Verdun: World War I’s Iconic, Ironic BattleBreaking News
tags: WWI, Battle of Verdun
On Sunday an expanded and renovated museum will reopen on the site of one of the ruined villages; later this year, President François Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel will inaugurate it officially, and add their names to the long list of dignitaries who came before them. They will say what President François Mitterrand and Chancellor Helmut Kohl said when they visited in 1984 and clasped hands before the great ossuary that holds the shattered remains of the dead — that this must never happen again, that this cannot happen again.
They will speak of Europe. French heads of state here once spoke of national unity, of patriotism, of resistance, of heroism. Away from Verdun, authors and survivors wrote of all that and much more. Germans wrote of noble failure, of brave soldiers betrayed by a cynical or inept high command. Some spoke of it in cautionary terms, as a military folly to be avoided at all costs. Never again, wrote one of the architects of the German blitzkrieg of World War II, Heinz Guderian. “I do not want a second Verdun there,” Hitler said of Stalingrad in November 1942, as though to condemn in advance the protracted siege warfare that would cost him his entire Sixth Army.
What, the visitor asks, is the meaning of what happened? Like all battlefields, Verdun is silent.
Between an older narrative of heroism and a more recent one of pointless slaughter lies an ocean of ambiguity, mingling grandeur with absurdity. Through 1916 French and German losses kept climbing in a macabre pas de deux. Under a sky illuminated by shellfire, in ravines and on hillsides denuded of natural or man-made cover, huddled in what was left of their trenches, the French and Germans lived Verdun in the same way. They used the same words to describe it — “L’Enfer,” “Die Hölle von Verdun” — and spoke too of entering another world, severed from the one they had left behind, and pervaded perhaps by an evil presence. Yes, the French stopped the German offensive on the Meuse. But so what?
To a historian 100 years later, Verdun does yield a meaning, in a way a darkly ironic one. Neither Erich von Falkenhayn, the chief of the German General Staff, nor his French counterpart, Joseph Joffre, had ever envisaged a climactic, decisive battle at Verdun. They had attacked and defended with their eyes elsewhere on the front, and had thought of the fight initially as secondary, as ancillary to their wider strategic goals. And then it became a primary affair, self-sustaining and endless. They had aspired to control it. Instead it had controlled them. In that sense Verdun truly was iconic, the symbolic battle of the Great War of 1914-18.
comments powered by Disqus
- How the Gilded Age's Top 1 Percent Thrived on Corruption
- The return of Ken Starr: He pushed impeachment for Clinton but now defends Trump
- The first transport of Jews to Auschwitz was 997 teenage girls. Few survived.
- As India’s Constitution Turns 70, Opposing Sides Fight to Claim Its Author as One of Their Own
- "You shall never be a bystander." How We Learn About the Holocaust When the Last Survivors Are Gone
- What Happens When You Give Students Control of the Syllabus?
- A Civil War-era ‘witch bottle’ may have been found on a Virginia highway, archaeologists say
- The Future of the Academy at the Association of American Colleges and Universities
- The Way We Write History Has Changed
- Rethinking How We Train Historians