Commemorating good deal of censorship was practiced.

Commemorating good deal of censorship was practiced.

Commemorating the actions of those who served in WorldWar I took many forms in its attempt to ease the sufferingand losses inflicted by the war. The creation of memorialsserved several purposes and with time, the meaningsassociated with them changed, as did the purposes withwhich they served. Support groups were formed to aidthose in need whose lives became radically changed by thewar, and in an effort to commemorate their service.

Without aleving the pain completely, commemorationserved to ease the tremendous burden of guilt, sorrow, andresponsibility to those whose lives were now changedforever.World War I memorials generally fell into three separatecategories based upon the time of their creation. The firsttype of memorials were those which were created in theyears preceding 1918. These memorials scattered thelandscape and were created and developed at thecommunity level. The erection of commemorativememorials to the war served as a unifying symbol of thecommunity spirit and as a centerpiece with which to rallyaround.

They also served as a physical statement againstthose who may offer dissenting opinions as to thecommunities involvement in the war effort. The moral highground was thus established in the symbolism of a unitedeffort. They also served to support the community’s braveyoung men who were off fighting gallantly for the securityand preservation of it’s ideals and in essence the communityitself. Local memorials also served to inspire and motivatethose who labored in industry dedicated to the war effort.

It created a sense of purpose and a realization that whatthey were working for had a larger meaning and purpose.Local war memorials also served asrallying points for the enlistment of soldiers. The statuesquesoldier brazenly dashing to war was accompanied withlistings of locals who had enlisted. This inspired evengreater enlistment while creating a public record of scorn tothose who chose to ignore their “duty.” As the war continued past a glorious moment and quickvictory, the memorials took on more of a role of a museum.

The collection of combat memorabilia increased.Photographs, books, and art describing the war continued.Descriptions of the weapons of war and the style ofwarfare that was taking place on the front lines wasrequested, however in order to preserve the dignity of thewar, a good deal of censorship was practiced. Accounts ofthe brutality were circulating back to the homefront throughletters and personal accounts of those who had returned.Government regulation of the memorials however,determined that in order to maintain support for the warand to quell opposition to the countries war efforts, thememorials would not portray an accurate description ofwhat was happening to the local communities fallen sons infar away lands.In the decade following Armistice, the second set ofmemorial arose with less of a heroic bias. These memorialstended to be oriented around churches and civic sites.

Themeaning behind these memorials was entirely different fromthose erected during the war. There was no longer a needto rally support for enlistment and production for the warmachine. The grieving families now became the center ofattention as a desperate need for explanation andjustification of their losses required attending.

Thecommunities, after enduring such losses, also needed to findjustification. The evaluation as to their accomplishments inwar with relation to their losses was difficult to weigh infavor of the war. The losses were paid for both in lives andresources. The living was then given the chance to honorthe dead at the memorials, while provided an opportunityto pay their respects. An unspoken silence, a bowed head,or a fought back tear were all signs of the indebtednesswith which the living had in honoring those who gave all inpreservation of a way of live. The two themes of war beingboth noble and tragic tended to be included in almost theentire second category of memorials.

A physical memorialwith which a family member could touch or read their lovedone’s name provided a necessary step in their grievingprocess. The ability to let go of those lost was essential intheir mourning process, so that they could come to gripswith the fact that they were in fact no longer one of theliving, and had passed on. A sense of finality could beachieved with the visiting of these memorials.

With a lovedone being killed for ideals in such a far land, and in manycases never returning for a funeral at his home, the familyneeded some form of permanence to accept the reality ofthe fallen soldier.The final type of commemorative memorial were the warcemeteries that were erected for those who returned homeas fallen soldiers. Regardless of differences in religion,soldiers died, and having fought together, many wereburied together. Many different styles of monuments weredeveloped as centerpieces for the cemeteries, or in thecase of the Cenotaph in London, the absence of thecemetery or bodies. The lack of adornment with religiousornamentation became extremely popular. There was a useof apparently basic structures that were characteristicallyvoid of the patriotic schemes of previous memorials.

This somber reflection with which these were designed toportray is conveyed without any glory of accomplishment,nobility in giving of one’s life, or testament to hardshipssuffered.For those veterans who returned injured, reintegration intosociety was often difficult if not impossible. If the injurywere severe enough, the lack of sufficient medicaltechnology often prevented complete recovery. Those whowere fortunate enough to recover completely were thenfaced with the challenge of retraining and reintegration intothe workforce. If one’s previous skills were not obsolete,obstacles such as the government’s neglecting to cover thecosts of rehabilitation served as barriers to reintegration.

The amount of soldiers returning with debilitating injurieswas so vast that the Army could not support them all.Special interest groups fought to commemorate thesacrifices endured by rallying support for the disabled,however often the best source of assistance was one’sfamily. In millions of households, people took up adoptedkin in the support of those who returned.

Sacrificingmoney, time, and effort got many through where thegovernment could not provide the adequate support thatthey needed.The families of those who did not return were equallyimpoverished. Approximately three million of the men who died in thewar, left wives and children fatherless and with little meansfor survival (Winter 46). War pensions were extremely tightand provided wives with an amount that was less than theaverage wage level (Winter 47). With the broadacceptance of war pensions by widows, a welfare statewas established and was then accepted as more of a rightthan a privilege. The amount that they did receive was barely enough to survive and thenbecame significantly less with increases in inflation and thelack of adjustment to their pensions. In conclusion, in commemoration of those who served inWorld War I, those left behind created monuments andsupport networks to aid those left behind.

From themonuments during the war to rally support and elicitvolunteers to join the armed forces, to the cemeteries andtombs created post-war to recognize their loss, themajority of the commemoration of the soldiers was orientedtoward those who did not fight. The monuments to thedead served to aid those grieving and help with theacceptance of their loss. Very little post-warcommemoration celebrated those who survived. ArmisticeDay parades honored veterans, however the tremendousloss, which the country endured with the decimation of ahuge segment of the male population, left little room forcelebration. Families were destroyed and widows and theirorphaned children suffered.

Disabled veterans, who didreturn found little commemoration due to the government’sinability to rehabilitate, treat, reeducate, and retrain. Thesheer numbers of the “Army of the Dead” who returnedfrom World War I left scars that were not easily healed.With commemoration to those who gave their lives,communities struggled to recover from a devastating periodof loss.BIBLIOGRAPHYWinter, Jay. Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning.

TheGreat War in European Cultutal History. Cambridge:University Press, 1995.