Student explains or illustrates perspectives of people in their historical context
Looking backwards to any time before the 21st century, historians are especially susceptible to presentism if only for the masses of collective knowledge now suddenly accumulated and rendered accessible to most and the exponential rate at which all areas of civilization have changed. The nature of war has expanded with technological developments, the fracturing of states and the splintering of ideologies, all dictating new ways in which violent conflict can shift power. Many more people today see war as multi-faceted: necessary to enforce rules, a terrible waste of life, a legitimate manner in which to “correct” the path of humanity, and a primal mode of domination. A century ago, worldviews were restricted to time and place, formed almost fully by local culture and authority only. The enthusiastic attitudes of European civilians at the dawn of World War One were grounded in beliefs from that time period, a much narrower scope than we have now.
According to Willingly to War, a common belief before the war was that any conflict would not last long, as no preceding weaponry had created such extensive stalemates between warring parties. The recent Franco-Prussian war of 1870 only lasted six months, lending itself to the idea that a future war would be similarly short. Civilians had no concept of technology like the machine gun that would transform warfare to stationary and force the use of a strategy of attrition, designed to slowly wear down the enemy. In addition to the public’s lack of knowledge about the cost of war, there was a general atmosphere in Europe of fervent nationalism and the assertion of dominance over other states, which framed conflict in a context of opportunity to gain power rather than taking losses.
Another article highlights the influence of military prestige on the civilian community, with members of government also being part of the armed forces. The romantic notions of glory for country and pride in militaristic strength were embedded in culture, even in the archetypes of heroes. The belief that there well-justified (even positive) violence set the tone for a welcoming of war seen through rose-tinted glasses.
A final piece of context from The enthusiasm for war is the unrest over old, undemocratic social systems that still held substantial power in Europe. From the perspective of a group struggling for large change in a short time, war is an excellent opportunity to quickly and radically alter society. The possibility of irrevocable and drastic change took hold of civilians and re-framed conflict as an acceleration of progress.
The civilian enthusiasm for World War One can be understood through analyzing the context that allowed certain beliefs to take root. No recent war had lasted as long or taken as large a toll as World War One would, so there was no reason for it to be any different. Nationalistic fervor was strong and underpinned by military patriotism, lending a romantic view to conflict. Finally, war was an opportunity for change. In the present, it is easy to forget the limited scope of past context, and easier yet to ignore current limitations.