Scholars from the Old Dominion University department of history. On of hist and theyre going to reflect on exactly that question. War i wont bore you withon all the big ra fills of the panel members. Memb you can find that information for yourself there in the programs. He dr. William rodner, who is the only jentle man up here among the ladies. Dr. William robert will chair and moderate and i know hes looking forward to having a good discussion. Ssat at this point, dr. Rogers, its all yours. Thank you very much. Rodne r,i am here as sort of we he four odu professors. I guess its really three and a half. Im a professor at tcc. I am a specialist in british history. Histor but in culture history, i wear a hat at odu. Am an i am an editor of the journal scotia, which the journal of , scottish studies. Just to put a plug in for that, we are planning a future issue w on scotland and the First World War. Sc so if anybody has submissions, please see me after the presentation. Ybod we hope to make this mostly q a and digs cushion between us andn the audience or members of the audience. Ill just start out with a general introduction. The legacies of the first worldh war are certainly very apparent today. St just last week, we had the very moving ceremony involving the 90 almost 900,000 poppies that are surrounding the tower of london in commemoration of the britishd end and commonwealth colonial dead in the first war. Utub i was lucky enough to show that on youtube to my students because, luckily enough, i had class on november 11th. The students were able to see the readings of the hags names h that they were commemorating and the marks of transcribe bun. We would have to have a whole other conference on the legacy of the first war. Th there was so many that certainly have resonated even to our own time. But, obviously, democratic values, self determination, communism, leninism and the effects world war e wide. Fascism. The birth of mass killing. Leading to colonial unrest, leading to the Independence Movement in india which became very important for the British Empire and, of course, the second world war. Im a cultural historian in many ways, historian of visual tural culture, i guess i should put o it. Im interested in the arts during the war and right after the war. E wa we all know the war poets. Sassn we know brook and owen and re is sasoon. Music in the 1960s, of course, one of the great works of music, works of art, was a war reck weep set to the poems of will fred owen. Lessknown, probably, is a ver moving piece by arthur blitz lic called morning heroes. Tes the and that commemorates the dead of the war and especially his brother. The divisional, stanley spencer, henry tonks was a very, very vey interesting artist, was also a surgeon. And he did very stark images of wounded soldier, particularly soldiers who had severe disfigurement. After th theres a division right now that does his work. These wounded people. Are many countries are kmem rating the events. In france, its i think i a an example of renewed french te nationalism, the french official web site talks about remembering the strength of a nation when it stood together. St together. On july 14th, bastille day, the president of french invited over 70 nations to participate to show common brotherhood, in the year that the war started. Therhd in germany, its a more muted response. Of people in germany resented the they dont want to talk about the militarism of the war. Bad memories of how the nazis maybe misused the memory of the war. Wa we see a more positive view perhaps in russia, with a revival of interest in the royal family, the czar, as a wise and great czar. Cz had a great origination that wa betrayed by a revolution. A in england, again, we have the poppies, and we have the doubten abby. Its always with us. Let me introduce my colleagues. To my left is lorraine lees. Lorraine lees is a specialist on American Foreign policy. And diplomatic history. And shell say a few words about thatay. To her left is anna mirkova. Esa shes a historian of the late empire, balkans, citizenship any minority issues in the audubon empire. And finally liz zanoni, a historian of American Immigration in particular in the late 19th and early 20th m goin centuries. Ill start out with remarks about england and then push it t to my colleagues, and then well take questions. And i hope you guys can also reflect on the last today an yesterdays conference, and issues that may have come out of that. Anything is game here. That. As i said, england has memorialized the First World War, and thought about it a great deal. We do have this issue of sacrifice. In england, sacrifice is oftentimes associated with the psalm. We have the poppy. Nn. We first started seeing that ine england in about s 1921. And the veterans organizations, particularly in england, the world british legion started distributing them. , st one thing that i find interesting about legacy of the First World War is how it ac accelerated changes that had its origins before the war, and maybe just right at the outset of the war. Many ofof our speakers have alluded to classic books about this whole issue, and a couple i of times the dunnes of august came up. Mous b they came ouoot in the 60s. People of my generation would r have started to first learn art about some of these issues, by a book by barbara tuckman. Itish a classic book, which probably isnt very strong today, but way certainly well written, is a book called strange death of liberal england by george book dangerfield. That book was interesting in this context, because it pointed to crises in england that will u Gain Momentum and be resolved in some ways by the war, and right after the war. In particular, the rise of labor, the power of the labor party. Trade unionism. Onism, w