Respond to the following prompts:
- What ideas or themes presented in your chosen reading were new to you?
- Did the article lead you to look at this period of history any differently? Why/Why not?
(PHOTO: Francis Derwent Wood @ http://www.projectfacade.com/index.php)
Operation Mend is the modern evolution of the work begun by Sir Harold Delf Gillies, Francis Derwent Wood and others during the First World War. If you read "Faces of War" you should view both of these sites.
This response is due Wednesday 3/24.
47 comments:
The first article I read was Faces of War. It was a riveting article on the new innovative methods of mask making for disfigured men. It was innovative in a sense that it opened the doors to more efficient and medically pertinent plastic surgery and skin graphing. This area of the medical field was very new in fact it took full force during World War I. This is due to soldiers being wounded during the war as the article mentions, “the very nature of trench warfare, moreover, proved diabolically conducive to facial injuries.” Soldiers were badly injured. They lost their lost eyes, ears, and other parts of their faces. The article also mentioned that the disfigurations on the soldiers disturbed the general public. In fact they were designated to sit on blue painted benches to warn people passing by. Also, the disfigurations mentally affected the soldiers. Thus, the masks were vital for them to feel better about themselves. Without people like Sir Harold Gillies, Dr. Fred Albee and Anna Coleman Watts much of this would not have been possible.
The second article I read was titled Another welcome letter: Soldier’s Letters from the Great War. Letters served as the main function of communication between soldiers and their loved ones. In these letters soldiers wrote about the war, their daily life, and the things they desired from home such as chocolate, warm socks, and food. This particular article was filled with various emotions ranging from melancholy and desperation to pride and fear. For instance, one soldier named Patrick Shaw-Steward mourned the loss of his friends like many other soldiers. On the contrary, the seventeen year old Edward Wyndham 'Bim' Tennant wrote descriptive letters to his mother almost everyday and he once wrote in a letter, “I have the feeling of immortality very strongly. I think of death with a light heart and as a friend whom there is no need to fear.” Therefore, emotions varied from person to person about the war. Something new that was presented to me in this article was the soldiers wrote poems in order to expression their feeling about the war to their loved ones. I also thought that this article still makes me look at this period in a different way because it portrays the strong emotions of various men. Many of their emotions and sentiment indirectly call for the war as unjust and this is exactly how I feel about too even though it was necessary to have.
he first article that I read was "Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the great war." In this article many of the letters were written to mother's of the soldiers. I was surprised to read that many of the letters talked about the horrors that the soldiers experienced in battle. I would think that the soldiers would not want their parents to know the horrors of war because they would constantly worry. A soldier Owen wrote in one letter, ". . . I can see no excuse for deceiving you . . . I have suffered seventh hell . . ." I didn't see the point in telling a mother something like this because that is awful to hear about your own son. Many of the soldiers took out their pain and anger in these letters, because it was the only way they could get their emotions out. Many were lonely and these letters were their only comfort on the front. One soldier wrote, 'I wish I had a friend here.' Some soldiers looked towards animals for companionship. These letters were very relatable, and they showed that these soldiers were very young and had to experience these horrors without their family with them. The letters probably provided hope for the soldiers, and kept them going in a time of war. The soldiers were real people with real emotions and reactions to the war. This article taught me that the soldiers were not happy to be fighting this war, and they had no idea that it would be this awful. One man described it, 'War is indescribably disgusting. Any man who has seen it and praises it is degenerate . . .' Even though these soldiers were fighting in this war, it didn't mean that they loved fighting and killing each other, they were forced to do it.
The second article I read was "Military Lessons of the Great War." It talked about the lessons learned from the failures militarily of the Great War. Many of the countries had no planned on a long war, so we not as well prepared as they should have been. One failure that the article highlights is the failure of Germany to recognize the movement of the British army. It also highlights that trench warfare was a failure, saying the armies had, "limited maneuver." It puzzles me because why did the military leaders during that time realize how pointless trench warfare was?
The article also compared the Great War to previous wars, comparing its technology and army size/ strength to those of Napoleon's time for example. "Now the development of railways, motor transport, and roads, and the progress of medical science," were some of the advances during WWI. These different advances made me look differently at the time period because it seems like they added to the intensity of this war. New weaponry killed more people, new transportation methods allowed for armies to get to their enemies faster, all making the war worse.
The first reading I did was Faces of War. This article was about the new advances in the treatment of severe disfiguring injuries from World War I. Due to the new weapons such as the machine gun, soldiers experienced injuries like never before. These injuries left soldiers so harmed that their own families didn’t recognize them. These disfigurements led to quick advances in the medical field of plastic surgery due to the great amount of men that suffered from them. Advances in skin graphing and masks helped men to reenter the social world after war. These advances were extremely important to disfigured men, who had to face challenges everyday. The article even mentioned that certain benches were painted blue to warn the public of a disfigured solider. With the help these advances the injuries could be improved or completely covered by masks. The work of Sir Harold Gillies and Anna Coleman Watts was much more advanced than I had thought the time period was capable of. It also connected skills in art with medicine which I would not have thought of before.
The second reading I did was Military Lessons of the Great War. This article discussed lessons that can be learned from World War I and issues concerning them. By looking at the tactics used for this First World War countries could learn from their mistakes and be more prepared next time. While reading this article I was surprised at house unprepared many armies had been. This war was so different in terms of weaponry and tactics that countries were too stuck in their old ways to succeed. The French regular army collapsed while Germany and Russia could not support their troops with enough supplies. These issues helped countries to rethink their strategies after World War I.
The first article that I read was Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ letters from the Great War. The main method of communication between soldiers, and their families back home , were by letter. Even though they were at war, writing home and communicating with their family was still very important for many soldiers. In fact, some soldiers wrote home every day. There were undoubtedly many factors that explain this. The obvious reason is that they missed their family, but this is not the only reason. Letters offered a slight escape from the horrific experiences of war. For a couple of minutes a day, these soldiers weren’t as anxious as they normally were, and this small escape was welcomed by most of the men. Also, writing these letters was a way for the men to express themselves. A lot of the letters included the soldiers complaining about the conditions and the haunting experiences they have had. One soldier wrote, “I suffered seventh hell…”. Another blames the government officials for his misery, “. . . If these dignitaries could only be set in the trenches for a wee short space, and made to carry heavy coils of wire for long distances up long communication trenches --blasted by the incessant force of the guns -- I could guarantee that the war would not last longer than time to fix up provisional peace terms made it necessary . . .” These letters played more of an important role than most people think, perhaps it was the short time spent writing home that kept some soldiers sane.
The second article that I read was Military lessons of the Great War. This article focused on how lessons were learned from military mistakes in World War I. One example is a costly mistake made by the French concerning the invasion of Belgium by Germany, “The probability of invasion of Belgium by Germany had for years been a military commonplace. Despite all this, when the invasion actually took place and the two armies were locked in conflict, the French calculations were suddenly discovered to be erroneous. The whole basis of their plan of campaign was defective because they had grossly underestimated the strength of the forces which Germany could put into the field.” The article goes on to cite several instances in which a mistake was made, and with the help of hine-sight, determine a more fitting action that should have been taken.
The first article I read was “Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ Letters from the Great War.” I was not surprised to hear that letters were the primary means of communication, nor that soldiers often tried to include as much detail as possible in the letters. However, I was surprised that such a large portion of soldiers were so candid in their writing, often including vivid descriptions of the battles they had witnessed or been involved in. I was also surprised at the amount of poetry came out of this period. While I figured there would be a lot of writing, I assumed it would all be in letter format, rather than substantial amounts of poetry. The picturesque descriptions of nature also make sense to me, as I feel that it is expected for soldiers to focus on the surrounding beauty instead of the horror of the war surrounding them.
The second article I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War,” written by Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice. One thing I found striking was the account of France’s readiness for a German invasion through Belgium (where Germany invaded from) and how little was done to prevent it. The French were so confident in their ability to stop a German advance based on the amount of troops they expected Germany to send to various fronts, that by the time it became clear that the French had severely erred, the German troops had enveloped the French ones.
