This Border Regions because from the perspective of central authorities, once you have nationals in Border Regions, you are securing not only borders but you are making sure that that territory would never be aha again. So its very interesting how this kind of conception of sovereignty can be traced in demographic surveys. You can see the spread of population after world war i changing because of this conception that you have to secure borders with populations. That concentrated populations would lead to the loss of territory. Of course, theres a historical relevance to that n]xnc,fq,per. If we take the legacy of the war sv will see he legacy of the war that there are all sorts of diplomatic negotiations about not directly connected to nationalism. And whenever two governments come a conflicting point, history, what happened back in world war i in particular and with regulated and unregulated migrations. So some of the political tensions that we see nowadays i think we can directly trace to the minority regulations after world war i. I will stop at that. Liz, you are next. Good afternoon. More the immediate consequences or legacies of the war, particularly for global migrants. Actually, what i have to say i think parallels nicely with what discussed. On the eve of world war i, transatlantic migration reached a high point of over 2. 1 Million People. World war is significance for me and other historians 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 products shifted quite precipitously towards a more protectionist one that closed the worlds borders to mobile people. During what historians call the age of mass migration, the almost century long epic, millions of people were on the move leaving homelands, pushed and pulled by capitalism, labor demands, famine and violence and new transportation and communication technologies. While the u. S. Did not receive the majority of international migrants, the country did receive more migrants than any other single country or colonial period. As europe descended into war, the u. S. Rethought its relationship to the rest of the world. In part because americans discoverrd that the rest of the world was in america. So during the first decades of the 20th century, over 9 Million People arrived to the United States, the large majority of these immigrants came from europe. From countries on both sides of the conflict that had engulfed nations and their kol anies about 1914. Before the war, the u. S. Had been somewhat clueless about immigrants Foreign Relations, that is immigrants cultural, economic and political ties to their homelands. The reality that immigrants came remained in a transnational world that tied them to their homelands did not fit well into this sort of myth of isolationism that had factored so centrally in u. S. Nation building. So world war i burst this myth of isolationism apart, rendering immigrant ties and through them the u. S. ties to the rest of the world visible. And visibly treacherous. So in the context of the destrun in europe, the u. S. foreign run born population appeared americans who saw u. S. National identity and sovereignty threatened by immigrants enduring traps national ties. Immigrants faced a lot of pressure to melt into the u. S. Melting pot during and after the war. Five decades worth of accident phobic sentiment took on new intensity. During the war, the hypernational 100 americanism movement combined with pseudo scientific and hysteria over foreign radicals to tip the scales toward immigration restriction as the most effective way of protecting the u. S. And her citizens from a suspect world. A regime of restriction that began in the 19th century, that was aimed mostly at immigrants from china and other asian countries, culminated in three laws passed by congress during and immediately after the war. The 1924 immigration act, which used a racially discriminatory quota system to reduce the number of southern and Eastern European immigrants while perfecting asia exclusion really represented the closing of u. S. Gates to transatlantic and transpacific migration, closing that wouldnt be really pried open until 1965. ext t hahp hc and yet the u. S. Was in in way exceptional in intensifying its focus on its borders in the early 20th century. The u. S. Pioneered in legislation to selectwvb÷ immig biz race and to exclude various ethnic groups. However, similar policies were eventually adopted by other european empires and their kol anies as well as countries in the western hemisphere, including mexico and canada, both which experienced pressure by the touz close their gates and borders. The increasingly global quality of restrictions on mobile people during and after world war i, a conflict that both dislodged but fortified borders, reveals the extent to which borders and the people who move across them played and continue to play in nation building projects. So its no surprise that the years witnessed a trend toward challenges to the consolidations by nation states, by multiethnic populations and by mie grants ever day movements. After the war, International Migration resumed until the depression. The post war world saw a universalizing of restrictive regimes in the form of, for example, more rigid internal and International Passport control, deportation drives, the massive population exchanges that were mentioned. General restrictions, not just on immigration