. More than nine million combatants and seven million civilians died as a result of the war, a casualty rate exacerbated by the belligerents’ technological and industrial sophistication, and tactical stalemate. It was one of the deadliest conflicts in history, paving the way for major political changes, including revolutions in many of the nations involved.

Austria-Hungary. Although Italy had also been a member of the Triple Alliance alongside Germany and Austria-Hungary, it did not join the Central Powers, as Austria-Hungary had taken offense against the terms of the alliance. These alliances were reorganised and expanded as more nations entered the war: Italy, Japan and the United States joined the Allies, and the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria the Central Powers. Ultimately, more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans, were mobilised in one of the largest wars in history.

The war drew in all the world’s economic great powers, which were assembled in two opposing alliances: the Allies (based upon the Triple Entente of the United Kingdom, France and the Russian Empire) and the Central Powers of Germany and

The immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-

Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia, and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world. On 28 July, the Austro-Hungarians fired the first shots in preparation for the invasion of Serbia. As Russia mobilized, Germany invaded neutral Belgium and Luxembourg before moving towards France, leading Britain to declare war on Germany. After the German march on Paris was halted, what became known as the Western Front settled into a battle of attrition, with a trench line that would change little until 1917?


4


Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front, the Russian army was successful against the Austro-Hungarians, but was stopped in its invasion of East Prussia by the Germans. In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire joined the war, opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Sinai. Italy and Bulgaria went to war in 1915, Romania in 1916, and the United States in 1917. The war approached a resolution after the Russian government collapsed in March 1917, and a subsequent revolution in November brought the Russians to terms with the Central Powers. On 4 November 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire agreed to an armistice. After a 1918 German offensive along the western front, the Allies drove back the Germans in a series of successful offensives and began entering the trenches. Germany, which had its own trouble with revolutionaries, agreed to an armistice on 11 November 1918, ending the war ad giving a hollow victory for the Allies. By the end of the war, four major imperial powers; the German, Russian, AustroHungarian and Ottoman empires ceased to exist. The successor states of the former two lost substantial territory, while the latter two were dismantled. The maps of Europe and Southwest Asia were redrawn, with several independent nations restored or created. The League of Nations was formed with the aim of preventing any repetition of such an appalling conflict. This aim, however, failed with weakened states, renewed European nationalism and the German feeling of humiliation contributing to the rise of fascism. All of these conditions eventually led to World War II. World War I could be said to have begun in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie by a young nationalist who had been seeking a greater Serbia.

The war destroyed kings, Kaisers, czars and sultans; it demolished empires; it introduced chemical weapons, tanks and airborne bombing; it brought millions of women into the work force, hastening their legal right to vote. It gave independence to nations like Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries and created new nations in the Middle East with often arbitrary borders; it brought about major cultural changes, including a new understanding of the psychology of war, and of “shell shock” and posttraumatic stress. It also featured the initial step of the United States as a global power. President Woodrow Wilson ultimately failed in his ambitions for a new world order and a credible League of Nations, setting off much chaos with his insistence on an armistice and his support for undefined “self-determination.” And the rapid retreat of the United States from Europe helped sow the ground for the Second World War. Historians still squabble over who was responsible for the war. Some continue to blame Germany and others depict a system of rivalries, alliances and anxieties, driven by concerns about the growing weakness of the AustroHungarian and Ottoman Empires and the growing strength of Germany and Russia that was likely to produce a war in any case, even if there was some other casus belli. But the emotional legacies are different for different countries. For France the war, however bloody, was a necessary response to invasion. Preventing the German Army from reaching Paris in the first battle of the Marne spelled the difference between freedom and slavery. The second battle of the Marne, with the help at last of American soldiers, was the beginning of the end for the Germans. This was France’s “good war,” while World War II was an embarrassing collapse, with significant collaboration.