The articles I read for this week were titled Another Welcome Letter, Faces of War, Military Lessons of the Great War, and France and the Outbreak of a World War. Throughout all 4 articles several new ideas and themes were presented to me regarding the period of World War I. For instance, I learned that not only did the people at war go through hardships, but so did the many people left on the home front. First of all, the conditions at war were absolutely horrendous. Whether they were in the trenches or on the move, the soldiers experienced fatal injuries, saw their friends die right in front of their eyes, and had to live through constant struggles and sorrow. To make matters worse, the articles presented the idea that the troubles were far from over when the men left the battle field. Due to extreme injuries and diseases, many men from combat had to live the rest of their lives with all kinds of physical and emotional defects. In Faces of War, by Caroline Alexander, she states “Mirrors were banned in most wards, and men who somehow managed an illicit peek had been known to collapse in shock.” No matter what they did, they couldn’t escape the scars of war. Furthermore, the concept of surprises was a continuous effect of the war. Just as Sir Frederick Maurice stated in “Military Lessons of the Great War, “Surely if experience is any guide the one thing that is reasonably certain is that if another great struggle between great powers takes place it will produce as many surprises as did the last.” Nonetheless, people continued to fight for the rights of their nation.
As a result, the articles led me to look at this period of history differently than I had previously. Aside from the people in the war, I established a high respect for those who personally knew and those who worked with the soldiers. For instance, everyone had a tremendous amount of bravery. For those who had a loved one at war, they had to live off the sporadic, heartfelt letters. In addition, people such as Francis Wood and Anna Coleman went out of their way to help those in need. Overall, these articles helped me gain a great admiration for those involved in the war effort.
The first article I read from Group 1 was Faces of War. The theme of considerng the emotional effect facial injures had on soliders is something that I found somewhat surprising considering that shell shock was not conaidered as seriously. I understand that a physical injure may be more tramatic,, but the specific quote, "'My cases are generally extreme cases that plastic surgery has, perforce, had to abandon; but, as in plastic surgery, the psychological effect is the same. The patient acquires his old self-respect, self assurance, self-reliance, . . . takes once more to a pride in his personal appearance. His presence is no longer a source of melancholy to himself nor of sadness to his relatives and friends. '" It was also quite amazing how the surgeons were able to recreate the faces of this soliders so well, no matter how horrible the injury (reference to pictures located on projectfacade.com). I was also fascinated by some of the tecniques surgeons used (including marterials), most notably for those who's noses had colapsed or been blown off in battle. One was the addition of a tube that ran across the face, though not all too appealing to view. But what was cool was that these surgeons though of all aspects of the injury; can the patient breath comfortably? can he eat properly? can he blink? And in answer to these questions they would use a try-and-error to ultimately achieve a satisfactory results. It was very heartwarming to know that there were those who truly cared about the well-being of soliders when many times deformities may make one apprear more repulsive, even though it wwas not their fault that they were injured so, such as Francis Derwent Wood and Kathleen Scott. Thus, this new found compassion shed a brighter light on this dark part of history for me.
The second article I read from Group 1 was Marital Status and the Rhetoric of the Women's Movement in World War I Germany. What was interesting was the discovery that many women were active participants in socialist groups, such as Clara Zetkin. I had always had the preception that women were more conservative and desired to stay moe with the way things are seeing that Republica mother hood and the repsonsiblity of rasing children into success individuals being the mother's job was an important role of women during the time (at least in America it was). It was also interesting that the war altered the motives of the women's movement. For example, pre-war called more for equality for single women while post-war brought about the desire for "Female advancement regardless of marital status...".
The first article I read was “Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ letters from the Great War”. In this article soldiers wrote to their families and loved ones to get them through the horrors of war. Francis Ledwidge an Irish poets writes, “…I hear the roads calling, and the hills, and the rivers wondering where I am. It is terrible to be always homesick…” Here Francis, like many of the other soldiers are longing to return back home. Other soldiers such as Patrick Shaw-Stewart morn over lost friend’s wounded or killed in battle and write to diminish the pain. But the most recurring theme that ties all of these letters together is the senselessness of war. Theodore Cameron Wilson wrote, “Most of the men were very boyish and intelligent looking, but one officer, who looked about 20, was one of the noblest looking men I have ever seen. He held his head up and looked so proud that I could have wept. War is indescribably disgusting. Any man who has seen it and praises it is degenerate…” This article did not surprise me because it’s only natural for a living breathing human to feel these emotions when forced into war where you may or may not survive. The second article I read was “Faces of War.” In this article it talked about the many different surgical advances during the nineteenth century due to the traumatizing wounds of World War I. These advances of Sir Harold Gillies and Anna Coleman Watts included skin grafting and masks to help hide the disfigurations given to these men due to the new weaponry seen in the different nations. These disfiguration were so horrid that many of the soldiers family members could not recognize them. These surgeries helped them to integrate back into society much smoother than having to walk around with a severely disfigured face. These discoveries did surprise me because it told me how advanced society truly was in the nineteenth century in that they could perform such surgeries.
The first article I read was "Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the great war." In this article, excerpts from letters soldiers wrote to their families or in the form of a poem were published. This was the soldiers' main form of communication with their loved ones, and in it, some wrote honestly about the brutal conditions they served in or lied to their families so as not to have the latter grieve for them. The prevalent theme, however, is a disgust for war by the soldiers. Any one who does not expressly state this is either lying to their families or is most likely a sociopath. An example of a soldier who despised the war was Theodore Cameron Wilson, who stated that "'War is indescribably disgusting. Any man who has seen it and praises it is degenerate.'" Others who also shared this belief were Harold Parry, a Second Lieutenant in the King's Royal Rifle Corps, Arthur Graeme West, a pacifist, Lieutenant Bernard Pitt, who commanded a trench mortar battery, and others. The only one to tolerate the war, the only one to love it was Julian Grenfell, a professional soldier. From their letters, I understood the true horror and misery the soldiers faced. I also believe, like Harold Parry, that wars are started and fought between politicians, not soldiers. I also gained a huge amount of respect for the troops who participated in World War I. The greatest gift one may give another is life, and these soldiers died for their countries- nay, their political leaders. I only wish the politicians were placed in the soldiers' positions and were forced to see the true horrors of the war so that they might never start wars in the future.
Another article I read was "Faces of the War." World War I saw the introduction of many new types of weapons which were more capable of inflicting damage on humans than ever before. Some such weapons the article spoke of were the machine gun, and one that the article did not talk about, the flamethrower. These weapons caused mass dis-configurations on the faces and bodies of soldiers who served in the war. The major idea in this article was that there were a large amount of men who returned home from the front lines not in one whole piece, and the work of Sir Harold Gillies, who was the father of modern plastic surgery, Francis Derwent Wood and Anna Coleman Ladd helped to bring some hope in these soldiers' lives. An example of how extreme the case was is the example of the blue bench used in Sidcup, England, colored so to warn the townspeople that those who sat on them were unpleasant to look at. The work of Ladd and Wood also helped to give back to these soldiers something that helped them to preserve their identities: their faces. I never knew that this operation went on in Europe till I read this article. It makes me realize how truly brutal the military fighting must have been in that era.
The first article I read was "Faces of War" by Caroline Alexander. Although I had always imagined this period of history to be brutal, it appears I have greatly underestimated the extent of that statement. One of the main themes throughout the writing is how technology advanced faster and far greater in the military field than in the medical field." large-caliber guns of artillery warfare with their power to atomize bodies into unrecoverable fragments and the mangling, deadly fallout of shrapnel had made clear, at the war's outset, that mankind's military technology wildly outpaced its medical" Sir Gillies, a proclaimed pioneer of facial reconstruction states that med student graduates had not been nearly prepared in their education to reconstruct new faces. While I am well aware of many of the less immediate dangers of trench warfare ( dystenia, disease, etc) I was not aware of how often members of war were left severely disfigured. My image of this period in history has changed. It has led me to believe that the priority of society in those times was to make advances in military, leaving behind many other important aspects of study.