which became pretty radicalized in scotland, for example, in the docks of glasgow. Red clydeside was certainly a major topic towards the end of the war. Sc and of course, this leads, of course, to the ascendancy of the labor party and first labor government in 1924, as a result in some ways of the changes of the war. 24 a the w it also led to that famous quotn from king george v, when he allowed the labor government tod take office. He said its about 23 years since the death of his dear de grandmother queen victoria, i e wonder what deer grandmama wouldim have thought osuf a labor government. Im sure she would not have been amused. The other thing that happened i england is a greater move toward democracy. Acy. Universal almost universal male suffrage. Women were franchised in 1918. O well, they had to be 30, because they couldnt handle the vote unless theyme were older than m. That changed, of course, by the late 1920s. Ratic we had a later democratic move. What i found interesting in england was the problems in thee nature of the British State sel, itself. Particularly involving ireland. D in the days of the summer of 1914, many people in england gld paid no heed, basically, to whan was going on on the european continent. Even after thete assassination franz ferdinand. F they were rapreoccupied with th. Irish question. The government at the time was planning to give ireland autonomy. Aut and that would have meant the majority of the the irish majority would have been mainlyn roman catholic. Th that created a huge opposition from ulster, the mostly mo protestantst section. It looked as if had the law gone through, the people of ulster would have risen up, many of pr them anyway, and taken up arms. R and started a civil war. These were supported lster wholeheartedly by the england conservative party, the torry party. It looked as if there might be a civil war. E even the english army, if they u were called upon to restore order, many officers were inclyde to try to find a way to either resign or not show up for work when they were called upon. And this became a severe crisis. The war was put on ice for a ie while, but irish nationalism continued. Of course, most notably, refle reflected in the easter rising o of 1916. And the bloodshed that that caused. Anduse what yates called the terrible beauty. And finally, the separation of ireland from the rest of the united kingdom, with the ited creation of the irish free state in 1920s. Without ulster. These issues are still playing. Out. These are stille major issues ii the british isles. Ssue so for me, thats an important i connection to what the war represented. Repr one other connection two or connections, i guess. Ess is to fast forward, another commemoration were working on now is, of course, the berlin bn wall coming down. Its its interesting how Margaret Thatcher was so apprehensive about a united germany, and one would certainly expect that she was thinking not just of world war ii, but germany in world war i. And a bigld issue for her time. One final thing that reminds us of the First World War, if you remember the wedding of kate and william. After the wedding, kates bouquet was placed on the black slab, the unknown warrior in th west minister abby. Thats their unknown soldier, a a mar of tribute, a mark of respect. Raditi that tradition goes back to 1923, when the queen mother wase married. Then just lady elizabeth, and ih she married the duke of york. As as she left the abbey, her bouquet was on the slab as well. Thats because she lost her se e brother in the First World War. T her brother was killed in the First World War. The present queens uncle died in the First World War. She never knew him. But the present queens uncle died. Theres a lot of connection between that event and even upt to almost the present day. All right. Lorraine . Okay. Going t im just going to talk about the legacy of the war for the u. S. The u. S. Is, of course, in the war for a relatively short period of time compared to the rest of the combatants. The u. S. Casualties are very ped low. Theres nos. Damage to the u. S. Home front. The American Economy actually booms during the war. And, of course, as you all knowt the United States emerges as th worlds major creditor nation after the war. After so the u. S. Is going to exercise an enormous amount of economic c power around the world in the 1920s. Onr so much so, that what we think of as the americanization of europe and asia, really begins in the 20s. D we tend to think of that as r something that occurs in world t war ii. But it begins in the 1920s. To the extent that american come brand names become synonymous for the product itself. Ple, i for example, if you were a housewife in Great Britain in hs the 1920ews, you didnt vacuum your carpets, you hoovered them. That sort of thing was very y common. The war had very important rcusi repercussions at home. Hink although i think in many cases world war i accelerates some trends that had already been lee under way. For example, theres obviously a growth in president ial power. R. But that has also been happening since the turn of the century. Theres a lot of Government Intervention in the economy. A and that will recede in the ill 20s, but then obviously will become a fact of life because of the Great Depression in the wor second world war. Ome Woodrow Wilson does do some hat things that had not been done e. Before. Many of which aref wh negative. For example, he will suppress Civil Liberties more than any ot his predecessors ever had. Although, again, the suppressiof of Civil Liberties in wartime goes back to the 1790s. Wo but Woodrow Wilson does take ite to an extreme. Th franklin roosevelt, of course, vows he wont make the mistakeso that Woodrow Wilson did, although we know he makes others