For Germany, which had invested heavily in the machinery of war, it was an almost incomprehensible defeat, laying the groundwork for revolution, fascism and genocide. The supreme irony of 1914 is how many of the rulers of Europe grossly overestimated military power and grossly underestimated economic power. The Germans, too, are still coming to terms with their past, unsure how much to press their current economic and political strength in Europe. For Britain, there remains a large debate about whether we even had to fight. But fight we did, with millions of volunteers until the dead were mounded so high that conscription was finally imposed in 1916. The memory of July 1, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme — when 20,000 British soldiers died, 40,000 were wounded and 60 percent of officers were killed — has marked British consciousness and become a byword for mindless slaughter. The sense that the war was futile and unnecessary still hangs over a lot of the discussion in Britain. There is also a deep presumption that the generals were incompetent and cold to human sacrifice, that “lions” — the brave ordinary Tommie’s — were “led by donkeys” like Field Marshal Douglas Haig. In fact, the beginning of the war was mobile and extremely bloody, as were the last few months, when the big offensives of 1918 broke the German Army. The rate of killing in the muck and mud of the trenches was much lower than during the mobile part of the war. If the inheritance is mixed, the war still casts a long shadow, refracted through what can now seem the inevitability of World War II and our tumultuous modern history. This is also, after all, the 100th anniversary of the start of that war and the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The end of the Cold War was in a sense brought a return to the end of World


War I, a restoring of sovereignty to the countries of Eastern Europe, one reason they are so eager to defend it now. Analysts wonder if the period of the American and European supremacy itself is fading, given the rise of China and the return of traditional nationalism, not just in Russia but also in the many Eurosceptic voters in France, Britain and Denmark. Inevitably, analogies are drawn. Some analysts compare Germany after the war to Russia now, arguing that just as Germany rejected the “Carthaginian peace” at the end of World War I, so Russia is now rejecting the “settlement” of the Cold War, thus seeing it as some unjust, chafing over its defeat and prompting of a new Russian aggressiveness and of irredentism. Some question whether the lessons of 1914 or of 1939 are more valid today. Do we heed only the lessons of 1939,when restraint was costly, and miss the lessons of 1914, when restraint could have avoided the war? Others see a continuing struggle between Germany and Russia for mastery of Europe, a struggle that marked both world wars and continues today, and not just in Ukraine, where a century ago its people fought on both sides. Others see World War I, at least as it began in Sarajevo, as the third Balkan War, while the post-Cold War collapse of Yugoslavia and its multinational, multicultural and multi-religious model continues to present several unresolved difficulties for Europe, in Bosnia, Kosovo and beyond. Similar tensions persist in Northern Ireland, the rump of Ireland’s incomplete revolution that began with the Easter Rising of 1916.

borders drawn up in the Sykes-Picot agreement by the French and British, with Russian agreement, in 1916, the middle of the war, when the Ottoman Empire was cracking. The carnage at Gallipoli helped shape the national identity of the inheritor state, modern Turkey, let alone Australia. Even the Balfour Declaration, which threw British support behind the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, was signed during the war, in November 1917 With the new interest in the centenary, mourners and tourists, schoolchildren and relatives, walk the living battlefields of Ypres, which still, turn up human remains and live ammunition. And they walk the finely kept grass between the grey headstones laying bright red poppies upon the earth.

‘Brave ordinary Tommie’s were lead by donkeys’

Others point to the dangers of declining powers faced with new rising ones, considering both China and the Middle East, where the Syrian civil war and the advance of Islamic militants toward Baghdad are ripping up the colonial

6


THE

BLACK HAND OF SARAJEVO The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand


The Black Hand was formed when ten men met on 9 May 1911 to form Ujedinjenje ili Smrt (Unification or Death), better known as the Black Hand By 1914, there were many hundred members, perhaps as many as 3500. Many members were Serbian army officers. The professed goal of the group was the creation of a Greater Serbia, by use of violence, if necessary. The Black Hand trained guerillas and saboteurs and planned political murders. The Black Hand was organized at the grassroots level in 3- to 5-member cells, supervised by district committees and by a Central committee in Belgrade whose ten-member Executive Committee was led, more or less, by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević (also known as Apis). To ensure secrecy, members rarely knew much more than the members of their own cell and one superior above them.

T

he Serbian government was however, fairly well informed of Black Hand activities, but friendly relations had fairly well cooled by 1914. The Black Hand was displeased with Prime minister Nikola Paši. They thought he did not act aggressively enough towards the Pan-Serb cause. They engaged in a bitter power struggle over several issues, such as who would control territories Serbia annexed in the Balkan Wars. By this point, standing up and saying ‘no’ to the Black Hand was a dangerous act. Political murder was one of their wellknown tools. It was also in 1914 that Apis allegedly decided that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent of Austria, should be assassinated. Towards that end it is claimed that three young BosnianSerbs were recruited to kill the Archduke. They were definitely trained in bomb throwing and marksmanship by current and former members of the Serbian military. Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Abrinovi and Trifko Grabež were smuggled across the border back into Bosnia via a chain of underground-railroad style contacts.