The second article I read was "Another welcome letter: soldier' letters from the great war" by Anne Powell. As the article states letters were truly the only form of communication soldiers would have with loved ones back home. I was not surprised that the content of many of these letters contained nostalgic remnants and yearnings for certain things back home. From previous readings it is my understanding that what a soldier desires most in war time is a return to normalcy. This is why I find no surprise in soldiers writing about their desires for warm socks for example. Another theme within this article was the emotions of soldiers and how they expressed them in letters. Obviously there were about as many different emotions as there were soldiers during the war. It does not surprise me that one soldier may write about his "fear of death" while another would prefer to die.This article has only added to my preconceived image of the horrors and reality of this time period. While we often consider the physical bruises of war (as in the firs article mentioned), too often do we forget about the psychological ailments of war.
I found the first article I read, ““Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ Letters from the Great War” interesting, although not terribly surprising. Given the time period, it makes sense that letters would be the primary form of communication. Additionally, I am not surprised at the content of the letters, or that the letters were censored (I believe letters were also censored during WWII). Given the sheer amount of letters written, it would seem improbable NOT to have almost every viewpoint covered. It also makes sense that the soldiers would feel “ a nostalgia for the way of life he once knew, love of his family, revulsion of violence, and anticipation of death” and a desire to hear every-day events. When one is in the middle of warfare thousands of miles away in hostile territory, it makes sense that would want a reminder of the little, humanizing things at home. This particular passage did not lead me to look at this time period any differently; a hundred years ago, people were still people with much of the same basic comforts and wants we have today: a family, some chocolate, or wondering what the newest hit song was. I wouldn’t have expected anything different. The censorship also did not surprise me, as I already knew that similar tactics were used during WWII.
The second article I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War”, by Sir Frederick Maurice. One idea presented that was new to me was the surprise that the military world felt when France lost in 1870; specifically, their discovery that breach rifles could be effective. Hadn’t they tested these types of weapons before? Had they never seen these weapons in action, or at least pursued some sort of research? Why, as the article said, could the weapons not be tested in times of peace? Considering their reaction was similar to the Russo-Japanese and Spanish-American wars, I feel that the European generals had no idea what was really going on in the world and were just staunchly conservative. I was intrigued by the notion that economically, the bankers really had no rational choice if the war went for a long time and thus declared the war to be short. I had always imagined that this was actually because the generals imagined their weapons of war so advanced that, by necessity, the war would be quick because so many soldiers were killed. I was also surprised that the Germans were unaware of the British Army’s advances. If the army was small, wouldn’t Germany at least have known that Britain’s navy was good? This article really showed me the conservative tendencies of the generals: they didn’t seem very open to any other plan of action, to try any sort of new weapon, and, to satisfy their imaginations dreamt up that the war would be short.
The first article I read was Faces of War. This article was about the new advances in medicine that allow disfigurement due to bullets, shrapnel, ect, to be covered up. Because of both advances in weaponry and advances in first aid when treating the wounds, soilders are surviving injuries that would otherwise have certainly killed them in the past. Because of this, doctors started to work on ways to "cover up" these injuries by using skin and bone grafts, and by making masks for the person to wear. The injured solider would return to everyday life, segregated from society because of the wounds, in some cases even designating benches in parks and cities to be used by the wounded soldiers. Thanks to the work of Sir Harold Gillies, these people would be able to return to society in much better ways of apperance then they otherwise would have.
The second article I read was Military Lessons of the Great War. An example of a leasson that shouldve have been learned, but was not as World War II shows, is the failure of France to properly fortify the French-Belgian border in anticipation of a German attack through Belgium. French military leaders underestimated the size and strength of German forces, and believed that they would respect Belgium's neutrality. The article also mentions several more decisions that turned out to be the wrong decision, and offers a better option largly because what happened in the war is known to us.
AnnMarie Augusto
Mr. Kirby
AP European History
24 March 2010
World War I was dominated by the many casualties and shocking injuries that seemed to control the lives of every individual who was involved. The men were unrecognizable to their family and friends often putting them into a state of depression and anxiety. “Faces of War” was an article that captured the horrors of warfare and described the gruesome predicaments many combating soldiers faced after their service. The lack of knowledge in the medical field during this time period greatly impacted the future of these men. Minor injuries would often time’s turn into large-scale amputations because of the lack of equipment and intuition. I was surprised at how many soldiers underwent dramatic facial reconstruction and plastic surgery to better their appearance, despite the excruciating pain it came with. I thought the creation of masks was a clever idea that Wood and Ladd produced, and wasn’t surprised when it was stated that the masks weighed between four and nine ounces. This article did lead me to view World War I in a different light because I was able to realize the trauma these men went through and what it must have felt like to come home “disjointed and full of dread.” I commend these men for being so brave and fighting for their nation on the battlefield, which most readily would change their lives forever. During this period of time, the calamitous casualties during this world war led to massive advances in the medical field, which were used to help the decades later in treating patients correctly, especially once World War II came into play. “Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers Letters’ from the Great War” explored the only form of communication that the soldiers had to stay connected with friends and family while fighting the war. Many of these letters have since been put into books to recount the evils of war and the psychological effects it has had on the men. Some soldiers chose to keep the treacherous conditions a secret from their loved ones to keep them from worrying, while others explained the horrific obstacles and conditions they faced everyday. I resonated with Patrick Shaw-Stewart when he was described as being one who mourned the loss of his friends and was able to unburden his sorrow in letters home. The devastation of war was a common theme in all of the readings and was approached in several different ways depending on the individual soldier. I am not surprised at the content of these letters because the evils of war seemed to be the topic of discussion during the time period because of its utmost importance. Letters also seemed like the probable means of communication during the time period given the advancements that were made up to this point. The emotions of the soldiers were apparent in this article and were a major aspect that made the reader relate to the soldiers’ traumatic situations.
The first article I read was “Face of War”. The article was about the advancements in covering the severe injuries of war. World War I introduced many new advancements in technology. Weapons such as the machine gun and the flamethrower were introduced into warfare, this lead to major disfigurations on the bodies and faces of the troops. Since so many troops came back with such severe injuries the medical technology quickly advanced, thus the beginnings of plastic sugery. Sir Harold Gillies and Anna Coleman Watts introduced skin graphing and masks to help hide the disfiguration. The overall goal was to help these men with such terrible injuries reenter the world to live some what normal lives.
The second article I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War”. This article cover the military mistakes that were make over the course of the Great War. One major lesson was how France did almost nothing to stop German forces from crossing Belgium, and how sure of itself France was that it could easily take down Germany. The article also made it apparent to how conservative the generals were, they were very narrow-minded.
The article that I read from our assigned reading for the week was "Another Welcome Letter: Soldier's Letters from the Great War." Since it was too expensive to send telegraphs and there were no large telephone networks the only soldiers could communicate with their families was by letter. The writing of letters to their families was a way for the soldiers to escape the war for a little bit and try to get back some happiness by reaching back to their lives before the war. Something that I found suprising in the reading was how openly the soldiers discussed the war. I know from previous reading I had done about other wars the soldiers a lot of times tried to talk about anything but the war like flowers at home or women. Such as with Wilfred Owen who probably shocked his mother with his realist account of the war with no attempt to shield his pain and suffering from his mother. Another thing that suprised me was how different life was for the officers as compared to the enlisted men. I always thought that many of the mid to lower officers share the trenches with their men because all the resources of the country were being used to fight the war instead of pamper officers. This actually angered me a bit because the officers who are making the desicion to send the men over the top and get them killed are doing it from relative luxury as compare to those in the trenches. The cynicism of the letters suprised me as well especially since the soldiers were fighting for their country in a war that directly affected them. Unlike the cynicism that is to be expected from letters during the Vietnam war. Many of the letters from the trenches are not overly patriotic and the fact that these letters were not screened and censcored very well by the governments of the various countries is suprising because of how extensivly the United States and even freer country did it in WW2.