but also on emigration, that is the ability or the right to exit or leave a nation. In the era of high nationalism, characterizing the post world war i period, the assumption that National Borders were not violated and a persons rights derived from his or her smenship rather than his or her humanity proved particularly problematic for the citizenshipless or stateless people and refugees that the war produced. The war, the following global wide depression and then rising nationalism during the 1930s exhibited obvious signs of a globalization backlash that endured until the end of the cold war when a new International Order supported a move towards a liberalization of borders. While immigration restrictions were part of a longer trend towards border control, linked to nationalism in the mid to laid 19th century, world war i strengthen this trend. Fostering in restriction, a new era of fear of mobile people that stood in contrast to the 19th century. Ironically, in america, it was only after massive restrictions on transatlantic and transpacific migration achieved their affect 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 that the u. S. Has defined itself, defined its history and, of course, defined its exceptionalism. I want to n0 by just turning to immigrants in the United States to discuss how the war affected immigrants transnational connection during the war. U. S. Entrance into the war had sort of the paradox cal affect of assimilating immigrants into the larger u. S. National popity while atakening and intensifying ties to the homelands across the ocean. The war gave the opportunity for many first and Second Generation immigrants to prove their americ americanism during the time when they were in question. Perhaps Nothing Better illustrates this than the over half a Million Immigrants drafted into military service during the war. Including many immigrants who had not yet declared their intention to naturalize and therefore were technically exempt from the draft but who waved the right and allowed themselves to be drafted. Other first and Second Generation immigrants paraded their support for the u. S. Effort by buying war bonds, doe naying time and money to wartime organizations, participating in patriotic celebrations and working in warrelated industries. With about 18 of the u. S. Military foreign born during world war i, the military had to adjust. It adjusted to its multiethnic, multiling war army in ways that fosters conformity in americanness but also in a way that recognized and even respected immigrants ethnic tra digsz and loyalties. The remarkable sensitivity and sympathy that the u. S. Military displayed for the dual identities of its immigrant and ethnic soldiers makes the real and very oppressive Nativism Movement during and after the war all the more surprising and paradox cal. So while world war i provided immigrants a platform for displaying their patriotism towards their adopted country, it also sigh mul tape our list provuded ai with a for mie grarnts to demonstrate support for their homeland. These two expressions of loyalty and National Identification were not mutually exclusive. Many immigrant groups had much to gain or lose in the war. Polish, jewish, serbian, check, irish immigrants, for example, hoped that world war ip6nuz wou result in independent homelands as part of a long standing nationalist dream that would be realized for some groups and not realized for others. Identifying as exiled and oppressed peoples many immigrants left europe because they had been marginalized. And yet once they were in the u. S. , they continued to operate in transnational worlds where the peoples and politics of their homeland and regions loomed large. Immigrants cultural and sometimes explicitly political expressions of commitment to homeland causes signalled to some that migrants were unasimable. While providing clear evidence of the need for restrictive immigration legislation. Historians have shown, however, that rarely did immigrants Foreign Relations actually threaten american sovereignty. In most cases, immigrant nationalism and ethnic consciousness in the u. S. , it coexisted with asimulation into u. S. Society. The history of immigration during world war i shows immigrants combining their ethnic and american identities and causes in ways that possession them solidly in two cultures. Just to conclude, world war i confirmed to Many Americans the dangers of what an open, unregulated border could mean for the future of their country. A country where the myth of isolationism had blinded Many Americans to the ways in which the u. S. Was very much connected to the rest of the world through its numerous immigrants. World war i made visible immigrants Foreign Relations and more than ever americans perceived these homeland links as dangerous. In part because they reminded the country of the disorder and the annihilation overwhelming europe. While the u. S. May have kind of led the way in restricting immigration during and after the war, the laws bespoke a global shift towards a world increasingly fearful and hostile of mobile people. Ill stop there. Thank you. I think of immigration, not just america, of course. Think of zionism in the former empire and how big an issue that was as the allies are carving up the arab areas of the former ottomanvin empire. Im thinking of the minority issue. How that resonates today. I have