The decision to kill the Archduke was apparently initiated by Apis, and not sanctioned by the full Executive Committee. Those involved probably realized that their plot would invite war between Austria and Serbia. They had every reason to expect that Russia would side with Serbia. When word of the plot allegedly percolateback through to Black Hand leadership and the Serbian government (the Prime Minister Pašic was definitely informed of two armed men being smuggled across the border; it is not clear if Pašic knew they planned to assassinate Franz Ferdinand), Apis was supposedly told not to proceed. He may have made a half-hearted attempt to intercept the young assassins at the border, but they had already crossed. Other sources say the attempted ‘recall’ was only begun after the assassins had reached Sarajevo. This ‘recall’ appears to make Apis look like a loose cannon, and the young assassins as independent zealots. In fact, the ‘recall’ took place a full two weeks before the Archduke’s visit. The assassins idled around in Sarajevo for a month. Nothing more was done to stop them. The organization of Bosnian antiHabsburg and anti-Austrian students called Young Bosnia carried out the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. After the unsuccessful grenade attack of Nedeljko Çabrinovic, Gavrilo Princip succeeded in killing the Archduke and his wife with two bullets from his handgun because Ferdinand’s driver took a wrong turn. Until a few weeks later, the guilt for the crime had settled loosely on Serbia in general. Long-existing tensions between Serbia and Austria-Hungary eventually drew in all the other European powers and escalated the situation into what was the beginning of First World War. The Serbians prevented Austria-Hungary from taking a leading role in the investigation into the assassination of the archduke.

8


WE NEED YOU To be taken in by propaganda and mis-information.

During World War One, propaganda was employed on a global scale. Unlike previous wars, this was the first total war in which whole nations and not just professional armies were locked in mortal combat. This and subsequent modern wars required propaganda to mobilise hatred against the enemy; to convince the population of the justness of the cause; to enlist the active support and cooperation of neutral countries; and to strengthen the support of allies. Atrocity propaganda focused on the most violent acts committed by the German and Austro-Hungarian armies, such as depicted in the poster (right) emphasising their barbarity providing justification for the conflict.


10


BANG


BANG Ernest Edward Thomas was born at-the Tower of London on 16th December 1884, one of the six offspring of Private Henry Thomas of the 44th (Essex) Regiment and Elizabeth (nee Wright). His father transferred to the Durham Light Infantry at the end of 1898, whilst in India, probably at the same time that Edward enlisted into the regiment as a drummer-boy at the age of 14.

Force to assist Belgium. On 22nd August 1914, whilst on the Mons-Charlois Road, at around 06:30 the unit encountered a German Cavalry patrol and laid an ambush. However, the Germans became wary and were about to flee, when the British Captain ordered a sabre charge Corporal Thomas drew his rifle and fired the first British shot of the war in Europe, hitting a German officer on horseback.

Henry remained in Burma and India, returning with his family to Aldershot in 1903 and thence retiring in 1905. Edward continued serving with the colours, later transferring to 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards.

A plaque commemorating the first shot of the war by the BEF was unveiled in 1939 at Casteau, ironically only 400 metres distant from a similar plaque commemorating the last shot of the war. Later during the war Thomas was awarded the Military Medal and promoted to Sergeant, being eventually discharged from Preston Barracks in 1923.

When the First World War broke out he was a Corporal with the Guards and was dispatched with the British Expeditionary

YOU’RE DEAD 12


THE AVERAGE DIS TRENCHES WAS


STANCE BETWEEN YARDS! 14


LETTER’S FROM THE

FRONT Over the time of the first world war, many letter’s were written and received by the Tommy on the front line. They came not only from wives or sweethearts, but from other members of family. All heartfelt letters to and from loved ones, containing wrenching accounts of fear, jealousy, betrayal, or sadness, especially those that would have been written by men who knew they were dying when they had written them, or in other letters showing encouragement to those left behind. These were dark days, and some were written under terrible circumstances.