Of the articles in group one the article that I found most interesting was that written about Project Facade entitled Faces of War as well as the website dedicated to this project. Begun by noted plastic surgeon and founder of the study of modern facial reconstruction Sir Harold Delf Gillies he worked with sculptor Anna Coleman Watts (married name Ladd) and Francis Derwent Wood captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps., who together combined there talents to create masks for those men with facial injuries so bad that they were “too disfigured to qualify for before-and-after documentation.” Not only was the work of these doctors and artists interesting as they were able to produce such lifelike interpretations of the human face, but it more important to really think about was the victims of war who needed such things as masks in order to be able to re-assimilate into society. When one thinks of war one always presumes that the lucky ones are the ones who make it, the ones who get to go home. But what is often failed to mention is that not all of the men who made it home went home the same people that they were when they left for war. The article mentions how some of the men who had suffered the worst of these facial injuries were sent to live in facilities separate from the outside world where others would not have to look at them. How awful that must have been to have come back from war and be a pariah on society. Of the 20,000 men with facial injuries only a few hundred were able to receive these masks. They were the lucky ones. It is strange to think about it being considered lucky to have to wear a mask everyday. With modern medicine and technologies many of these injuries probably could have been healed better, but for the time period the best that could be done was creating a mask to cover the injuries. It just makes one see the time period differently and how great of a risk war was for so many reasons. Not only because of weapons especially the much more modernized ones of WWI, but injuries and even the infection, the risks were enormous and it really shows the bravery of those that took the risk.
The second article in group one that I read was “Another welcome letter: Soldiers’ letters from the great war”. Letters were so important to the time period of WWI. Letters were pretty much the only form of communication, the only way to get any word from one’s family or to get any word to them. As shown in the article these letters were so different. Some offered words of comfort and reassurances to one’s family such as the letters from Julian Grenfell’s letters, which showed his initial fearlessness until he was mortally wounded. Some also were not at all cautious about writing home about the casualties and horrors that they saw in war such as Wilfred Owen who wrote home to his mother saying, “I can see no excuse for deceiving you . . . I have suffered seventh hell”. Also many of the most famous war poets came soldiers and their writings that were scribbled down words during the war or their poems that they sent home in letters. This was a new idea as I never really thought about soldiers becoming poets, but it makes sense after all the horrors poetry is probably a good way to express oneself. Another new idea was that some of the letters showed sympathy for the opposing side. They were all experiencing the same horrid conditions, which gave them a respect for those they were fighting. This article overall was very interesting and really showed the limitations of the time period. The soldiers in combat were rather isolated from the outside world and alone really, thus the letters were so important to provide some sort of connection to their lives back home. For many the letters kept them going and now today are some of the most important documentations of the war.
Of the group two articles I read “France and the Outbreak of the World War”. This article described the Yellow Papers that were written by the French government and released to the public concerning the cause of the Great War as well as discussion of documentation of the days leading by outbreak of the war. The idea of the Yellow Papers was very important as it was a major source of propaganda released to the people. In this document the government changed many important facts that were written and released. They often changed quotes said by officials of France and other countries. For example it cast Russia in a more positive light to support France’s alliance with them as well as casting Germany and Austria in a worse one. But the document was not questioned at the time until after the war. It shows the lack of real information the people of the time period was offered. They really were subject to whatever the government wanted to tell them and release to them. This article goes into further depth concerning the days leading up to the war in to great specifics about the exact times that countries decided to mobilize their troops. The article shows though that there is a great deal of discrepancy in these documents. While some of these things may be lost or had been tampered with just the sheer fact of the time period and that communication was not great it was difficult to deliver messages. Thus many things are still unknown about the pivotal days before the outbreak of WWI and may never be known, all that we can do now is speculate with the evidence that is known.
The last article I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War”. This article goes into depth about the changes experienced in military tactics and technology that was experienced during WWI. It details the failures of some of the countries such as France to adapt to the new methods of fighting and for gaining incorrect knowledge of Germany’s military, which led to their partial downfall in the war. They were not aware of the great size of Germany’s army. This led them to think their opponent weaker than it actually was. They did not think they were capable of an attack across the France German border as well as through Belgium. The article also discussed the causes for the increase in numbers so greatly. It has always just seemed like a natural progression for there to be such huge numbers of troops in WWI because of how large it was of a conflict. But there had been large conflicts before between many countries. WWI was disastrous because of the increases in technology, but also because of the large amounts of casualties never seen before. This increase in numbers was due in part to the increase in transportation the article describes as it was easier to send troops to a number of locations. I had never really thought about this as being a cause for the number of troops increasing also fourfold. Thus this article was important because it really helped to show how much WWI was a departure from previous wars and showed the change to a modern war.
I read Faces of War and found it very shocking and interesting. I can't imagine having to put together half a face like Sir Harold Gillies had to do. I think that its amazing that they were able to do so much for people. I also didn't know that plastic surgery "aims to restore both function and form to deformities". I thought that it was only to restore deformities and not function. I think that this article also shows the theme of nationalism. Francis Derwent Wood was too old to serve in the military when war broke out, but he still enlisted as a doctor in the army. I think that that shows dedication to his country because he could have not enlisted at all. Another theme that I thought was interesting was art. I never thought that artistry was overly valuable in medicine, but it seems like most of the plastic surgeons in this article were artistically inclined.
I think this article gave me a better sense of the era. I don't think it changed my opinion of it, but I think reading about all of the medical breakthroughs because of the tragic incidents, gave a sense of the destruction the war caused. For example, doctors perfected skin graphs in this time period because when soldiers came back from battle they had half of their face missing. They also became good at forming splints because soldiers would come back with detached limbs or limbs that were almost completely off. I think that looking at this time period from a medical standpoint gave me a better sense of the carnage that took place. The only way I look at this time period differently is through the innovation it took. I think that this time period was more inventive than the previous eras. There were more medical breakthroughs than there were in the last
The First article I read was "Faces of War". This was an article on medicine and medical procedures race to keep up with the advancements in weapons technology that were divesting the soldiers. Due to this advancements in weapons such as the machine gun, soldiers suffered injures the likes of which had never been seen. The extent to which these surgeons were able to reconstruct these soldiers faces was amazing. This general new enthusiasm for plastic surgery, opened the door for future further advanced and efficient plastic surgery. The 3rd London General Hospital, "Masks for Facial Disfigurement Department" also as the name suggests made Masks for the wounded soldiers to wear, this gave the solider back what had been taken from him." The patient acquires his old self-respect, self assurance,self-reliance,..." The fact that soldiers were honored with these surgeries and masks fills me with joy. I only wish that the "Shell-Shocked" soldiers were treated with this degree of honor and care.
The second article I read was "Military lessons of the Great War." This article focused on the tactical mistakes made by different powers in WWI. It was written by Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice. The most prominent of these mistakes i believed was Frances miscalculation of how many soldiers Germany could march through Belgium. "The whole basis of their plan of campaign was defective because they had grossly underestimated the strength of the forces which Germany could put into the field.” Allowing the German forces to almost overtake all of France. This is one of the many tactical mistakes in WWI this article goes on to point out several other mistake and looking back describes way to either have prevented them or solved the problem.
The readings that I selected were Faces of War/Project Façade and Military Lessons of the Great War. Both of these presented unique themes that ultimately caused me to look at this period of history differently.
The Faces of War and Project Façade readings were remarkably enlightening. I hadn’t realized just how gruesome the casualties of war could be, especially the facial injuries of soldiers who had been in the trenches surrounded by gunfire and grenades. Plastic surgery at this time was crude in its earliest stages and was only so effective, so a group of artists and doctors were assigned to make masks for the mutilated faces of the soldiers who needed them. Also made were prosthetics, designed after pictures of the wounded soldiers before chunks were missing from their faces. While surgery, prosthetics and masks gave the soldiers new chances for life after the war they did come with setbacks. It was noted that “set for all time in a single expression modeled on what was often a single prewar photograph, the masks were at once lifelike and lifeless.” However, provisions were made for the wounded veterans; the Union des Blessés de la Face of France helped to house them and their families.
The second reading that I chose was Military Lessons of the Great War. Written by Major General Sir Frederick Maurice, this selection explores the issues and conditions that surrounded World War I. He incorporates the scientific advancements of the time in his analysis that impacted the effectiveness of the military tactics employed during the war. He specifically identifies the fact that France, despite the advance of the airplane and knowledge of German military information, still performed woefully in the onset of the war because, “the whole basis of their plan of campaign was defective because they had grossly underestimated the strength of the forces which Germany could put into the field”. Ultimately, he recognizes the blunders of both sides during the war and how they should be learned from.
