The Home Front

In Evelyn Blücher's "The Home Front" was an unbiased and very true account of the struggles experienced by the people away from the battle. It is a good source because it touches on all the problems: from scarcity of food and fuel, to the seemingly ridiculous and sad ways the government gets scrap metal for soldiers, like taking away the church bell or forcing children to collect it. We also know that Blücher was unbiased, because she was merely observing from the outside. She was well-off, and did not experience the conditions as harshly as some of the peasants did. Had the passage been written by a peasant, the conditions might have been exaggerated to seem worse than actually were. However, we know these were the actual conditions, and they are still really bad.

This relates to nationalism because it shows how far the citizens will go to support their country. Even if there are forced against their will to give these things up, the act of doing so will put the idea of nationalism in their heads. If I were a citizen forced to grow my own vegetables and cook with rationed food, the whole time I was doing it I would be thinking to myself "I'm doing this to help our soldiers fight in the war." Nationalism was engrained in these citizen's minds because of the sacrifices they had to make to support their country.

The Home Front

When a country is in total war and its people feel obligated to assist the war effort, the wide view of nationalism forces the individual to make sacrifices. Evelyn Blucher clearly illustrates how the military is drawing on "luxuries" of everyday life so that their resources can be pooled for the war. The church bell, an object that obviously carried a lot of meaning for the people of the town, was taken away, subjected the townspeople to grief so that the government was able to more effectively use their funds. In this way, the war becomes not just a distant threat but something that people of all aware of because of the things that they are forced to give up. In addition, Evelyn Blucher's vivid descriptions of the dearth of food and lack of lighting convey the pains of a nation at war. With these rations, the government is essentially limiting distribution so that the army has a better chance. This looks great when you look at the nation as a whole, when people are pushed to support the singular, nationalistic goal of the country, but when you take a closer look at this detrimental effects to each individual, nationalism seems like it does more harm than it helps. People are drawn away from their normal lives so that they can do everything in their power to support the nation. They have to put up with a worse standard of living. In the context of the Great War, the patriotism of different countries towards the war effort could not exist without a huge amount of sacrifice from the people who were living within those countries.

The Home Front

The Home Front shows the heavy toll that total war takes on the average civillian. The food shortages that Evelyn Blucher talks about stem from the war and make their living much harder than it was before the war. One of the more powerful parts of the document is when she descibes the government taking away the church bell to be melted down and used for the war. Total war spares nothing, not even religion in an effort to give the country a little extra push for victory. This can make the war very unpopular among the general public. People are stolen out of their normal lives and shoved into roles that support the war, which causes a lot of tension within the country. It also effects all the economy of the country. Total war sucks up money with little or no return until the war is won and neglects things that are not necessary for the war, but are necessary to keep the country and it's economy running smoothly. The drooping economy causes things mentioned in the document, like food shortages and poverty. Total war is meant to increase chances of victory by shoving everything and everyone into the war, but in doing so it ruins the country's nationalism and support for the war.

Home Front

"The Home Front" did an excellent job portraying the struggles caused by war, even in places where there is not fighting. The sense of nationalism that can push countries to work harder to win a war can also push them over the edge, by completely draining their resources. "The Home Front" is a first-hand account of the shortages of EVERYTHING that total war can cause. While the efforts of the home front may have helped the soldiers fighting, it certainly did not help the country they were fighting for, their homeland. Some say that "war stimulates the economy," but as shown here, all that war and a strong sense of nationalism do is lead a country to poverty and hunger.
When a country drains itself in this way, it literally weakens its citizens, so in the end the sacrifice of the "home front" can backfire, as when reinforcements are needed those in authority may find that the general population is starving, and not in any fit state to fight.

The Home Front

Evelyn Blucher is an English wife of a German officer who describes the hardships and changes she faced during Berlin in the Winter of 1917. T he takeaway point from Evelyn's words is that the war took a toll on the people on the home front because it made them cut down on the amount of food they were eating and all resources were going towards the war effort which made it hard to find some necessities. This source is significant because it is a firsthand account of the reality of the home front and its hardships, it reveals the truth on what the home front was really like. We can conclude that Bucher is a reliable source because she is not biased; she is not extremely affected by the war because she is of upper class. This source could be used to prove that nationalism is not always constructive and that world war one brought took a large toll on country's economies because it is a primary source that exemplifies the harmful effects of nationalism.

The Home Front

Evelyn Blucher's article provides a different point of view on the war than ones that are typically given. From her writing we get the view of a person who would usually be well off in life, rather than that of a king or a peasant or a soldier. She shows us just how hard it was for everyone to live in the total war countries. There was little food, oil, or any other things they used to take for granted. With everything being pushed toward the war, civilians got shoved to the side. Though nationalism was helping the troops fight and win (in some cases, not Germany), it did not help the people within the countries. Blucher's point of view begs the question: what's the point of fighting if there wont be a country left to fight for? Also, when does it become more important for a country to win than for its inhabitants to survive?