that are perhaps worse. The idea that the constitution s takes a back seat to a war, i i think really becomes ingrained in the american system. The bolshevik revolution that occurs in russia in 1917 of crystallizes a fear of radicalsa thats always a part of the amer american psyche. And the result, of course, is eu the red scare of the 1920s. Immigration restriction. And this, again, will establish a pattern for things that will happen again throughout the 20th century. There is some genuine change. N y just as there was in great ther britain. Women finally get thehe right t vote. But not until 1920. Gevote b so the United States is a littll bit behind there. Africanamericans, of course, cs having distinguished themselves in battle, come back, determined to fight for their rights at home. So we really see the beginnings of te of the modern Civil Rights Movement as a result of the t war. War. The u. S. , of course, rejects wilsons peace plan, because tt u. S. Sees more danger than n security in the treaty of versailles. And harry truman, as some of you y may know, was an artillery officer in the great war. And on november 1st, 1918, he e wrote a letter to his cousin, and he told her of the saying t that was making the rounds. And i think this sort of illustrates perhaps why the y te American Public does not support the treaty of versailles. The saying was, germany was li s fighting for territory, england for the sea, france for patriotism, and thepa americans for souvenirs. F and i think that conveys the th fact that wilson never really made the stakes of this war as n apparent to the American Public as he should have. Aharry harry truman also represents other aspects of the legacy of the war. On n on november 1st, 1918, he was o patrol near verdon he wrote a letter to his cousin saying he found a little poppy coming up through the rocks. He thought the flower had a r h nerve trying to grow on a site of such a terrible battle. But it looked so pretty in that shelltorn place, that he had t pick it and send it to her. There were actually two of them. He sent one to bess as well. There you see obviously some of the poignancy, i think, of the war. But a few days later, on november the 11th, 1918, while e he was waiting for the armistice to take effect, he wrote a tak letter to bess in which he expressed his feelings of the enemy. And he said, its a shame we cant go in and detonate de germany, and cut off a few of the kids hands and feet and fef scalp a few of those old men. Ft but i guess it will be better to make them work for france and belgium for 50 years. Belg now, of course, heres the man most associated in the public n mind with dropping the bomb on japan in 1945. On and when he does that, in the Public Statement that he releases about the use of the oe bomb, he says that this is revenge for pearl harbor. So i think, again, the question is, he made callous by the First World War, was that it was always a part of p his characte . But obviously there was some connections there. Wilsons rhetoric of selfdetermination, as we all know, inspires many around the t world. And thats particularly true ofe people who are living in colonial areas. When we think of the treaty of versailles, i think we tend to think of all the major powers who were present at paris. But not everyone there was a major power. No for example, a 28yearold rold kitchen worker, who was living in paris at the time of the conference, tried to make an appointment with Woodrow Wilson, to present him with a petition for his countrys independence. The meeting never took place. And a few decades later we would come to ho chi minh. So there were lots of people l there whofo were trying to make wilson and the other powers live up to the rhetoric of selfdetermination. O and ho chi minh was just one of many who found out that the rhetoric didnt extend to d colonial peoples. Of course, nationalism and wars of liberation and all of that will be one of the most important stories of the 20th century. But wilsons peace plan, i think, does sort of linger at t home. Franklin roosevelt, as we hearde of course, was assistant secretary of the navy during the First World War, and he was very determined to avoid some of thei mistakes that wilson had made. But he also evoked wilsons memory. Bu in march of 1945, roosevelt rushed from the conference, and he immediately went to address the American Congress to explain to them what had gone on at the crimen conference and to ask fon their support. The sp the speech is remarkable for a number of reasons. It was the first time he ever publicly made mention of his meo disability. He apologized to the congress for sitting down while he made his speech. Because he said that after the 14,000mile journey, he couldnt bear the weight of the leg braces on his legs. And he had never talked about that before. But then as he related what hade happened at the conference, he asked for the support of the congress, and he made reference to the ghosts of the past. D at t he said at the end of his speech, 25 years ago American Fighting men looked to the statesmen of the world to finish the work of peace for which they had fought and suffered. Su we failed them then. We cannot fail them again, and m expect the world to again survive. So hes evoking the ghost of Woodrow Wilson. The world survived after 1945. Et but i think the peace has proven to be very elusive. And thats, again, one of the unfortunate legacies perhaps of the war. Anna . Ill briefly connect to what lorraine said about the right te selfdetermination. Which many people discovered to be reserved for some, but not for others. Im just remembering now in 1919, just before the french took over, you know, syrian and lebanon, there was a convention of the Syrian National congressn and there the