Salman Rahman
Period: 3
The first article I read was titled “Faces of War” by Alexander Caroline. The article made me picture the situation in the trenches differently as I have never thought of the facts presented in the article. The article enlightened me with the fact that military technologies greatly outpaced the medical technology and many wounded soldiers were disfigured. I knew that World War I took the lives of many soldiers and many others severely wounded, but never was exposed to the fact that many soldiers were terribly physically disfigured and required not only facial reconstruction but had to wear masks for the rest of their lives. I also was quite fascinated to find the role sculptor and sculptural study played with facial reconstruction. The article acknowledged Sir Harold Gillies who is the pioneer of facial reconstruction and modern day plastic surgery. Other than that I was fully aware of the rest of the ideas and themes presented such as the long wait of soldiers before getting care, the chances of survival for the wounded, and the psychological impacts.
The second article I read was titled “Another Welcome Letter: Soldier’s letter from the great war” by Anne Powell. This article did not make me look at me look back in the time period any differently than I have previously assumed. Putting it the directly from the article it says, “Common to almost every man was a nostalgia for the way of life he once knew, love of his family, revulsion of violence, and anticipation of death. Apart from the war scenario which haunted every letter, numerous every-day domestic details, anecdotes and trivial incidents were recounted; literature, music, family and friends were discussed and requests made for warm socks, vests and other clothing, chocolate, cigarettes and food”. This is exactly what I expected the letters to contain before reading the article. The feeling of soldiers like Patrick Shaw-Steward at the loss of their friends and company men is just as I have presumed. As I have also thought there were men like Edward Wyndham 'Bim' who wrote descriptive letter to their mothers and families everday. To sum up both the article further showed me the horrifying and disturbing images of the Great War, World War I, and its miseries.
Group I: Faces of War
Faces of War was a shocking article on making masks for men who had been disfigured by war. Project Facade showed some of the injuries - in some cases, I wondered if it were worth it for men to continue living knowing their appearance which they took pride in had changed. I found the commentary on the plastic surgery in the realm of war to be fascinating, especially on how necessary it was to retain the soldiers' morale when their wounds shocked the general public whom they had served to defend. I was impressed by how Sir Harold Gillies and Anna Coleman made the best of the limited technologies offered in the post-WWI era to allow soldiers to acquire "self-respect, self-assurance, and self-reliance" as they gain a new self-image both literally and metaphorically.
Group II: Military Lessons of the Great War
While many of the points brought up in the article were familiar, including those regarding the new roles of the air force and transportation, one of the most surprising elements of the transition to modern warfare was the development of sanitation - but not in the manner that it reduced the death rates of those in hospital. What I found surprising was that during WWI, the avoidance of disease led to new kinds of warfare as more men could be held together in trenches without fear of disease. A transition thus was made between war limited by manpower and war limited by firepower.
The first of the articles that I chose to read was titled “Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the Great War.” While reading through the many excerpts taken from various letters written during World War I, it upset me to learn how terrified some of the men were for their lives, as well as the harsh conditions they were exposed to while serving in battle. This was not a necessarily new idea to me, however, having insight to the soldier’s actual thoughts allowed me to understand the cause for many soldiers extreme trauma after returning back home. One of the passages that really caught my attention was the series of letters written between Edward Wyndham Tennant and his mother. I found this section of the article the most upsetting or the one that hit the closest to home because Tennant was only seventeen when he served in WWI, which is how old I currently am. Although he put on a brave face for his mother, it was still hard for me to picture a teenager my age, having to fight and witness the horrors of war that even many grown men had difficulty coping with.
The second article I read was titled “Faces of War.” This reading was quite upsetting as well. It further revealed the horrors and negative impact of war on its surviving veterans. After learning about what ghastly injuries war veterans have had to live with following the First World War, it is uplifting to see that something can now be done to help the injured soldiers. With the introduction projects such as “Operation Mend,” they are able to return to a civilian life after war. It’s remarkable to witness how far surgeons have come when comparing the solution to such injuries made by Paddy Hartley under Project Facade, to our present day solution of complete facial reconstruction presented through Operation Mend.
I read “Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the great war”.
The article began describing how many of the soldiers who wrote letters home to their families spoke of the terrors and horrors of war. I completely understand this and was previously under the impression that these were the only type of letters that were being sent home, but they weren't. According to this document, many of the letters that were sent home were of a different nature, no pun intended. They were far more poetic, light hearted and contained descriptions of the natural environment which surrounded the lowly trenches. One such soldier reported to his wife, “I am now in a hilly wooded region . . . with copses full of anemones and delicate periwinkles, and the sapling hazels and willows tasseled and downy with catkins and buds…” He went on to describe everything that surrounded him with the exception of the war being waged on the battlefield just outside his trench. I am amazed to learn that the soldiers found it pertinent to concern themselves with which type of bird in nesting in the nearby trees, then what the enemy on the other side of the battlefield could be planning or doing.
Another similar idea that struck me in a similar fashion was the fact that some of the soldiers would record events and whatever they remembered right after a battle to allow themselves to return to their writings later in order to turn their prose into poetry. Wilfred Owen, Claude Penrose and others took their journal entries and letters written home and turned them into creative and artistic works of poetry. I had absolutely no idea that the men who were using smoke grenades to flush the enemy out of trenches so they would be easier to bayonet would have such soft and sensitive sides aiding with their artistic endeavors. Who'd a thunk?
The first article I read was “Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the Great War.” As I read this article, I found it to be very interesting but almost felt sad while reading it as well. The article was about letters many of the soldiers wrote to their friends and family. What saddened me was the fact that a soldier’s only form of keeping in touch with their family and friends was a single letter. Some soldiers wrote to their beloved ones or wives while others wrote to their parents, especially mothers. In the letters, soldiers wrote about the war and their daily lives as well as what they need and wanted. On the other hand, I was surprised to have read how “vividly”, open, and descriptive the soldiers wrote about the war. One soldier named Wilfred Owen wrote to his mother, “. . . I can see no excuse for deceiving you . . . I have suffered seventh hell . . .” I can’t understand why one would ever write that to their mother, for their mother to hear how awful things were for their sons at war. In contrast, some soldiers completely censored and avoided the brutalities of the war. Robert Vernede wrote to his wife, “. . . Did I tell you of a rather nice boy in my platoon who writes a family letter daily always beginning -- "Dear Mum and Dad, dear loving sisters Rosie, Letty, and our Gladys, -- I am very pleased to write you another welcome letter as this leaves me. Dear Mum and Dad and loving sisters, I hope you keeps the home fire burning. Not arf. . .” You can tell when you read this excerpt that Robert Vernede did not want for his wife to know how harsh the war conditions were. Instead, he talks about a boy in his unit and the tone setting of the letter was probably happy and light rather than down and full of despair like other soldiers. A lot of the soldiers also wrote to express and pour out their anger and pain, to escape the war for a short time and to try being a little happy. Others expressed their burden and mourn over their friend’s death. So to speak, much of the soldiers at war wrote to either their friends or family to express and portray strong emotions. Most of these letters were published as memorials later on but the important part is that, a letter was the only probable means of connection during the times.
The second article I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War.” It was written by Major - General Sir Frederick Maurice. In this article, the Major - General talked about lessons that could be learned from the unsuccessfulness and mistakes of World War I. He also discussed problems that were concerned with them, the failures. One thing that stunned me though, was how countries didn’t assume a long war was going to exist so they weren’t as prepared as they should have been. “Germany, which was militarily the best prepared of the belligerents, had not expected a prolonged war any more than the others. All her plans were based upon a rapid conquest of France to be followed by a more leisurely progress against Russia.”
The first document I read was “Faces of War” by Caroline Alexander. This document details reconstructive surgery that was required after World War I and some of the surgeons who performed in injured soldiers. At the time soldiers with severe facial injuries were given masks. These masks were often custom designed to resemble their former faces. Trench warfare and automatic weaponry led to many facial injuries that could remove large portions of a soldiers head. The document brings up two surgeons in detail including Sir Harold Gillies, Francis Derwent Wood, and Anna Coleman Watts. Surgeons like these three worked to create custom masks for disfigured veterans. The veterans receiving these masks had not only deep physical trauma but also mental scarring as well. The masks helped patients internally as well as externally. This document taught me about the widespread need for facial surgery at the end of the first World War.