a close friend who is hungarian. And to him, the treaty of treanol, which transferred a good hunk of hundred gary to romania, its as if it happened yesterday. Its ever present in their mind. You see it on their websites and everything else. Some of the issues are very much with us. Maybe you want to talk about that, how the immigrants the minorities are still an in addition many countries in the balkans. This area that everybody desires and everybody claims and its a place where i9c actuall migrant populations are always settled. Macedonia . In turkey, greece and bulgaria. Its this triangle. Right. Time for questions. Comments and questions, please. As you can see, we still have a number of the speakers here. We have a variety of other expertise not represented on the panel. Were all happy to answer yourp questions, too. If you want to direct thechl at all. I wanted to keep going with this fascinatie ining minority because i married into a family migrants. Its something that comes up a lot in family history. The point i wanted to make you can both obviously comment as you like. What i often hear from students writing papers is this kind of generalized lament, the poor minority people and the selective treatment and the european hypocrites and so on. I see where they are coming from. What i do try to condition this critique with is detail about where some of the groups came from that actually were offered states. That is to say, if you look at berlin, romania contributes troops. Serbia declared war before russia did. Bulgaria, its more the matter of volunteers. In the First World War, what about syria, iraq . What about the kurds . Why werent they offered states . The interesting point is that none of them actually contributed major legions or detachments to the war cause. Zionists, you have the jewish group. You had for whatever it was worth the british made it sound like it was worth more than it was, the arabs attached in some fashion to the army. The armenians had some. The balkans, its more which side you chose. If you were on the right side in the war, that that is what determined it. It may not have been arbitrary, that it to say decisions being made about the future of of the minority people, whatever wilsons rhetoric and ee deals, were based on contributions to the war effort. Of course, with the hungarians they lost. Thats their problem. The arabs were on a winning side and they still lost. Do you think . 6 n jordan. Well, i mean, sure. But the bulgarians contributed quite a bit of effort in world war i. So they did fight. Thats right. So im wondering how much if i go quickly back in time. There was a war between serbia and bulgaria in 1885. And in that particular war, sort of the Bulgarian Army surprised european powers that it actually won battles. But it didnt transfer to anything in particular. I mean, it didnt they didnt win the territory. They didnt take the territory they had claimed. So these what im trying to say is the fact that you contribute troops, you can use it to argue to develop an argument why you lost. But we all know the armenians didnt get a state or the kurds didnt no, but not the state that not the state they didnt want the state that they wanted, right . They were promised enormous right, right. So were the bulgarians. The kurds didnt get the fact that you have soldiers on the ground is just one aspect. I see your point. Of course, the classic example with what happened to the greeks, they were the winners and they overreached. Didnt they . Thank you. My question is, when you have an army thats bogged down in less than sanitary conditions and not particularly mobile, what is the legacy of the mobility that we have now compared to the acknowledged lack of mobility then . Thats one question. The second is, did that lack of mobility and the disease that it fostered, was that a primary reason for ending the war, or was it some mystical battle that forced armies to separate . 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. Were the countries just not able to continue fighting because of the lack of sanitation and the lack of Disease Control . I think it comes late in the war. I dont think any of us are qualified to answer that. Maybe some can address that issue. To give you its really late. I mean, really, the spanish flu epidemic comes after. So its off its in 1918 and it begins in august of 1918. So you are actually already kind of past that stage. I mean, if you want to look it from my research, if you look at the austrian border, those areas are 90 obliterated by august 1918. Theyre gone well before the flu. Andrew wants to contribute something. I think we have to say that that question goes beyond the scope of this panel. Just to say then that in terms of hygiene and sanitation, the Second World War, 21,000 dead of whom 7,000 die from enemy action, the rest are disease. I hate to say the great war is a very, very hygienic war in some ways because few people die of disease. In the western front, the great advantage for logistics is the front doesnt move very much. Its very easy to supply people and rotate them through. So its not a big killer. That said, as you indicate, flu kills a lot of people, but its really the end of the war. The war ends with the armistice because germany is losing. Its really that simple. Its not because people get exhausted. They have lost the war. Professor, you mentioned