In order to cope with the amount of post to and from the front, the Post Office set up a special collection office in Hyde Park, employing several thousand workers, and stretching the length of the park itself. After all, this was a sophisticated war. Letters like the one example shown here give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of men and women separated at time of war, but that love shows no boundaries, in conflict or at peace. As was the case during the second world war, soldiers were forbidden to disclose

their whereabouts and so,when writing home, they would often put ‘Somewhere in France’ at the top of the letter in place of a real address. This was of course a witty comment on the circumstances of war, but summed up perfectly the situation soldiers found themselves in. A soldiers home leave was a rarity, for many an impossibility, and relationships were severely tried and tested by such long periods apart. Many rose to the challenge but others were driven to the depths of despair. The war didn’t bring tragedy and misery to all couples, there were many unexpected and joyful outcomes too: chance meetings, swift courtships, the renewal of love and the happy result of a soldier’s leave - the birth of a child - none of which might ever have happened in peacetime. So fundamental hand letter-writing become in wartime that it wasn’t unusual for wives and sweethearts to continue to write letters, unposted, to their men killed on the battlefield. But for the lucky one’s, pen and paper could now be put aside and life could begin again.


Letters such as this example would come from men on the front line to loved one’s at home, not knowing if they would survive another day.

16


THE LAST HURRA

CHAR


AH

RGE! The coming of the landship’s… WW1 marked the last time a full-pitched charge by cavalrymen riding horses took place. The futility of cavalry armed with lances going up against tanks (originally called landships) was all to clear. The concept for the tank can be traced back to sketches drawn by Leonardo de Vinci. The development of the internal combustion engine combined with caterpillar tracks being used for farm equipment enabled Leonardo’s vision to come to life. The name “Tank”, was only adopted due to the British Army shipping their new secret weapon in crates marked “tanks” or “water carriers” to disguise the true content. The first tanks were small, and developed from agricultural machinery. Held three men and were given the knick-name

“Machine Gun Cavalry”. The Tank made its first appearance in 1916, they were unreliable and broke down or got stuck in a muddy trench. With a battle speed of just two miles per hour, the new tanks were far from ideal. The heat generated inside the tank was tremendous and fumes often nearly choked the men inside. Nevertheless the first tank operators proved their mettle by operating under what amounted to appalling conditions. Tank design continued to improve beyond the war and the tank, which helped to make trench warfare redundant as well as restoring movement to the battlefield. Its widespread use in time of warfare continues to the present day.

18


TANK Originally known as a Landship, a Tank is a amoured vehicle that does not go on water or in the air. It has a maximum speed 4mph. Travels by tracks rather than wheels and is designed to traverse enemy trenches and very susceptible to breaking down.


There were several versions made, in both shape and size, even a ‘male’ and ‘female’ version. It started life as no more than a converted farm tractor. WW1 Tanks were noisy and quite toxic to anyone inside. As they were poorly armoured, drivers had to wear a combination of crash helmet with chain mail guards to stop being hit by shrapnel.

20


FACE JOB... A million British soldiers died in World War One, and double that amount came home injured. For many of those lucky enough to return, the wounds they had suffered in Europe would leave them permanently disfigured. The trenches protected the bodies of soldiers, but in doing so it left their heads vulnerable to enemy fire. Soldiers would frequently stick their heads up above the trenches, exposing them to all manner of weapons. At the start of the war, little consideration was given to the trauma of facial injuries. It came as something of a surprise that so many victims survived to the point of treatment. Escaping the war with your life was seen as reward enough. The advent of plastic surgery would radically change that perception. The biggest killer on the battlefield and the cause of many facial injuries was shrapnel. Gillies was shocked by the injuries he saw in the field, and requested that the army set up their own plastic surgery unit. Soon after, a specificallydesigned hospital was opened in Sidcup. It treated 2,000 patients after the Battle of the Somme alone. Here Gillies would do some of his finest work. Previously viewed with suspicion, facial reconstruction became an integral part of the post-war healing process. However, in a world before antibiotics, going under the knife for an experimental form of surgery posed as many risks as the trenches themselves.

Lieutenant William Spreckley, above, was one of Harold Gillies’ biggest successes. To fashion him a new nose, Gillies hit the books and came across an old Indian idea known as the ‘forehead flap’. He took a section of rib cartilage and implanted it in Spreckley’s forehead. It stayed there for six months before it could be swung down and used to construct the nose. From start to finish, the process took over three years. Spreckley was admitted to hospital in January 1917 at the age of 33 and discharged in October 1920. A pioneer in his field, Gillies was keen to push the boundaries of plastic surgery further than ever before. Many of the men had wounds far graver than Gillies or any other doctor had ever seen before. While they were surviving these injuries in greater numbers, the procedures that were used to treat them lagged behind. Gillies was determined not just to restore function to the facial features of his patients, but to try to achieve an aesthetic result as well. But this was all in a time before the introduction of antibiotics, he was taking a big risk. What followed however would teach Gillies a valuable lesson about the limits of the surgeons knife.

