Government Manipulation In Ww1 Research Paper

Government Manipulation of Grief During WWI
At the start of World War I, in August 1914, very few observers thought that the war would turn into the blood bath that it became. Not only civilians, but generals as well thought the war would be over by Christmas of 1914 (CITE HERE). However, the combination of old war strategy – such as large charges across open land and trenches – and new weapon technology–such as machine guns– led to a stalemate between the Allied and Central Powers. This stalemate lasted for four years and led to an enormous amount of causalities never seen before in history, approximately 10 million total (Prost). For the citizens not fighting in the war, the number of casualties was hard to cope with. On the first day alone

Words like “duty”, “nobly”, and “hero” were often used in obituaries, and magazine and newspaper articles, in the hope that meaning and purpose would be given to the horrific deaths (Damousi 368). However, this elevated rhetoric was not only applied to the actions of the soldiers. In order to encourage support from the citizens back home, the rhetoric was also applied to them. This is shown in the November 1914 issue of The Family Journal in a column titled “Smiling through their tears’; the scenario is a family grieving for their son: “It wasn’t that they were not suffering agony for their personal loss, but they were very glad that they had given their best – yes, the very blood of their hearts – for the cause of Right” (Acton 22). The language in this column, acknowledges the pain that families are feeling, but also implants the idea that they’re making a necessary sacrifice for the good of the country and should be proud of that. Rhetoric like this had an effect on the population. An Australian mother of two soldiers, Ellen Derham said “I want no Victoria Cross – I want my son” but they later said she was “thankful that my son is not and never has been a coward and I know you will do whatever you consider your duty” (Damousi 369). Derham also wrote “I am weeping now for you both but oh my son I am proud that my sons

An example of this rhetoric was in a local newspaper, the Barnsley Chronicle. After the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the Chronicle recognized the extreme loss the locals were feeling but then wrote that the brave women of Barsley “will show the same fortitude under affliction as is being displayed everywhere by the women of England” (Jalland). Something specific of note in the Chronicle’s rhetoric, is that they say the women of the town will show the same fortitude, the use of ‘will’ implies that they have already made up their minds even if they have not talked with every single grieving woman in the town. This implication doesn’t give women the choice themselves as to how they will deal with their grief in the eyes of the public, because if they show anything other than the same fortitude as other women are showing, then they will be disgraced because other women are showing more strength. This feeling of not being important or special enough to show as much grief is shown in the personal writings of bereaved family members. A grieving father wrote that “thousands of fathers are in the same position.” Similarly, a widow wrote, “I am only one in many hundreds” (Jalland). Writer and nurse Vera Brittain also wrote in regards to her fiancé, “But if he can face death let me show that I can face the fear of death, and work