selfdetermination and independence. My question to you is, the american policy, you have i have a keen eye for the obvious. And it seems to be a glaring hypocrisy that the United StatesGovernment Supports selfdetermination in south vietnam, south korea, south africa but not for south carolina. Do you have any thoughts on that . Well, we all know Woodrow Wilsons racial views and thats appalling. Thats the same reason he wouldnt talk to ho chi minh. He cooperates in the effort to deny the japanese the racial equality clause. So you have to look at these things in the context of the time period. Unfortunately, thats the context of the time period. Roosevelt is a better anticolonialist than wilson. But there are issues there as well. I think the Foreign Policy that a nation has reflects its domestic agenda. And i think thats the best answer i can give for Something Like that. Domestic agenda has to change. The domestic mindset lahas to change before you see a change in Foreign Policy. My grandmother defied her wealthy family to leave home and become a nurse. My question is two parts. First of all, we know current Battlefield Medicine is making Great Strides for civilian. You mentioned Plastic Surgery. I would like to know what else came out of the great war. Secondly, although grandmother in her late 20s right after the war did manage to find an appropriate husband, so many millions of women did not. Yet we didnt turn to pa lig my for that in europe. Could you tell me more about the effect that the 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 support them . I think that again, its more of a british phenomenon than american. I mean, can you speak to that in Great Britain . Theres a generation of women who will have no husbands. Anet can speak to the Battlefield Medicine side of it. Bill or whoever. Sglu s you see the classic example of vera who served as a nurse. Of course the medical corps, from what i understand, medicine had made Great Strides. But you are no longer you are not 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 you see it in Something Like that very interesting play, johnny get your gun and they were able to save him. ,i banging his head on the pillow in morse code. That would have been impossible in the civil war. The subject of medicine and world war i is so huge that it would be hard to give you an answer. I will try and do it quickly. The xray machine was invented before world war i, but it was only really understood during world war i. You had to have the machines in order to look at where shrapnel was in the body and that sort of thing. Those sorts of advances were important. The whole birth of Plastic Surgery comes here. Theres going to be a new Motion Picture out next year on Plastic Surgery coming out of world war i. You have as well prosthetics. All of thats developed at this time. So its head trauma, all those things really begins with the kind of injuries that come out of world war i. Certainly, nursing is so important. Theres an interesting thing about nursing in world war i is that often times doctors really couldnt do anything because the wounds were so extensive. The men were just going to die. So doctors come out of world war i feeling really inept. Whereas, nurses really could help people. They could be with them as they died. And so, women really get a boost in terms of feeling important in that context. In terms of marriage, boy, i will let mara answer that. I assume obviously the obvious answer is a long answer in a lot of ways. Many women had the aspect of the generation is that what you do have i think more than what women are going to do because they dont have partners is the growth of demographic policies under the fascists that are reallyo influenced by the fact that theres this sense that there is not a generation growing up that there might have been. Its the idea of the lost generation. If you think about systems of women are left stateless. Women dont have their own citizenship. Women are left stateless. Those are the bigger problems, too, in the legal realm. Theres a huge variety of things we could talk about. One more thing. Lets not forget the psychological side of all this. One of the enduring legacies of many veterans was shell shock. c Greater Development of psychiatry. We have the characters mrs. Dalloway. We have the novels of pat barker discussing these issues. So theres another side of this issue. We have time for one or two more questions. How much how historically accurate was the novel all quiet on the western front, and did it promote any sort of somebody for germans in general . I dont know how much sympathy it promoted, but it promoted sympathy for those who were opposed to warfare. Its the classic antiwar novel. Its one of several he wrote. Theres a sequel. I think its interesting how it had a greater influence as a film. I remember seeing it the first time i was just devastated by the realism of it. It reinforced pacifism for a great many people. Of course, others like the nazis hated it because it did not glorify war. When they were trying to show that in germany, they tried to disrupt performances. They would set off smoke bombs and stink bombs so people would leave the theaters. Its the classic novel, obviously. Its classic film, one of many great films by the First World War. Theres more coming out. One of my favorites is path of glo glory. From the german