‘Many men had wounds far graver than any Doctor had seen before’

Gillies knew that when taking skin from one part of the body to another, it had to remain attached to survive. He also knew that doing so without antibiotics would be incredibly dangerous. How he did it would prove to be his greatest innovation. His solution involved leaving the flesh attached at one end, rolling it into a tube and attaching the other end near to where the graft was needed. Called the tube pedicle, this method allowed Gillies to move tissue from A to B without worrying about infection. Living tissue was encased by the outer layer of skin which was waterproof and infection resistant. Gillies was able to leave these tubes in place for weeks at a time, with little risk. This greatly reduced the chances of something going wrong. Once a blood supply had grown into it from the new end, the original connection could be cut. From there the flesh then could be swung into place. Inside the hospital, all of the mirrors were removed to stop the patients seeing their reflection and fainting. Given the time it took to carry out complex facial reconstruction, some patients would go years without properly seeing themselves in the mirror. Nearby park benches were painted blue to designate them for men with facial injuries. Some men could re-enter the workforce, but they were often too embarrassed to be in public and so would be hidden away in back-rooms. Others became completely withdrawn, unable to face wives, families and friends.


Gillies and his team not only worked on re-constructive surgery, but in a number of cases, were required to produce prosthetics in order to give the patients the illusion of having a normal face.

22


THE DIRTY WAR The affects of mustard gas and other agents during the first world war. The first instance of large-scale use of gas as a weapon was on 31 January 1915, when Germany fired 18,000 artillery shells containing liquid xylyl bromide tear gas on Russian positions on the Rawka River, west of Warsaw during the Battle of Bolimov. However, instead of vaporizing, the chemical froze and failed to have the desired effect. The first killing agent employed by the German military was chlorine. Chlorine is a powerful irritant that can inflict damage to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. At high concentrations and prolonged exposure it can cause death by asphyxiation.[8] German chemical companies BASF, Hoechst and Bayer (which formed the IG Farben conglomerate in 1925) had been producing chlorine as a by-product of

their dye manufacturing. In cooperation with Fritz Haber of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin, they began developing methods of discharging chlorine gas against enemy trenches. According to the fieldpost letter of Major Karl von Zingler, the first chlorine gas attack by German forces took place before 2 January 1915: “In other war theatres it does not go better and it has been said that our Chlorine is very effective. 140 English officers have been killed. This is a horrible weapon By 22 April 1915, the German Army had 168 tons of chlorine deployed in 5,730 cylinders from Langemark–Poelkapelle, north of Ypres. At 17:30, in a slight easterly breeze, the gas was released, forming a gray-green cloud that drifted

across positions held by French Colonial troops from Martinique who broke ranks, abandoning their trenches and creating an 8,000-yard (7 km) gap in the Allied line. However, the German infantry were also wary of the gas and, lacking reinforcements, failed to exploit the break before the 1st Canadian Division and assorted French troops reformed the line in scattered, hastily prepared positions 1,000–3,000 yards (910–2,740 m) apart. The Entente governments quickly claimed the attack was a flagrant violation of international law but Germany argued that the Hague treaty had only banned chemical shells, rather than the use of gas projectors. In what became the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans used gas on three more occasions; on 24 April against the


GAS

Dirty Warfare and other chemical agents

24


1st Canadian Division. on 2 May near Mouse Trap Farm and on 5 May against the British at Hill 60. The British Official History stated that at Hill 60, “90 men died from gas poisoning in the trenches or before they could be got to a dressing station; of the 207 brought to the nearest dressing stations, 46 died almost immediately and 12 after long suffering. On August 6, German troops used chlorine gas against Russian troops defending the Fortress of Osowiec. Surviving defenders drove back the attack and successfully retained the fortress. Germany used chemical weapons on the eastern front in an attack at Rawka, south of Warsaw. The Russian army took 9,000 casualties, with more than 1,000 fatalities. In response, the artillery branch of the Russian army organized a commission to study the delivery of poison gas in shells. It quickly became evident that the men who stayed in their places suffered less than those who ran away, as any movement worsened the effects of the gas, and that those who stood up on the fire step suffered less—indeed they often escaped any serious effects— than those who lay down or sat at the bottom of a trench. Men who stood on the parapet suffered least, as the gas was denser near the ground. The worst sufferers were the wounded lying on the ground, or on stretchers, and the men who moved back with the cloud. Chlorine was less effective as a weapon than the Germans had hoped, particularly as soon as simple countermeasures were introduced. The gas produced a visible greenish cloud and strong odour, making it easy to detect. It was water-soluble, so the simple expedient of covering the mouth and nose with a damp cloth was somewhat effective at reducing the effect of the gas. It was thought to be even more effective to use urine rather than water, as it was known at the time that