participants laids out the points arguing why they should be given independence. One of the points was, after the treaty of berlin in 1878, the bulgarians and the serbs and the romanians were given independence, and theyre not more civilized or more mature ie thanpe we are. And here ill talk about the legacy of the war in the context of the balkans. And its true that most of the balkans gained some form of independence after the treaty of berlin of 1878. F and some of the issues that resurfaced after world war i were already figured there. The big issue, of course, was minorities. Because theties populations hadn so mixed, that after National Borders were drawn, something dr hadaw to be done about minoriti. And places like bulgaria or gr greeceeece started developing ah regulations initially, what to do with those who were differene from the nation. But its really the end of world war i with its emphasis on protecting minorities that balk forced thesean postbull cans states to articulate some sort of framework for dealing with those who are different from the hedgemonic nation. On paper, that was wonderful. Because all of a sudden muslims, for example, in bulgaria were v given a special statute. Quite a bit of autonomy to take care of their religious, property, affairs. They had to they had a democratic system of electing representatives to communal organization. On but thats. Came along with monitoring. You know, around the time every single minority newspaper, newsa whether it was greek, ledeno, turkish, armenian, it had to be filed by the police. Aut respectingho bulgaria authoriti, later on greek authorities or turkish authorities, once you u defined a minority, youre creating a colony of the state. So in fact, the establishment of these minority regulations, while they were intended to ensure democratic rights, in fact led to stricter monitoringn of people who were not members of the dominant nationa. Ear theres always fear to this day that if slafs in greece or turks in bulgaria, if theyre given n some sort of rights, that would lead to the loss of territory. E this is sort o of the other maj legacy in world war i, not only in the balkans, but in the middle east. This tight link between population and sovereignty. You know, the big, of course, example is the exchange between woorld war i, that sort of solidified this soi tight link between territory population and sovereignty. N but even after that, there were numerous smaller regulated migrations. And whenever, forgra example, tr went to turkey, or bulgarians ct came to bulgaria, they were always settled in border e of regions. Because withra respect to centr authorities, once you have nationals in border regions, youre skuecuring not only your borders, but youre making sure your borders will never be loste again. Re its interesting how this kind of conception of sovereignty can be traced in, you know, demographic surveys. You cande really see the spreadf population after world war i changing, because of this conception that you have to secure borders with populations. Day that concentrated ions populations would lead to the ls loss of territory. And of course, theres a his historical relevanceto to that. But if we take the legacy of the war to the present day, well e see that there are all sorts of diplomatic negotiations about connected to nationalism. Anond whenever two governments t come tos a conflicting point, theres always reference to history, what happened back in world war i in particular, and with regulated migrations. So some of the political olitic sanctions that we see nowadays,w iad think we can directly tracei these minority regulations after world war i. Rld war and now ill stop with that. Liz, youre next. Good afternoon. Ou a im going to speak about sort of more of the immediate es consequences, or legacies of thg war, particularly for global i migrants. I think what i have to say paralegals with what professor on the eve of world war i, transatlantic migration reached a remarkable high point of over 2. 1 Million People. World war is major significancs for me, and other historians tet interested in the history of International Migration is that the war marked a turning point, during which a fairly integrated Global Economy of people and prc products shiftedts quite precipitously towards a more protectionist one, that increasingly closed the worlds border to mobile people. Le. During what historians call thef age of mass migration, the almost centurylong epic lo starting in the 19th century, millions of people are on the e move leaving their homelands, pushed and pulled by the expansion of global capitalism, labor demands, famines and violence and new transportationr and communication technologies. H while theil u. S. Did not receivf the majority of international migrants, the country did receive more migrants than any y other single country, or coun colonial territory during this period. Trinto as europe descended into war, the u. S. Rethought its tionsh relationship to the rest of thet world. In part, because americans discovered that the rest of the world was in america. Erica. So during the first decades of the 20th century, over 9 Million People arrived to the United States. Rge the large majority of these immigrants came from europe. From countries on both sides of the conflict that had engulfed e european nationsd and their the colonies byko 1914. Before the war, the u. S. Had been somewhat clueless about immigrants foreign relations. , that is, immigrants cultural, l familial, economic and political ties to their homeland. Immi the reality that the immigrants came to and existed in the u. S. , but remained in a transnationalt world that tied them intimately to their homelands did not fit well into this sort of myth of isolationism, that had