perspective. If you put the two novels together, you have the one classic antiwar and one classic german aggression. Im not sure the sense of literature was that was any kind of sympathy for germany. We will have one more one last question. Im honored to get last question. Can any of you talk about the iraq area and the effects of the First World War in the minorities of that area and how that led to the current problems we have, searching iraq was originally a british mandate after the First World War. And britain was going to use that it wasnt as much oil yet as fear of maybe russian aggression towards india. Aggression towards india. Because of local insurgencies, actually. It was turned over with prince fizle was king of but kicked out by the french and from syria, which was their mandate, nobody asked what the arabs what they thought about this, of course. He was sent to iraq. Independent iraq but under a lot of there was a lot of ties to britain. Its like jordan, there was n power. Thats a very big issue. You have been watching cspans American History tv. We want to hear from you. Here on cspan3, we are featuring American History tv programming. We would like to get your thoughts on our shows. Throughouta7a to 2014, cs city tours features cities throughout the country. Here say lois a look at one of cities. We are on the ninth floor of Memorial Library at the university of wisconsin madiso. , the goal of this exhibit is to commemorate the 100year anniversary of the outbreak of the war by highlighting the collections that the university of wisconsin Madison Library system as well as from the Wisconsin Historical society. Different artifacts related to not only wisconsin hes role in the war but what was happening in each country when the conflict began in the summer of 1914. The war broke out in the summer of 1914 after ferdinand, the heir to the flothrown was assassinated by a member of a serbian military group called the black hand. His goal was to bring all serbs independent of control. V assassination of the heirutn to the thrown, austria pressure on sush ya to allow them to conduct an investigation. Austriaa acquiesced except austria be able to use their own police in serbian territory. This led to a standoff and eventually a military confrontation. When austria mobilized against serbia, russia declared that they would help defend the serbs and germany asked russia to stop their mobilization process and threatened they would declare war. Down. Germany declared war and then theres sort of a cascading affect which then france stepped in in support of russia and then when germany invaded france by way of belgium, britain declared war in order to defend belgian neutrality. We chose to focus on the western front. Thats where the strengths are. A lot of territory on germanys role as well as what was happening in belgium and france. So we wanted to bring these sources to the floor and really sort of focus on just the western combat experience. These first cases here in the collection focus on the outbreak of the war in different country. Here is what were calling germany mobilizes for war. Within the case you can see different images. Crowds of assembled in berlin to receive news that germ any was declaring war ofu russia and right here the kaiser is creating a crowd from the royal palace and the kaiser is sitting on his horse. Some of the more interesting aspects of what we have here for material culture objects that andy had donated. Have two different pins that were that were passed around in germany during the war. These include a pin calling on germans not to forget the kol anies. It was a reminder they were fighting for holdings in africa. And then theres a pin here to show solidarity with the combatants. A little pin of a german helmet which a person could wear to signify their loyalty to the war effort. One theme that was really heavily represented in the collections was antigerman propagan propaganda. A lot of this in the u. S. Focused on the]. n german invas once again the idea that germany has violated neutrality and thats reflected in the pamphlet. Crimes in which a bloody knife is stabbing through the treaty. But also we have a couple of nice images. For example, this image from reality in which the germans are bombing two belgian children and calling it military necessity and then this pamphlet given out in new york, thousands of children of france are crying to you to save them from german frightfulness. Here the idea is again that germany is committing crimes against civilians, theyre not conducting an honorable war. In conjunction with that, there are lots of books that are put out against germany that claim to either tell the truth about what germany is doing in belgium, tell the truth about the german war aims or to highlight atrocities against p populati populations. Theres germany versus civilization. and then i like this book. Its all about how theres something flawed within german culture that led them to start this war and to engage in an unjust conflict against the belgian civilian population. Whats interesting about the First World War is that the print culture is so advanced that even in putting together this exhibit, we were swimming in sources. Its not the first time that propaganda is used. But a lot of the propaganda in this case and the belgian case is aimed at trying to get americans to put pressure on the