Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: March 11, 2021 at 1:53:55 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Empire]: McClure on Fantauzzo, 'The Other Wars: The > Experience and Memory of the First World War in the Middle East and Macedonia' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Justin Fantauzzo. The Other Wars: The Experience and Memory of the > First World War in the Middle East and Macedonia. Cambridge > Cambridge, 2020. x + 248 pp. $99.99 (cloth), ISBN 978-1-108-47900-4. > > Reviewed by Bryan McClure (Western University) > Published on H-Empire (March, 2021) > Commissioned by Charles V. Reed > > In 1917, an anonymous soldier called "ALA" of the Queen's Own Royal > West Kent Regiment described in his regimental newspaper his fear of > the postwar world. In a fantasy world in Britain, a recreation of the > recruiting poster "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?" (1915), > he is asked to tell the story of his war. He explains that he dug > trenches and marched long distances, but his son wants to know if he > killed any Germans. His wife, on the other hand, wants him to tell > the children stories of Holy Land, a place ALA knows too well, as he > wrote his piece while campaigning in the Sinai and Palestine. > Awakened before he dreams of how he confronts his family, the story > of ALA, recounted by Justin Fantauzzo in his new book, hits at the > heart of the experiences British and Dominion soldiers had fighting > in Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the Balkans. The fear, > embarrassment, and anxiety ALA and his fellow soldiers felt over > their experience of the First World War represent a group of veterans > who desired to do their bit but have been clearly forgotten or > ignored by the wider public. > > Fantauzzo's book seeks to examine in two parts the ways the campaigns > in the Middle East and in Macedonia were experienced and remembered > differently by the soldiers who fought in them. Fantauzzo argues that > during and after the war, soldiers were "concerned about and fearful > that their sacrifice didn't measure up" to their comrades who fought > on the western front (p. 13). Soldiers fighting in these campaigns > were confronted with different physical and mental challenges that > were unique to their geographic location. Yet the fact they found > themselves outside the primary theater of war left them searching for > meaning in the conflict that saw them resonating with imperial ideals > and motivations that soldiers in France and Flanders had difficulty > connecting with. The desire to be recognized by society as having > participated equally in the war was not always satisfied. With the > war's conclusion, these soldiers continued to try and justify their > service by creating separate public and private memories by which > they were able to reconcile their service to society, and themselves. > In the end, though, the veterans and soldiers "were locked into a > somewhat hopeless struggle, a struggle to persuade those at home that > their campaigns were worthwhile contributions to the war effort" (p. > 224). Rather than recount the military history of each of these > campaigns, Fantauzzo leaves extensive footnotes for both recent > secondary works and primary accounts for readers to pursue the > strategies and maneuvers of the British armies. He displays a > significant grasp of recent historiography on British experiences of > the First World War, clearly placing his work within this much larger > context. Fantauzzo's analysis and argument use the work of Adrian > Gregory's "economy of sacrifice" to explore why soldiers were anxious > about fighting in these distant campaigns.[1] > > In his opening chapter, Fantauzzo explores the conditions of the > soldiers on the front lines. Here the geographic difficulties of > fighting in deserts, with their raging wind and sandstorms, deadly > strains of malaria, and lack of connections back home affected the > physical and mental well-being of British soldiers. These difficult > conditions were "central to the claim made by soldiers that they had > contributed equally to the empire's war effort" (p. 19). Fantauzzo > emphasizes the importance of remembering that these were for the most > part civilian soldiers who were not prepared for being away from home > for such a long period of time or to have limited contact with > family. The lack of regular mail due to long travel times and the > U-boat threat left many soldiers feeling emotionally strained. When > they did have leave, being limited to the cities of Salonika, > Alexandria, Cairo, and Basra caused confusion and difficulty as these > were viewed as uncivilized and alien places. > > Yet these different places allowed civilian soldiers to become > tourists at a time when only the wealthy of British imperial society > could visit these famous sites. Many took advantage to visit holy > sites, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem, while others visited > antiquities like the Sphinx. In no other theater of war could these > soldiers be tourists. The ability to become a tourist caused problems > as they had to justify their actions in relation to the war. > Fantauzzo argues that in all three campaigns, soldiers "engaged with > the colonial world in remarkably similar ways, suggesting that > imperialism was a major way that soldiers understood what they were > doing and how they were experiencing the First World War" (p. 53). > The wild bazaars, poor infrastructure, and seemingly backward ways > people lived, as though it were still biblical times, could only be > reconciled by taking a liberal imperial mind-set that they were here > to fix these undeveloped peoples. > > The civilizing mission of empire was used by soldiers to justify > their larger participation in the war. Fantauzzo seeks to show that > combat motivation and morale was more varied in these campaigns than > it was for soldiers on the western front. While the primary group was > a motivating factor, Fantauzzo argues that "a legitimate demand was > also needed" to sustain the fighting in these campaigns (p. 95). Here > the importance of these soldiers as civilians helps explain why many > desired to stay fighting on these fronts as they were perceived to be > less dangerous and safer than the western front. Others took a > bigger-picture understanding of the conflict and believed that > fighting against the Ottomans and Bulgarians would help limit the > Central Powers' ability to wage war elsewhere. The imperial mission > of civilization was used as well to justify their actions. The words > of their generals in the