factored so centrally in u. S. Nation building. Y so world war i kind of burst this myth of isolationism apart. Rendering immigrants ties, and through them, the u. S. s ties t the rest of the world visible, and visibly treacherous. So in the context of the increasing chaos and destructios in europe, the u. S. s eared foreignborn population appeareo increasingly dangerous to Many Americans, who saw u. S. Nationa identity and sovereignty threatened by immigrants enduring transnational ties. Immigrants indeed faced a lot om pressure to melt into the u. S. Melting pot during and after the war. Gve five decades worth of zenophobic sentiment took on new intensity after 1914. During the war the hyper national 100 americanism ment movement, combined with pseudoscientific ideas about racial difference, and a growing hysteria over foreign radicals, to tip the scales towards immigration restriction as the most effective way of protecting the u. S. And her citizens from a suspect world. A regime of restriction that tt began in the late 19th century, and was aimed at mostly immigrants from china and other asian countries, culminated in three laws passed by congress an during and immediately after the war. The 1924 immigration act which used a racially discriminatory u quota system to drastically numb reduce the number of southern and Eastern European immigrants, while perfecting asian e exclusion, represented the closing of u. S. Gates to transatlantic and transpacific migrations. A closing that wouldnt be be really pried open until 1965. And yet, the u. S. Was in no way exceptional in intensifying itss focus on its borders in the he early 20th century. The u. S. Pioneered in legislation to selectle immigrad by race, and to exclude ethnic groups. Ado policies werpte eventually adopd by other empires and their colonies as well as countries in the western hemisphere, ies in including mexico and canada, both which experienced diplomatic pressure by the u. S. To close their gates and borders. The increasingly global qualityl ofity restrictions on mobile pee during and after world war i, a conflict that both, of course, dislodged but fortified borders, reveals the extent to which borders and the people who movee across them played and continue to play in nationbuilding projects b. Proj so its no surprise that the t years witnessed a trend toward the consolidation of National Borders globally. As well as, of course, challenges to these consolidations by nation states, by multiethnic populations, and by migrants everyday movements. While immediately after the war during the 1920s, migration ntea resumed until the globalwide s. Depression. The postwar world saw a universalizing of restrictive regimes in the form of, for example, more rigid internal and International Passport controls, deportation drives, the massiven population exchanges that dr. E mirkova mentioned. Mentione and general restrictions not tin just on immigration, but also or amigration, the ability to exit or leave a nation. The in the era of high nationalism g characterizing the postworld d war i period, the assumption that National Borders were inviable, and the rights derivedhts from a persons citizenship, rather than from his or her s or humanity, proved, of course, particularly prop attic for the citizenshipless or stateless people that the war produced. The war, the following foll globalwide depression, and then rising nationalisms during the 1930s indeed exhibited obvious signs of a globalization of backlash, that endured until thd end of the cold war, when a new International Order supported a move towards a liberalization of borders. So while immigration estric restrictions were part of a longer trend towards border er control linked to nationalism ie the mid to late 19th century, world war i really strengthened this trend, fostering a new era of restriction, a new era of er fear of mobile peoples, that stood in stark contrast to the 19th century. Ironically, in america, it was only after massive restrictionst on ritransatlantic and ansatl transpacific migrations achieved their intended effect that the u. S. Began to celebrate itself as a nation of immigrants, which, of course, endures today as one of the most common ways h that the u. S. Has defined d its itself, defined its history, and, of course, defined its exceptionalism. So i want to end by just turning to immigrants and the United States to discuss how the war affected immigrants transnational connections during theg war. The w so u. S. Entrance into the war h had a paradoxical effect of assimilating immigrants into the larger u. S. National policy, while simultaneously awakening and intensifying immigrants ties to their homelands across the ocean. E war the war gavega the opportunity r many first and Second Generation immigrants to prove their ve americanism and patriotism during a time when their loyalties were deeply in question. G bet perhaps Nothing Better this illustrates this than the over a half a Million Immigrants drafted into military service during the war. E including many immigrants who o had not yet declared their intention to naturalize, and nd therefore, were technically exempt from the draft. T but who waived the right of wav exemption and allowed themselves to be drafted. Other first and Second Generation immigrants paraded their support for the u. S. S. Effort by buying war bonds, doe donating time and money to wartime organizations, rticip participating in patriotic nd celebrations, and working in warrelated industries. War with about 18 of the u. S. Military foreign born during world war i, the military had to adjust. It adjusted to its multiethnic, multilingual army that fostered a sense of conformity in americanness, but also in a waa that recognized and even respected immigrants ethnic