chlorine reacted readily with urea (present in urine) to form dichloro urea. Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million to be fatal, destroying tissue in the lungs, likely through the formation of hydrochloric acid when dissolved in the water in the lungs (2Cl2 + 2H2O → 4HCl + O2Despite its limitations, however, chlorine was an effective psychological weapon—the sight of an oncoming cloud of the gas was a continual source of dread for the infantry. Countermeasures were quickly introduced in response to the use of chlorine. The Germans issued their troops with small gauze pads filled with cotton waste, and bottles of a bicarbonate solution with which to dampen the pads. Immediately following the use of chlorine gas by the Germans, instructions were sent to British and French troops to hold wet handkerchiefs or cloths over their mouths. Simple pad respirators similar to those issued to German troops were soon proposed by Lieutenant-Colonel N. C. Ferguson, the A.D.M.S. of the 28th Division. These pads were intended to be used damp, preferably dipped into a solution of bicarbonate kept in buckets for that purpose, though other liquids were also used. Because such pads could not be expected to arrive at the front for several days, army divisions set about making them for themselves. Locally available muslin, flannel and gauze were used, officers were sent to Paris to buy more and local French women were employed making up rudimentary pads with string ties. Other units used lint bandages manufactured in the convent at Poperinge. Pad respirators were sent up with rations to British troops in the line as early as the evening of 24 April. In Britain the Daily Mail newspaper encouraged women to manufacture cotton pads, and within one month a variety of pad respirators were available to British and French troops, along with

motoring goggles to protect the eyes. The response was enormous and a million gas masks were produced in a day. Unfortunately, the Mail’s design was useless when dry and caused suffocation when wet—the respirator was responsible for the deaths of scores of men. By 6 July 1915, the entire British army was equipped with the far more effective “smoke helmet” designed by Major Cluny MacPherson, Newfoundland Regiment, which was a flannel bag with a celluloid window, which entirely covered the head. The race was then on between the introduction of new and more effective poison gases and the production of effective countermeasures, which marked gas warfare until the armistice in November 1918.

‘It quickly became evident, that the men who stayed in their places, suffered less than those men who had ran away’


26


FOR VAL OUR

More than Victoria Crosses were issued for gallantry during WW1


The Victoria Cross was–and remains to the present day–the highest British military award for gallantry, awarded for “most conspicuous bravery, a daring or pre-eminent act of valour, self sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy”. The Victoria Cross is hand-made, traditionally taken from a gun captured during the Crimean War. It was established during Queen Victoria’s reign in February 1856, A total number of 1,358 have been awarded. Some 633 Victoria Crosses (known as the V.C.) were awarded during the First World War. Two of these comprised Bars–that is, an award of a second Victoria Cross to a current holder: Surgeon Captain Arthur Martin-Leake in 1914 and Noel Chavasse in 1917 respectively. Of these Chavasse earned both V.C.s during the First World War, although the second was awarded to him posthumously. Of the 633 V.C.s awarded during the First World War 187 were issued posthumously to men killed during their act of heroism. Prior to the outbreak of war in 1914 522 V.C.s had been awarded; by contrast just 182 were issued during the Second World War. There are two instances of the Victoria Cross being awarded to father and son (although never during the same conflict). No woman has ever been awarded the V.C. Owing to its rarity, the VC is highly prized and the medal has fetched over £400,000 at auction. Canada, Australia and New Zealand each have their own versions of the VC.

28


NOT SO SPANISH

FLU Pandemic kills

million

Contrary to popular belief, the so-called Spanish Flu originated near Eapes during WW1. The closest origination point being identified as one of the many major staging and hospital camps.