The second document I read was “Military Lessons of the Great War” by Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice. In this document Maurice lists misconceptions of war, specifically World War I, and how the outcome of the war was affected by these misconceptions. Many countries and leaders were intellectually unprepared for the war when it came. Estimations of fighting and enemies were tragically incorrect. Maurice goes on to say that besides larger picture errors, military leaders are completely unable to predict the overall outcome of wars because the effectiveness of individual soldiers is impossible to tell in training and simulations. There is no guarantee that soldiers effective in exercises would perform admirably in real combat. Maurice explains how these “Military Lessons of the Great War” were unavailable to leaders at the time of World War I but the lessons can and should be applied to modern conflict. From my understanding, the greatest lesson to take from wars, World War I in particular, is that preconceptions always have the possibility of being incorrect. War brings unexpected variables and by following the advice that Maurice has gathered in “Military Lessons of the Great War” a nation may be more prepared.
I read Faces of War, Another Welcome Letter, France and the Outbreak of War, and Military Lessons from the Great War
The first article I read was, Faces of War. The article focused on the new medical purposes for World War I such as facial reconstruction. The article says that the technology in War World I outpaced our medical knowledge and capabilities. The machine guns were a weapon that was underestimated and destroyed a man's face. The practice of facial reconstruction was a newer field that was helpful for the suffering men, but still had limitations. The article describe that although the facial reconstruction worked to rebuild the structure and functions of the body, the man still held major imperfections.The masks used during this period were changing from rubber prosthetics to more lightweight and durable metallic masks. Wood, a significant face sculptor realized the importance of restoring a man's face to the best of his ability. Before reading this article I did not consider the affects of having facial deformities. The first thing many people notice is your face, and a torn up structure will undoubtedly cause psychological damage to the victim. The masks were able to restore some of this self reliance and esteem by creating a mask that resembled a more complete face. Without the efforts of Wood, Gillies, and other doctors, many soldiers would suffer greater trauma due to their wounds.
Another article I read was "Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers' Letters From the Great War". I was aware that a soldier's means of communication was often done through letters. The letters would often tell about their daily lives, the hardships they see in battle, and requests for goods from home. I found this to be similar to what we see today. Soldiers want food and warm clean clothes today, just like in War World I. The article also shows the variety of tones found in the letters. One man may be very blunt with the horror he's seen and explain the truths of the war without censorship while others would have a lighter air to their letter. One man, Edward Wyndham, would write to his mother expressing his faith in his survival. Although he was killed he made a large effort to calm his mother, while other soldiers explained the war with harsh details. I found this interesting, that although the men were experiencing many of the same struggles, traumatic situations, and death each held on to a different personality when writing home. I feel that this is the same today. It did not surprise me that many letters held humor and cynicism. The war was a traumatic experience which caused soldiers to become devastated and a coping mechanism may have been to express their frustrations and overwhelmed minds with cynical letters and dark humor. This article let me see that the men in this war have the same emotional affects from the war as the men from later wars received. I am reading a book about the Vietnam war and many of the same behaviors in soldiers can be found. This article caused me to realize that the men serving are very young and were impacted greatly from the war just like the soldiers in later wars.
The article that warranted greatest inquiry, to me at least, was Faces of War. Although I have looked at death tolls of war, as well as being familiar with shellshock and now PTSD, but never before had I the..."opportunity" to view physical rather than statistical damage done by the War.
The advances they had made in the field of plastic surgery and keeping men alive after potentially fatal wartime injuries were exponential, however horrendous and visually gruesome. These men may have looked as though there were gaping holes in their faces, but these were holes completely free from parasitic or viral infestation. This was so because they were completely sterilized and sealed, one of the new advances of wartime medicine in WWI; skin grafting. By removing skin from an area where it is more plentiful, i.e. a more fleshy area, one can have skin replaced on their face.
Perhaps, the article would not have been so jarring if not for watching the video on this very same project. Because of it being a silent film, it was accompanied by atonal music, heightening the already visually incongruous images being shown of real people. Shellshock refers to a mental state of mind. But honestly, when any percentage at all is missing due to shelling, I personally think that title fits a bit more. Yet horrifying all the same, regardless of title.
If I were a citizen during WWI wartime, and saw a man with one of the sort of faceless plastic masks that were discussed and talked about, I'm not exactly certain what I would think, let alone do. I know I would want to see what is under the mask. But i know I would regret it. But all things need a push to start rolling, and it just so happened that more dangerous weaponry was the push to invest in medicinal advances which were reciprocally effective.
The first article I read was Faces of War.This article left me impressed and intriguied. The innovations undoubtetly contributed to the foundation of plastic surgey, many ideals and practices. Masks, skin graphing and various other medical practices were practiced more than ever. The horrors of trench warfare left soldiers forever debilitated by the injuries they endured. Mortars, mines, and gunshots all left many soldiers with extreme injury and damage to their body's, including there faces, including eyes, ears, and other parts of their faces. They were also considered public outcasts, and were emtionally and pyschologically impacted from their life altering injuries.
Lessons from The Great War
In this article, the piece dicussed the events and issues of the Great War. Much can be learned from the combat tactics of sucess and of failure during the first World War. The actricle showed the severe lack of preparation that many nations engaged in a conflict and were not prepared from multiple perspectives. The art of war was a pivitol point in its history. Modern weaponry vs old warfar tactics.These issues helped countries to rethink their strategies after World War I.
Where are my responses?????????? Anything after this post will only receive 1/2 credit.
The first article I read was Faces of War. The article described new methods of treating disfigurements caused by new technology in World War I. Weapons like the machine gun and the flamethrower required new advancements in treatment for the wounded. For example, soldiers commonly lost their eyes and ears to the deadly new machines. The public was disturbed by these disfigured soldiers, and the soldiers suffered from severe mental and emotional conditions as a result of their injuries. The article describes the new technology of skin grafts, much like masks to hide disfigurements. This treatment was vital to the wounded soldiers.
The second article I read was "Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers' Letters from the Great War." Letters served as the main form of communication between soldiers and their loved ones at war. This article described many of the things discussed in the letter. The underlying theme of all the letters, however, was that the war was Hell on earth. The soldiers spoke of the violence and the hardships they faced every day in the war. I found both articles to be fascinating looks into the world of World War I.
The first article that I read was called the “Faces of War”. This article talked about all the new advances was made in the area of plastic surgery during World War I. Some might say that World War I was the first time that Plastic Surgery actually surfaced as a profession. During World War I, soldiers experienced injuries like never before. Some of these injuries left many greatly wounded and sometimes even disfigured. These disfigures made it hard for World War I soldiers to fit back into society, and that is when doctors started skin graphing and creating masks for the soldiers. Advances in skin graphing and masks helped men to reenter the social world after war. These advances were extremely important to disfigured men, who had to face challenges everyday. The graphing and masking technology was greatly improved by the works of both Sir Harold Gillies and Anna Coleman.
The second article that I read was "Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the great war." In this article the reader was able to read excerpts from letters soldiers wrote to their families during World War I. After reading the letters one realizes how tough the war was on many of these soldiers. Even though the war was both mentally and physically tiring for these soldiers, many of them lied to their family about the real war so that their families wont be worried about them. From these letter excerpts I have learned to gain a huge amount of respect for World War I veterans, because anyone who has lived through that should be recognized as a national hero.
The first article I read was "Faces of War". In this article the author mentions: The large-caliber guns of artillery warfare with their power to atomize bodies into unrecoverable fragments and the mangling, deadly fallout of shrapnel had made clear, at the war's outset, that mankind's military technology wildly outpaced its medical. This is saying that their modernized weaponry equal more deaths. This is because the weapons are stronger and it is easier to kill people. Because of these injuries, this led to advanced and new medical discoveries. These medical advancements helped the wounded soldiers that had to face the public with their disfigured faces everyday. Also stated in this article was: “Mirrors were banned in most wards" referring to men could not get away from their injuries.