traditions and loyalties. The remarkable sensitivity and sympathy that the u. S. Military displayed for the dual and identities for its immigrant ethnic soldiers, mixed the Nativist Movement during and after the war, all the more kini of surprising and paradoxical. So while world war i provided immigrants a platform for displaying their patriotism towards their adopted country, it also simultaneously provided a way for migrants to for demonstrate support for their p homelands. And eiindeed, these two of expressions of loyalty and na National Identification were not mutually exclusive. Many immigrant groups had much to gain, or lose in the war. Lis, polish, jewish, serbian, czech, hoped that world war i would result in independent homelands, as part of a longstanding deo sporic national dream, that or h woulder be for some groups and t realized for others. Iden identifying as exiled and oppressed peoples, many immigrants left europe precisele because they had been marginalized by powerful european empires. Margin yet once they were in the u. S. , they continued to operate in transnational worlds, where thee peoples in politics of their th homelands and regions loomed large. Lar immigrants cultural and tical sometimes explicitly political expressions caused signal to some anglo americans that migrants were unasimable, rest creating a need for restrictive immigration limitations. At rarely did immigrants foreign y relations actually threaten american sovereignty, and in mostmo cases immigrants nationalism and ethnic consciousness in the u. S. T coexisted with immigrant assimilation into american society. The history o of immigration during world war i shows immigrants combining their ethnic and american identities s and causes in ways that position them solidly in two cultures. So just to conclude, world war i confirmed, i think, to Many Americans the dangers of what a open, unregulated border could b mean for the future of their country. Ture a country where the myth of isolationism had sort of blinded men americans to the ways in which the u. S. Was very much ve connected to the rest of the world through its numerous immigrants. Rous world war i made visible immigrn immigrants foreign relations, d and more than ever americans perceived these homeland links as dangerous. Danger in part, because they reminded y the country of the disorder, and the annihilation overwhelming europe. E u. S. May have kind of led the way in restricting immigration during and after the war, the laws spoke of global shift toward a world increasingly fearful and hostile of mobile people. Sing okay. Ill stop there. I. Thank you thinking of immigration, not just america, of course, think o of zionism in the former empire and how big an issue that was, s as the allies are carving up the arab areas of the former autumn empire. Im thinking of the foreign e issue, too. Ty anna was talking how that resonates today. I have a close friend who is hungarian, and to him the treatf of trenal, which transferred a good hunk of hungary to romania, is as if it happened yesterday. T it is still ever present in yesr their mind. Dain the you see it on their propaganda s websites and everything else. Some of these issues are still very much with us. To maybe someone can talk more the about that, how the minorities are still an issue in many till countries in the balkans. This area that everybody desires, and everybody claims. And its also a place where actually migrant populations are always settled. Right. Gr macedonia . Greece and bulgaria. This triangle. Right. Yes. Time for questions. Comments and questions, please. As you can see, we still hava a number of speakers here. And we have a variety of other expertise not represented on thp panel. Were all happy to answer your questions, too, if you want to direct them to us. D to k iee wanted to keep going wits the fascinating minority issue its close to my heart. Im actually married into a family of bulgarianturkish t im migrants. It comes up a lot in family history. The point i wanted to make, ande you two can both obviously ob comment as you like, what i at i often hear from students writing papers and this sort of thing, is this generalized poor minori minority peoples and selective treatment and the european o hypocrites and so on. I see wh i see where theyre coming from. What i do try to condition thist critique with is a little bit os detail about where some of the u groups came from thatps actualle were offered states. That is to say, if you look at o the treaty of berlin, romania contributes troops to the russian war. Serbia actually declared war before russia did. Bulgaria, more of a matter of volunteers. In the First World War, you hea, about what about syria, what about iraq, mesopotamia, what ku about ther kurds, why werent they offered states. The interesting point is none or them contributed major allegiance to the allied war cause. Use. Zionists, you have the jewish ledge coming to syria. You also had for whatever it was worth, the british obviously made it sound like it was worth a lot more than it was, fizzo and the arabs, who were also attached in some fashion to the army. I guess in the balkans, it seems like its more a case of which side you chose, right . If you were on the right side or the war. S that that is what determined ita the decisions being made about the futures of these minority peoples, whatever wilsons tever rhetoric and ideals were based at least in part on contributions to the war effort with the hungarians, they lost. Thats their problem. Ing side but the arabs were on the winning side and they still lost. Did they . Well, i mean, sure, but the l bulgarians contributed quite a bit of effort bit in world war o they did t fight. Thats right. Im wondering how much if i just go quickly back