Today, the Spanish Flu is little thought of by most of us, but it cannot be underestimated. This remarkable influenza pandemic — spreading across the globe from January 1918 through 1920 — killed a conservatively estimated 20 million to 50 million people and possibly as many as 100 million people, amounting to up to 3% or 6% of the world’s population, thereby easily dwarfing the killing efficiency of the armed forces during the Great War. To understand the spread of this pandemic, consider that an estimated 500 million people, a full third of the world’s population in 1918, were infected at some point or another during the pandemic and the only recorded instance of a major region in the world that did not report an outbreak was the island of Marajo in Brazil’s Amazon River Delta. Although it has been difficult to determine an epicenter for the Spanish Flu there is broad agreement that the pandemic was linked to the incredibly increase in global interconnectivity that the Great War prompted and was directly related to the exceptional high concentration of multi-ethnic groups in relatively small areas. In fact, one theory by a British virologist team from the reputable St Bartholomew’s Hospital and the Royal London Hospital almost certainly identified a major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples in France as the centre of the pandemic, while some historian has identified Fort Riley in Kansas, a major mobilization and training centre for the United States army, as the epicentre. In a sense, the Spanish Flu may have been the very earliest and one of the most lethal unintended consequences of globalization.

or suppress information about the scope and lethality of the illness in their home territories, papers were free to report on the effect of the pandemic in Spain, a neutral country, and, therefore, the initial impression was that Spain was particularly hard hit and that Spain was the epicentre of the outbreak. Somehow, through almost a century, the name has stuck, although, of course, a more correct name is 1918 Flu Pandemic. It is difficult to wrap ours head around how fast moving and lethal the pandemic was, but we can try…. Overall, the disease killed approximately 20% of those infected, as opposed to the usual flu epidemic mortality rate of 0.1%. For the United States, for instance, the death count exceeded 500,000 over a period of approximately two years, which, of course, is an enormous number of fatalities incurred at an enormous speed (as a reference point, this number is on par with the total number of United States fatalities attributed to all warfare by the United States through the 20th century — a period of 100 year) and caused the population count to become negative in 1918 — the only time when this has happened in the 20th century. Moreover, if we population adjust the fatality count, the fatalities would in year 2000 have numbered between 1.5 million and 2 million, approximately the population of Alaska, Delaware, and the District of Columbia — combined. However hard and fast the United States was hit, it pales next to Tahiti where 14% of the population died in only two months and Samoa where 20% of the population died a similar period.

So, the Spanish flu did not, in fact, originate in Spain. In fact, the name came about because of aggressive censorship during the Great War. Whereas wartime censorship by the belligerent nations successfully managed to initially minimize

30


STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER Scarlet corn poppies (popaver rhoeas) grow naturally in conditions of disturbed earth in Western Europe.

The poppy has a long association with Remembrance Day. But how did the distinctive red flower become such a potent symbol of our remembrance of the sacrifices made in past wars? Scarlet corn poppies (popaver rhoeas) grow naturally in conditions of disturbed earth throughout Western Europe. The destruction brought by the Napoleonic wars of the early 19th Century transformed bare land into fields of blood red poppies, growing around the bodies of the fallen soldiers. In late 1914, the fields of Northern France and Flanders were once again ripped open as World War One raged through Europe’s heart. Once the conflict was over the poppy was one of the only plants to grow on the otherwise barren battlefields.

The significance of the poppy as a lasting memorial symbol to the fallen was realised by the Canadian surgeon John McCrae in his poem In Flanders Fields. The poppy came to represent the immeasurable sacrifice made by his comrades and quickly became a lasting memorial to those who died in World War One and later conflicts. It was adopted by The Royal British Legion as the symbol for their Poppy appeal, in aid of those serving in the British Armed Forces after its formation in 1921. Poppies have long been used as a symbol of sleep, peace, and death: Sleep because of the opium extracted from them is a sedative, as a sign of peace and remembrance and death because of the common blood-red colour of the red poppy in particular.

In Greek and Roman myths, poppies were used as offerings to the dead. Poppies used as emblems on tombstones symbolize eternal sleep. This symbolism was evoked in the children’s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, in which a magical poppy field threatened to make the protagonists sleep forever. However, the Poppy has been used in other ways, like the creation of drugs from Opium, and is now also being used as a symbol and reminder of deaths caused by drugs, epitomised in the 1960’s song by the pop group “The Beatles”, Strawberry Fields Forever.


32



Lest we forget 1914-1918


In Flanders Fields The larks, still bravely singing, fly In Flanders fields the poppies blow between the crosses, row on row That mark our place; and in the sky the larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved and now we lie. John McCrae 1872 - 1918

The Project Š Stephen Marck 2015


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.