civilian government to join the war. America is neutral until 1917. These materials are trying to show america is fighting an unjust conflict. Thats evil represented by germany. It needses to be stopped. Before further damage is done to the belgian and french civilian populations. All of the cases are over stated. Its true that germany would commit reprisals like if there was a sharp shooter they would find them and shoot unarmed civilians. But there are lots of stories. The idea that germanss are bayonetting belgian babieses which is not true. This leads it is allies to down play storieses of german atrocitieses because the case was so over stated in the First World War. Mood of the country at the beginning of the conflict to get at the message of the different sources from 1914. In the case of france its a defensive war. France has been attacked by germany. They need to defend the homeland. You have for example a french soldier p in the woods saying no one shall pass. The idea being that germany has taken part of france but they will not gain any more territory. In these images its soldiers from paris going to confront the western front. There were a lot of him woirmem written. Popular in france is a recount of combat experience. In germany it is praised as a time to be heroic. This looks at the trauma of combat. The ways in which it is not glorious. Whats interesting is that they come after the war but the combat experience is not widely speculated during the world warment with the french case, the german case, the clouds gathered. There is a sense that all political differences need to be set aside. France calls this the sacred union. In germany the kaiser says i no longer see Political Party s. tn the idea being that united we can conquer our foes quickly. First world war is none of the countries had a territorial stake on the other countries. The war germany had in mind when they engaged france and russia, but no real legal reason to attack france after declaring war on russia was the war of 187071 in which germany won quickly against the french army. The idea we would be home by christmas is something all sides shared. Germany believed they would on oh them and take a territory. Nobody manualed that when the armies met it would lead to a stalemate and bloodshed of previously unknown scales. There is a sense of foreboding, knowledge that this welcome a confrontation. Just in the first weeks. The armies were equipped with effective defensive weapons but not highly effective offensive weapons. Things like barb ed wire, the repeater rifle, machine gun are good for holding a position but not necessarily useful for breaking through. Each side attempted to find new offensive weapons in order to counter the very strong defensive positions that were opposite them. These included things like poison gas, the flame thrower, the tank. Putting guns on airplanes. All of which were aimed ata trying to get over the trencheses in some wayment. We have tried to highlight war techniques so we have a map of what it was like to be in the interior of a tank. This tank required six men and they were in cramped conditions. There were skis set up. They had to learn to fire on skisment one of the biggest results of the changeses in warfare were casualty figures. 1f it drove up the number of dead. They were trying to make the sacrifice mean something. To come up with a reason for all the deaths. So many young men had given their liveses in defense of something. That it meant something. They were trying to come up with a wonder weapon, a new only the to finish them off. They theeded to force a decisive defeat. Needed to defeat the enemy in such a way they would have no choice but to surrender. Both sides were surprised by the number of oh casualtieses. Thats the origin of the anxiety. That it wouldnt be a quick fight. That this would be an earth changing event that would shift the balance of power of europe but also shift the way this in which european was structured. The germans realized they couldnt stop the western front once america joined. They asked a civilian government to form to sue for peace. The kaiser went into exile which was part of the demand. The treaty of oh versailles, the germans had to pay a war indemnity, say they were responsible for the war. So reimburse france and britain for the cost. Germany lost their the colonies, the european territorieses after a alsace seasoned lorraine which o]ipj to the Second World War because when hitler is campaigning hes promising to change this treaty which germanx viewed as unfair. They didnt see themselves as responsible for the outbreak of war. To learn more about the cities on the tour and watch videos visit cspan. Org local content. This is American History tv on cspan3. With live coverage of the house on cspan and the senate on cspan 2 we show you the most relevant hearing and Public Affairs events. On weekends its home to American History tv with programs that tell the nations story including the civil war withs 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. American artifacts, touring museums and sites to discover what artifacts reveal about americas past. History bookshelf with the best known American History writers. The presidency looking at the policieses and legacies of the nations commander in chiefs. Legacy and real america, featuring or kooifl films. Cspan3, created by the cable tv