in time. I there was a war between serbia d and bulgaria, in 1885, 86. In that particular war, sort ofs the Bulgarian Army surprised european powers that it actualle won rsbattles. Have a chance for anythi anything in particular. I mean, it didnt they didnt win the territory. They didnt take the territory they had claimed. [ inaudible ]. So what im trying to say isg the fact that you contribute troops, you can use it to argue to develop an argument why you lost. Ar but we all know that the armenians didnt get a state ora the kurds didnt get a state. The armenians didnt get a state and they contributed no, butb not the state that but they y didnt want the state that theye wanted, right . [ inaudible ]. But the kurds didnt get a state. So the fact that you have thaty soldiers on the ground is just one aspect. Grou i see your point. Of course, the classic example what happens to the o greeks, the greeks were winnerse and then they overreached, didnt they. Yes, thank you. My question is, when you have an army thats bogged down in less than sanitary conditions, and not particularly mobile, what i, the legacy of the mobility that we have now, compared to the acknowledged lack of mobility o then . Thats one question. The second is, did that lack of mobility and the disease that it fostered, was that a primary ing reason for ending the war, or il was it some mystical battle that forced armies to separate . O and that is aimed at the spanish flu, and the tens of thousands of people on both sides of the line that died of it. It. Were the countries just not able to continue fighting . Because of the lack of sanitation and the lack of Disease Control . That comes very late in the war, i guess. Maybe somebody in the audience can address that issue. Some c just to give you a its really late. I mean, really, the spanish flu epidemic comes after. Af so its after its in 1918, n and it really begins in august of 1918. So youre actually already kindi of past that stagend. If you want to look at my look at the you atello awe industry an border, those areas are 90 obliterated by august 1918. Theyre gone well before the flu. They i think we have to say that e question goes beyond the scope of this panel. L. Just to say then, in terms of hygiene and sanitation of the second world war, that the british fought, 21,000 dead, of whom 7,000 died from enemy action, the rest are disease. I hate to say, or sound facetious, but the greatwa wars are very, very hygienic war in some ways. Very few people died of diseasee apart from the foreign middle e. East. In the western front, the great advantage for logistics is the s front doesnt move very much. sr itsy very easy to supply peopld and rotate them through, so its not a big killer. H. That said, as you indicate, fluc kills a lot ofat people. But its really at the end of the war, and the war ends with the armistice essentially because germany is losing it. Really that simple. Its not because people get exhs exhausted or bored by it. They have lost the war. Professor mcculloch. You mentioned selfdetermination and independence. My question to you is, the american policy, have you a keen eye for the obvious, and it seems to me a a glaring hypocrisy that the United StatesGovernment Supports selfdetermination in s south ouvietnam, south korea anr south africa, but not for south carolina. Ny do you have any thoughts on that . [ laughter ] well, we all know woodrow wis wilsons racial views, and theyre apalling. Same thats why he went to ho chi minh. He cooperates in th the effort r deny the equality clause in od. Versailles. Thats the context of the time period, unfortunately. Franklin roosevelts better anticolonialist than woodrow s. Wilson, but again, there are as issues there as well. I think the Foreign Policy that a nation has reflects its domestic agenda. Tiag and i thinken thats the best t answer i can give for Something Like that. So the domestic agenda has to ao change. Thenge. Domestic mindset has t change before you see a change in the Foreign Policy. Dopolicy my grandmother defied her wellborn and wealthy family to leave home and become a nurse. My question is two parts. First of all, we know current bt Battlefield Medicine is making Great Strides for civilians. Tiod you mentioned Plastic Surgery. I id like to know what else camet out of the great war. Reat and secondly, although grandmother, in her late 20s, 0 right after the war, did managee to find an appropriate husband. So many millions of women did n not. Yet we didnt turn to polygamy g to that in europe. That in could you tell me more about the e lack of the men had on the women, both in lack of families, and in having to support themselves, because they did not have a husband to to support them . Su again, thats more of a ith european and british phenomenon than american. I mean, i can you speak to h that in Great Britain . Brita theres a wholein generation ofn women who will have no husbands and that can speak perhaps to t the Battlefield Medicine side o it. Or bill, or whoever you see the classic example from britain, on the western front. Of course, the medical corps, d from what i understand, medicine had made Great Strides. But youre no longer in the area of antibiotics yet. So you could have many people saved who had never been saved before. Thats why after the war, theres so many people who are disfigured veterans, who are a and even see it in something l like that very interesting play by dalton treblo, johnny get your gun, a triple amputee and they were able to save him. The only way he can communicate is by banging his head on the pillow in morse code. En but that would have been a war, for n the civil example. The subject o of medicine in world war i is so huge that it t would be really hard to give you an answer. Ll try a ill try to