As I read my first article which was Faces of War I learned a lot about the new efficient methods of plastic surgery and such. This are of medicine was not that popular at the time and really used only when their were casualties of war. The treatment of catastrophic casualties during World War I led to enormous advances in most branches of medicineadvances that would be used to advantage, mere decades later, treating the catastrophic casualties of World War II. Those patients who could be successfully treated were, after lengthy convalescence, sent on their way; the less fortunate remained in hospitals and convalescent units nursing the broken faces with which they were unprepared to confront the world or with which the world was unprepared to confront them. What i found interesting was that mirrors were banned in most wards, and men who somehow managed an illicit peek had been known to collapse in shock.
The second article I read was Military Lessons of the Great War. This article helped explain the mistakes they made and how to prepare for them next time. Different strategies emerged from WWI.
The first article i read was "Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers Letters from the Great War". These were a bunch of letters from soldiers that were written to their mothers during world war one. I was very shocked to realize that the soldiers didn't decide to hide the events that were really happening while at war. There was no inclination at all that the soldiers were trying to hide anything from their guardians. they just told life as it was. For example a seventeen year old soldier wrote to his mom, "I think of death with a light heart and as a friend whom there is no need to fear." i don't know about you but no mother i know is going to want to hear back from her son at war to find out that he wishes nothing more than to die when all she wants is for him to come home. This article lead me to look at this period differently because it showed me how difficult war really was, especially for the young soldiers. There are just little kids and going off to war, they think they know everything. but in reality they are just naive to the situation and when they begin to see people die infront of them and experience the loss of friends and go starving for days, they realize that war is not what they thought it was.
the second article i read was "Military Lessons of the Great War", by Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice. This article was about lessons learned from the failures made in the military during World War One. one of the mistakes was, "The probability of invasion of Belgium by Germany had for years been a military commonplace". What i found astonishing was that hardly anything was done to prevent it. The french were so over confident in themselves in their ability to stop the Germans attack based on only the number of troops. but clearly that was completely not true.
The first article I read was "Faces of War". This article described the new methods that were being used to make masks for the disfigured men. It introduced innovative techniques that were bring used to enhance the plastic surgery and skin graphing, a completely new area of the medical field that arose essentially because of the extent of injuries that disfigured soldiers from brutal war tactics that were being used doing World War I; “the very nature of trench warfare, moreover, proved diabolically conducive to facial injuries.” Most of these advances were make possible by Sir Harold Gillies, Dr. Fred Albee and Anna Coleman Watts. The article specifically describes disfigurations seen, including loss of ears, eyes, noses and such. It also mentions how these men with disfigurations were excluded from society because their appearance was disturbing. More importantly, the article conveys how the disfigurations had understandably profound mental affects on many of the man.
The other article i read was Another welcome letter: Soldier’s Letters from the Great War. In World War I, communicating through letters was substantially the only means of communication between soldiers and their families. In this article I learned that soldiers wrote to their loved ones what their daily lives were like and what they were experiencing, but most consisted of the nostalgia they felt. I find this practice of writing letters definiteyl something that shoulders should participate in to escape from the horrors of the war and know that someone cares for them so they dont feel completely alone. I found it amazing that all different soldiers from unique backgrounds were sharing much of the same emotions and desires, and also I find appreciation in that through these letters we learn so much about the conditions of the war in such a personal way.
The first article, “Faces of War”, really grabbed my attention. I was aware that rudimentary plastic surgery techniques were used during WWI, but I did not know about the carefully sculpted masks that were made if a soldier was beyond the help of surgeons. I also never really thought about the mental and emotional trauma associated with such disfigurements. Mentioning that some men collapsed in shock after seeing themselves in a mirror really grabbed my attention and made it very clear why mirrors were often banned in most wards.
Another article that I feel the need to comment on is “Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ Letters From the Great War”. While I did not particularly learn anything new, it did make the soldiers’ situation a little more real for me. I was especially touched by “Bim” Tennant’s last letter to his mother when he mentions all of the pictures of her that he carried with him. This article also made me think about how the people back home felt when they received these letters. It must have been difficult, but I imagine that they were also glad that their loved ones serving in the war could essentially come to them for whatever help they needed in dealing with their traumatic experiences. I would definitely say that this article put the time period in a new perspective for me. It made it more human.
Again what struck me most was the human element of the war. When you learn about a war in a history class you often focus on just the events and the statistics, but the human element isn’t always there. While looking at the articles in the “Diaries, Memorials, Personal Reminiscences” I was fascinated by the correspondence between Fred and Evelyn Albright. It was amazing to me that they kept a relationship so alive despite the separation they endured. I am glad that documents like these were included in the reading, because they brought this time period to life in a way that text books and reports on the war are never able to do.
One of the articles I read this week was “Faces of War.” The innovation described in this article was that of the beginnings of modern plastic surgery. It was acknowledged that going into the war the military and weaponry knowledge was far greater and more advanced than that of medical care. Given this, it is logical that something so large as a world war would force the further behind area of medical care to advance to meet the vast needs. New weaponry and military tactics resulted in horrific injuries, including many to the face. Plastic surgery had existed before the war, but it was very crude and not much thought was given to how the result actually looked which could sometimes be almost just as important as to restoration of functions.
It was also during this time that the Masks for Facial Disfigurement Department was established. This was created because of the still too limited surgery practices for the very badly wounded. Francis Derwent Wood, the founder of the program, was inspired to use his training as a sculptor to make metal masks that were copies of the soldier’s faces before the war.
These were extremely helpful ideas because they created a before-unheard of opportunity for face-wounded patients to exist as much as possible the way they did before the war. This caused me to see this period differently. It never occurred to me that medicine was able to advance to such a degree at a time in history that is now almost a hundred years ago. To me this kind of surgery is not something of the past, but it was there, even if still only in its earliest stages.
I read the article, “Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers’ Letters from the Great War.” The prevalent ideas, those of the horrors of war and the squalid lives of soldiers, were nothing new to me, however, the way in which they were presented was. Up until now all information presented to me on the horrors of the first world war have been in impersonal, general accounts. Therefore, it was interesting to hear about the conditions in the trenches directly from the soldiers. Most focused on the horrid conditions faced by everyday soldiers and the constant threat of death in the trenches. I was somewhat surprised that these letters were not censored for their grim descriptions. One letter, a tale of homesickness rather than bloodshed, focused on one soldier’s longing for his native Ireland. A letter excerpt that stood out from among the rest was that of a professional soldier. His was the only modern account I have ever heard of a soldier enjoying combat. Whether he was incredibly brave, hardened, or crazy, I don’t know but I guess that it was a mixture of all three.
This article led me to view the era slightly differently. I already knew of the terrible conditions of the war but now I know exactly how they affected the soldiers. I now have insight into the emotions caused by the awful conditions. This article presented a more personal account of information that I already knew.
The first article I read was "Another Welcome Letter: Soldiers' Letters from the Great War." I found this very interesting because I understand how important correspondence is when serving in the military - I remember sending my dad a video when he was on deployment when I was four, and more recently I remember getting letters from him while he was training for a few months in sixth grade. While the article didn't lead me to look at the period of history any differently regarding facts, it did enforce the fact that this war was very real, even though today it seems to have been something in distant history. It emphasizes that these men were brothers, they were sons, they were friends, and they all shared different aspects of life during the Great War with their correspondents. For example, "countless soldiers mourned the loss of their friends and were able to unburden their sorrow in letters home" while "others made no attempt to disguise the carnage and the suffering experienced during specific actions." My view on the war was changed because I was reminded that this war was not something just written about in history books.
The second article I read was "French War Plans 1914: The Balance of Power Paradox." A new idea that was presented to me was that both France and Germany were basing so much off of the weakness of the opposing side, mischaracterizing and underestimating the threats. I didn't know that the war planners had done so poorly before we started studying it, and it makes me wonder if things would have turned out differently had they made better decisions from the very beginning. For example, one failure was the Schlieffen Plan, which "was a tightly scripted strategy that failed to produce a flexibility of options that allowed the German commander to adapt to emerging threats." I thought it was interesting to read just what went wrong; it reinforced the readings a lot. Also, I found it very enlightening to learn that the French war planners messed up because they expected too much out of their military, and it makes me wonder just why that was - and if they knew that what they were hoping for was improbable, why they went through with it anyways.
