I’ve had this picture hanging around for a while. I took it in London, a couple of years ago, outside the Imperial War Museum. Intially, it seemed an odd place for such a sentiment, but in retrospect I think it makes perfect sense. Well, not sense, exactly. But it feels right.
I had resisted going to the war museum, being not much interested in military history or old tanks and guns and what not. There was some of that there, but it was much more profound than that. The focus of most exhibits was on the experiences of the people involved in the war — the generals, but also the regular soldiers, the nurses, the spies, the folks waiting back at home. I was particularly moved by an exhibit that reconstructed part of a WWI trench — the dark, damp holes in which many young men spent months, immersed in a strange combination of boredom and terror, never knowing when they might be sent out by the hundreds into a hail of machine gun fire from which there was little chance they would return — or accomplish anything by their deaths.
It is striking to go to Europe, and realize the extent to which both World Wars are so present in the consciousness of the society. If you have been to Ground Zero in New York, you have some sense of what it is like to visit Europe. Of course, that is a much fresher wound, but it was also just one attack, with comparatively a handful of deaths. Not to minimize the 9/11 attacks, but if you extrapolate the effect that event has on us, and imagine the effect on a society of two World Wars, fought on your own soil with no assurance that you or your government or your civilization would survive, and you have some sense of what it is like to walk around in London, where many buildings still have holes and scars from bullets, bombs and shrapnel. Or to sense the impact on French society of 1.3 million young men killed in four short years during World War I (half the men in France aged 18 to 35!). Or to stand on the cliffs of Normandy, where the ground is pitted from munitions and the air is heavy with ghosts.
Lots of people know more about this stuff than I do, at least lots of you who read this blog. And what, you may ask, does it have to do with the picture at the top?
It’s hard to explain. There are a lot of things we can’t change. How many wars have there been since the War to End All Wars? How many more will there be before we realize that killing and plundering and rape don’t solve any more today than they did in 1917 when wave after wave of young men were hurled into machine gun fire for no damn reason? (Has there ever been a war where so little ground was gained by so many deaths?)
All we can change, after all, is our own life. If only enough people did, maybe it would do some good.

8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 19, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Tom Twaiten
Hi Julie: Welcome back! I agree with what you say, but can’t resist offering an alternate opinion, certainly not 180 degrees from yours, but maybe 45. The causes of WW I are complex, but once it got started, people kept fighting for a very primitive reason: they didn’t want to lose. That may have been partly fear of what the victors would do to the losers, but also just a very visceral hatred of losing which overcomes reason. As for the generals, none of them wanted to be a Jubilation T. Cornpone. I’m referring to a fictional Confederate general in a forgettable and forgotten musical called L’il Abner. The musical did have one memorable song, about JT. One verse went something like this: When it seemed that our brave boys might keep on fighting for months/who was it took pity and capitulated at once? Why it was Jubilation T. Cornpone, old treat ‘em with scornpone …. and so on. You can google the rest of the lyrics if you want. But anyway, surrender does not advance a general’s career, and the troops get fired up to an almost suicidal point. In a way, you want that. You certainly don’t want your own armed forces to go into battle sort of vaguely committed to victory, but holding surrender as a very real option.
But putting that comment to the side, I agree with your comment about changing your own life. Of course, the way you change it is important. And you have to be careful that other people don’t change your life for you. By getting us into wars, for example.
Tom
February 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Elliot
In Britain, towns and villages had their entire male populations destroyed by the war. You try to imagine if one day you came home from work and found out that the entire male population of Orange was gone, and for what.
In World War I, you fought because you loved your country or because you have no other choice.. sometimes both. I think our uniformed men and women fight for the same reasons. Plato called them the guardian class–those with the strength and the spirit to fight, our protectors. We owe them so much more than this. We owe them a real reason.
I think you’re great, Julie. Keep writing.
March 1, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Kris
Your writing inspires more prudent thinking on my part. Being analytical, I fall into the trap of overanalyzing (as you know). That you kept this photo, but didn’t have an immediate ’story’ is telling in some way. I’d like to think that the photo should say “Live your life.” If we all lived life more richly, with more overall awareness and quest for fulfillment, we probably would not have need to “change [our] life.” Those not living as stated may indeed need to change….
March 2, 2008 at 1:15 am
celera
Tom, you have so much knowledge, I don’t think I know anyone else who knows so much about so many things. With WWI, it isn’t the overall objective of the war that seems so tragic (actually, I don’t know for sure what the overall objective of that war was) — it’s the futility of the outdated battle tactics. Maybe the overall objective was futile too. Elliott put it quite eloquently — we owe our soldiers a real reason.
And Kris, you touch on something that I’ve been thinking about for a while. It was sort of addressed in grow your brain. Maybe I’ll write a new post about it
. Glad you stopped by!
March 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Rachel
I went to the Imperial War Museum at my husband’s urging, and I made him leave after three hours – it was too much. Especially, for me, the exhibitions about the evacuee children.
Thank you for making this point:
The world wars, and for the UK the long running battle with the IRA, mean that we are rather blase about terrorist attacks. The First World War, in particular, was like an end to an age of innocence as well as a catalyst for huge social change. Have you seen the BBC series, The Edwardian Country House? There is a book to accompany the series which has a chapter on the impact of WW1, and it is heartbreaking to read.
March 6, 2008 at 7:25 am
Patti Worley
I had a deeply felt experience walking around some ruins in Germany with a German friend of mine. We met traveling and have visited each other. Although we don’t know each other all that well, we share a lot of values and it has been good to see life through his eyes.
He was showing me a half destroyed tower and commented that it had been partially destroyd in WW1 and then hit again in WW2. I commented that my Grandfather had fought in both those wars and it turns out, so had his. His comment then was that my grandfather won both times.
I was struck by the irony and beauty of the two of us being in that spot discussing the wars together with real respect and friendship.
(My grandfather might have “won” but his grandfather outlived mine… So on that scale who “won”?)
March 6, 2008 at 8:53 am
Rachel
I was once struggling to express to American friends why Europeans are generally suspicious of patriotism – then a German friend chimed in with a comment about how patriotism had led Germany down some very bad paths. Everyone fell silent, end of debate.
March 8, 2008 at 9:54 pm
celera
I think patriotism is right up there with religion as a cause for the world’s troubles, Rachel.
Patriotism has its place, but I’ve always been a little suspicious of it.