do it really quickly. The xray machine was invented before world war i, but it was only really understood during d world war i. You had to have those machines in order to look at where shrap shrapnel was in the body and that sort of thing. Bod so those sorts of advances were important. The whole birth of Plastic Surgery comes here. Here. Theres going to be a new motioi picture out next year on plastii surgery coming out of world war i. You have as well prosthetics. Roi all of thats developed at this time. And so its head trauma, all te those things that really begins with the kind of injuries that o come out of world war i. Certainly nursing is so es important. Nter theres an interesting thing n about nursing in world war i, is that oftentimes doctors really couldnt do anything, because the wounds were so extensive. The men were just going to die. And so doctors come out of worlr war i feeling really inept. Whereas, nurses really could help people. Lp p they could be with them as they died. Died and so women really get a boost in terms of feeling important it that context. In terms of marriage, boy, illr let mara answer that. I assume well, ill just give it to her. The obvious answer is a sweri really long answer in s a lot o ways. But many women are the aspec of the generation is that what you do have, i think more than n what women are going to do because they dont have partners, is the growth of demographic policies under the e fascists, that are really influenced by the fact that y theres this sense that there is not a generation growing up, that there might have been. Migh its this idea of the lost generation. And if you think about systems of women are the ones who are left stateless. Sta women dont have their own citizenship. So that women are left stateless. Those are the bigger problems, too, in the legal realm. Real so theres a huge variety of about. We could talk about. One more thing. Let lets not forget the psychological side of all of this. One of the enduring legacies of many veterans of the war was shell shock. And of course, that leads to Greater Development of psychiatry. We have the characters of miss gallo way. We have the novels of pat barkei discussing these issues. So theres another side of this issue, right . We have time for one or two more questions. Yes. Mo m how historically accurate was t the novel all quiet on the ietn western front, and did it promot pe any sort of sympathy r germans in general . I dont know how much sympathy it promoted, but it produced sympathy for those who were opposed to warfare. Its the classic antiwar novel. Its one of several novels he t. Wrote. Theres a sequel called the road back, and then three comrades. I think its mosta interestin how it was it had a greater influence as a film. I remember seeing it the first time i was devastated by the realism of it. Ed b and it certainly reinforced gre pacifism for a great many people. Of course, others like the nazis hated it. Because it did not glorify war. R when they were trying to show that in germany, they tried to disrupt the theatrical off performances. They tried to set off smoke uld bombs and stink bombs so people would leave the theaters. E its a classic novel, obviously, and classic film, one of many e great films about world war i. N and more ofg them are coming o. My favorites is past glory. The flip side of that, from the german perspective, of course, is the storm of steel. Which gives this sense. If you put those two novels together, you have the one classic antiwar and classic aggression. Im not sure the overall sense m of literature was any kind of o sympathy for germany. Were going to have one last question. Ue im honored to get the last question. Thank you. Can any of you talk about the iraq area, and the effects of the First World War, and the minorities of that area, and ho thats led to the current problems we have . Searching for a caliphate . We need to have a conference for that. Iraq was originally a british r mandate after the First World War. And britain was going to use that basically it wasnt as h much oil yet as much fear of ssn maybe russian aggression toward. India. By the early 1920s, it was nsure because of local insurgencies, actually, that it was turned over with prince fizel, who had tried to become syria, was now installed king of yeah, but kicked out by the french. And from syria, which was their mandate. Nobody asked the arabs what they thought about this, of course. And he was fizel was sent toe independent iraq, but under a lot of there were a lot of br ties toit britain. Its like jordan. There was significant ties to the colonial power. But thats a very big issue. Thank you all very, very much. [ applause ] youve been watching cspans American History tv. We want to hear from you. Follow us on twitter, connect with us on facebook at facebook. Com cspan history, or leave comments, too. And check out our upcoming programs at our website cspan. Org history. Here on cspan3, all this week were featuring American History tv programming,g andav wed like to get your thoughts l on our shows. Email us at American History tv cspan. Org to leave your comments and suggestions. Throughout 2014, cspan cities tour feature the history of communities throughout the c country, with the help of our local cable partners. Heres a look at one of those cities. Ut we are on the ninth floor of the Memorial Library and special collections at the university of wisconsin madison. In the middle of an exhibit called 1914 then came al of t armageddon. The goal of this exhibit is to r commemorate the 100year anniversary of the outbreak of the war. Different artifacts related to not only wisconsins role in the war, but also what happens happening in each combatant country, when the conflict bega in the summer of 1914