liberation of Baghdad and Jerusalem were not > just propaganda, but were felt by soldiers as accurate reflections of > why they fought. > > The need to establish meaning was necessary for soldiers as back home > they were often ignored or discredited as shirkers. Here, Fantauzzo > leans on Gregory's "economy of sacrifice" to explain the anxiety > soldiers felt as, "all soldiers had to be seen as suffering. And to > many at home, those outside the Western Front had not suffered > enough" (p. 142). Fantauzzo argues that soldiers from these other > fronts, no matter what meaning they attached to their experiences, > agreed that they were being forgotten or misrepresented by the home > front. The misunderstanding extended from the press to the families > of the soldiers themselves, as seen in the letters of Frank Doughty > Day, who fought to convince his father of the worth of his > soldiering. At the heart was the fact that they did not fight > Germans, who were the real enemy. To help convince the public, and > themselves, soldiers sought to prove they helped win the war by > highlighting the surrender of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire, the > first pieces to fall out of the Central Powers. > > On the return home, soldiers and some historians began a fight to > defend their war from a public that was questioning why the war had > been fought. The difficulty the veterans faced stemmed from both the > attention the western front continued to receive from society at > large as well as from the political establishment that was > retroactively condemning the campaigns in the Middle East and Greece. > The attack on the veterans became very public when "Bonar Law, during > the Conservative Party's campaign in the general election in 1922 ... > condemned the campaign in Mesopotamia, telling the press 'I wish we > had never gone there,'" spurring veterans to speak up (p. 168). Here, > Fantauzzo examines memoirs about the campaigns by authors who > struggled to ensure they would not be forgotten or misrepresented. > Compared to memoirs and other writings coming from veterans during > the interwar period, veterans of these campaigns clung to > explanations they developed during the war to explain themselves, > rejecting a growing disillusionment with the war. Fantauzzo argues > that the experience of campaigning, and seeking to confront the > anxiety of proving they had done their bit, created a different > outlook on the war for these veterans. Their work, though, was often > ignored or discredited, ensuring the western front remained the focus > of any war remembrance. > > While they were ignored publicly, veterans continued to maintain a > private memory of their war that was quite different from their > public activities. Moving from published memoirs, Fantauzzo presents > the creation of private memory in scrapbooks, arguing that these are > "almost entirely about the lighter side of their wartime experience, > namely travel, tourism, and camaraderie" (p. 207). Here the memory of > the war reveals the absence of anxiety over their war experience, as > there was no need to justify their war privately. Instead, the > veterans only needed and wanted to remember their experiences that > were positive. This created a more positive memory of their wartime > experience, as the scrapbooks are full of photographs that soldiers > had greater freedom to take while campaigning and on leave as > compared to soldiers on the western front. These scrapbooks displayed > a private memory that was joyful and showed happy days, a memory that > was being denied by the collective memory that pushed suffering and > communal mourning. > > The success of Fantauzzo's book rests on its grounding in soldier's > letters, diaries, newspapers, and personal mementos. The strong voice > of these veterans is displayed throughout the book and reveals the > large amount of research done. Fantauzzo remarks that this book came > out of his PhD dissertation and underwent a significant amount of > editing before publication, which is evident from the book's > readability. One element that the book could have explored further is > the interaction of these British and Dominion soldiers with fellow > imperial soldiers, particularly considering that most of the soldiers > in the Mesopotamian campaign came from India. Fantauzzo's discussion > of civilian populations shows how these citizen-soldiers viewed the > world they were fighting in, but he does not explore how they viewed > fellow soldiers from within the empire, a significant question given > the importance placed on liberal imperialism. > > Fantauzzo's book illustrates the varied responses and experiences > soldiers had of the First World War, pushing back against the > established narrative that dominates public memory. His book does a > great job revealing how the western front dominates the First World > War like an overbearing shadow. In a way, Fantauzzo's argument that > soldiers were obsessed with justifying their war in relation to the > western front also applies to historians trying to examine other > aspects of the conflict. The shadow of Flanders and France hangs over > every issue confronted by historians, as the public is seemingly only > able to understand the war through the tropes of the western front. > Fantauzzo shows how empire and the First World War were intrinsically > linked by the very soldiers fighting the war, and not just by the > political and military elite. The hold of the western front on the > memory of the war has removed the link between the war and empire > from the public's perception of the conflict, and for some historians > as well. Fantauzzo does an excellent job of not ignoring the western > front, but also not allowing it to overshadow the experiences he > explores in the book. His work permits us to see the importance of > the western front in a much larger context, especially how it worked > in one regard to obscure other memories of the imperial nature of the > First World War. > > Note > > [1]. Adrian Gregory, _The Last Great War: British Society and the > First World War_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 112. > > Citation: Bryan McClure. Review of Fantauzzo, Justin, _The Other > Wars: The Experience and Memory of the First World War in the Middle > East and Macedonia_. H-Empire, H-Net Reviews. March, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55635 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#7186): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/7186 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81261007/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