I read the article “Faces of the War”. It was about the horrific injuries that troops in the war, and the efforts of one of the first plastic surgeons, Sir Harold Gillies, in trying to better the lives of the troops who received such horrible injuries. The entire idea of plastic surgery in World War One was something I had never thought about, but in retrospect makes perfect sense. The soldiers wounded this heavily, many beyond recognition needed these services, evidenced in this quote: "My cases are generally extreme cases that plastic surgery has, perforce, had to abandon; but, as in plastic surgery, the psychological effect is the same. The patient acquires his old self-respect, self assurance, self-reliance, . . . takes once more to a pride in his personal appearance. His presence is no longer a source of melancholy to himself nor of sadness to his relatives and friends." They needed the surgery so that they could have some semblance of psychological well-being, because without the physical injuries, the constant shelling, sickness, and possibility of death were enough to severely scar someone emotionally their whole life. This article didn’t really change my perspective on this era of history, but it helped me refine it and keep it in perspective. I already knew about the horrors of World War One, as a kid I spent almost all of my time reading about history, and I knew of the weapons and the tactics that led to horrific casualties. What this article did was help remind me of the humanity of people throughout history, that just because this happened one hundred years ago, they are as much real people as my friends and I am. It did this by telling of the emotional toll that the physical injuries inflicted on people. It helped put a face on a tragedy of a war that before was hard for me to even conceive.
The first article I read was called “Another welcome letter: Soldiers' letters from the great war”. I found this reading to be very enlightening, because it features primary accounts of what it was like to go to war, and how they dealt with the pain and death of so many around them. Some of the letters were brutally honest and narrated the horrid scenes they saw everyday out in the trenches. Others were more of just humor or cynicism to make it seem like everything was fine. Some of the things they wrote in these letters remind me that they were ordinary people who had their wholes ahead of them taken away from this war. They talked about just everyday things and how it felt to be out fighting for their lives. “ Apart from the war scenario which haunted every letter, numerous every-day domestic details, anecdotes and trivial incidents were recounted; literature, music, family and friends were discussed and requests made for warm socks, vests and other clothing, chocolate, cigarettes and food.” Another thing I have had never really thought about was the camaraderie and friendships they formed out there. They not only looked with respect toward the people fighting with them, but with the people fighting against them. The enemy was also human just like them and they were dealing with the same misery as they were. “Pain, fear and death bred sympathy and tolerance towards comrades and enemy”. For example, Charles Soley, also a soldier felt a deep affection and respect toward the German soldiers who had also fought long and hard but still walked toward the prison with a look of confidence. This made me look toward the war in a new light. Instead of feeling hate toward the armies and soldiers we were fighting against, I realize that they were also the victims here. All of them shared the brutal truths of the war and in that way, they are connected with a sad history. The next article I read was called “Faces of War”. This article talked about the advances in mask making for soldiers who had serious damage done to their faces. What I never really thought about was the effect of the physical damage done to these soldiers. Being in the war for so long was enough, but the thought of being reminded everyday about the war when looking in the mirrors just seems unfair. “The psychological effect on a man who must go through life, an object of horror to himself as well as to others, is beyond description," wrote Dr. Albee. ". Because of this, I must believe that many soldiers must have never gotten over the war at all if it weren’t for these surgeons. Although it only covers the damage and never really heals the emotional pain these fighters had to go through, it must be been like a miracle for many of those who had gotten the procedure.
Article: Faces of War
The idea that surprised me the most was the significant role that facial reconstruction played during the war. The practice of facial reconstruction proves just how horrible the conditions of the war were. “The… soldiers failed to understand the menace of the machine gun, they seemed to think they could pop their heads over a trench and more quickly enough to dodge the hail of bullets”. As a result, many of the soldiers lost body parts. After their time serving in the war, they had to return to their old life with these horrible injuries. Not only did the soldiers have to suffer the dreadful repercussions of the war, but their injuries would also subject them to public humiliation. Luckily, devoted doctors Gillies and Wood constantly worked to better their techniques. With the newly practiced facial reconstruction process, many soldiers could hide their injuries from the world.
This article definitely changed my view of the time period. Before reading “Faces of War”, I thought that facial reconstruction and plastic surgery were fairly new developments of the 1990’s and 2000’s. However, by the end of the First World War, I was amazed to find that thousands of soldiers were already familiar with this process. Before, I had never given much thought as to what the injuries might be for the survivors and how they went about to fix them. Reading into the article, many of the techniques that World War I doctors used were very interesting and advanced. The facial reconstruction process often consisted of plaster casts (made from clay or plasticine squeezes) taken of the victims’ face. After the mask is taken, the doctor can then reconstruct the face (by fixing the mask) to what it would supposedly look like post-injury. These masks would then be created by a thin layer of “galvanized copper” and painted the color of skin. Based on pictures I have seen of the final masterpiece, these masks looked quite realistic.
When reading “The Faces of War” I was very surprised to hear about some of the actions of the enlisted men in WWI, especially the part where the author quotes an American doctor who discusses how the soldiers thought they could dodge the machine gun fire that was coming at them. This seemed so unreal to me that people wouldn’t understand that. I was also surprised at the techniques used by the surgeons to reconstruct the battle wounds, and more surprising was the way they basically made up procedures as they went along to try and repair each mans wounds. Something else that was new to me was the time it took the patients to receive any sort of reconstructive surgery. It seemed that it would take months or evens years for them to be ready to be fitted for a prosthetic. The ideas that dealt with dealing with the emotional aspect of the wounded were also new to me. I would have never thought of the lengths they went through to deal with the patients feelings such as painting park benches blue to warn civilians that people around the park would be disfigured, or how they prohibited mirrors from the wards in which this men were stationed. I would have never thought that they would go through great lengths such as that. This article made me view the time period around WWI differently. I had always thought that they dealt with medicine and battle wounds the same way that you see in old Civil War movies where they go around and amputate every wound then move on to the next man. This reading opened my eyes to the work of trying to better acclimate the physically wounded soldiers into a more normal life. They also tried to help keep these men as mentally sane as possible. This article showed that with the great advances in warfare came huge strides in the field of medicine and treating battle wounds.
The first article I read was Faces of war. I was very interested in this article because its topic was one that you normally do not hear about. When I think of injuries from WWI I think of shell shock, lost limbs, and death, but not injuries that might require facial reconstruction. However, when you begin to analyze the two you can see that they are connected to each other. New weapons of war made death rates extremely high and put you at greater risk. With the introduction of the machine gun armies experienced heavy losses. Weapons such as these would naturally put a soldier's face in danger. As Sir Gillies states, "large-caliber guns of artillery warfare with their power to atomize bodies into unrecoverable fragments and the mangling, deadly fallout of shrapnel had made clear, at the war's outset, that mankind's military technology wildly outpaced its medical". I've thought of facial reconstruction as a modern procedure. This made me think of WWI in a different way.
The second article I read was Military Lessons of the Great War. I learned from this article just how different WWI was then any previous war. The weaponry and tactics of fighting were so different from any other war that countries were not ready to properly fight the battles WWI brought them. In addition,I was surprised by how unaware countries were of each others armies' sizes, plans, ect. For example, France underestimated the size of Germany's army and naively assumed that Germany would respect Belgium's neutrality. To conclude, I found this article interesting because it gave us insight about how different WWI and the consequences, and lessons, it brought with it.
The first article, Faces of War, was a fascinating, if not horrifying, look at the rapid advances in plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures developed to "heal" the soldiers who had suffered traumatic facial injuries as a result of the war. As necessity is the mother of invention, it is hardly surprising that science swiftly developed new techniques for making people look like their old selves and for trying to salvage as much of their appearance as possible. What is, however, fascinating is the remarkable resilience the victims showed. The article intimated that, despite the horrible disfigurements that frightened the public, most soldiers regained their self-respect and pride. It is merely another example of the power of the human spirit that adds additional dimensions to the understanding of a soldier's psyche. And, admittedly, if a soldier has served his country with honor, why shouldn't he be proud?
The second article I read was Another Welcome Letter. This was a second, even more valuable insight into the minds of the wretched soldiers who were battling on the front lines. Many of them seemed unbelievably normal given the circumstances; they requested items from home, they missed their families, they were scared, proud, and confused. Once again, this article helped to add to my understanding of the minds of those people who were entrenched and trapped in the horrors of The Great War.
Post a Comment