The Home Front

Evelyn Blucher, the wife of a German officer, discusses the effect the great war had on her home country of Germany. She pointed out that the war still had an effect on Germany even when there wasn't any battles being fought. In the home front, people had to give up pretty much everything but the bare necessities. For example, any luxury items like instruments were sent to the war for materials like scrap metal. This is a good source because she has first hand experience with what happened, but wasn't too badly affected because she was wealthier. This says a lot about how nationalism can be destructive when there is too much, as it is with almost anything. There can be too much of a good thing.

Talk of the Town

The take away point from Evelyn Blücher's "The Home Front" was how devastating the effects from the Great War were on the home front, away from the battle field. Everything useful went to the war. For example, the military took a 300 year old church bell away from a small town. Why does the military need an sentimentally precious old church bell? Good question. By taking away this bell, the military was taking away the people customs, and drastically changing their daily life. Since the whole town was attached to "their ancient friend," they held a funeral service of sorts for it when it left. A procession, headed by a priest and followed by the people, was formed to say goodbye. Many tears were shed. Besides having their customs changed, they also were suffering from malnutrition. There were huge lacks of food, and people were going hungry and using up their rations. They question of food is "always the most important topic of the day." Everybody was put to work for the war. Even young children were set to work "plucking and collecting." Besides food, lighting was also scarce. There was no petroleum or methylated for the people, and electric lights were limited. Besides having many downsides, the war caused people to be more resourceful. They were using everything they could, and finding new ways to be productive. The things they produced could not be used for eating and cooking however. This is just another factor of the war. Although nobody was bloodily killed in the streets, World War 1 significantly affected the population away from the battle action.

Nationalism is shown in a different light. At the beginning of the war, everybody was excited and nationalism was thriving. Since total war was declared, people on the home front were suffering as well as the soldiers fighting. Basically, nobody was happy. People were too worried about their health and well being to think about nationalism. Throughout the Great War, nationalism went from the talk of the town to an unwanted topic.

The Home Front

Evelyn Blucher, the English wife a German officer, elaborates on the hardships in everyday life back on the "home front." Especially coming from a foreign aristocrat, these descriptions of vast struggle within the German population must be legitimate, considering that an aristocrat took time to notice it. In addition, Germans could have become too caught up in the the glory of the war. Therefore, Blucher is a reliable source because she has a somewhat outside perspective, a fresh take on the subject.

The descriptions of civilian life during the war are a direct of total war. Germany had devoted all of its food, machinery, oil. and overall labor towards the war, leaving civilians with very little. Regardless of how German civilians feel about this, it shows that immense nationalism can sometimes lead to devastation when too involved in the war.

The Home Front and Nationalism

According to this source, forced drafts hurt a country's nationalism. When young men are forced to serve in a war regardless of their own beliefs and desires, the country itself looses morale and suffers because of it.

During the Great War, the home front became almost as important as the military itself. All the women and children left at home raced to do everything they could for the war effort, and war consumed everyday life. Although this effort originally resulted in huge surges of nationalism, it hurt the countries later on when the casualties were beginning to be felt. Once the war had been going on for two years, the people who had stayed away from the front lines began to loose their enthusiasm for the war. The constant presence of the war in their minds had begun to wear on their desire to help. Many women who had lost family members or husbands in the war resented the continuous fighting. Britan and France were two countries that experienced this fall of nationalism, and they rallied against it with propganda and censoring information about the war. They attempted to unite the country once again by exagerating the crimes committed against them by other countries, with varying degrees of success.

The Home Front During the Great War

Blücher described how war knows no traditions. A nearby town had a beloved church bell that had been around for 300 years. The bell was ingrained in the town's history, but the necessities of the war wrenched it from the people's grasp.

War's terrible effects also brings out resourcefulness and creativity in people. Because of the now frugal living style people are submitted to they find new ways to maximize the limited resources they have. Everything has to be put to use and nothing is wasted. If society could maintain this ingenuity without the harsh living conditions of war people would be much better off.

The main significance Blücher's entry talked about was that in a time of total war everybody is affected. The people living in towns and cities may not be out in the trenches fighting, but they have to scrap for their lives, too. There are massive food shortages and almost no gas for lighting at night.

Whether the civilians in a war-stricken country like it or not, their shared suffering brings the people together. These people do everything they can to survive and unite in their decrepit state. They may have nationalism and hope for what their soldiers are doing or they may band together in their hatred of the government and revolt. But it is when the common people join together that a nation's fate out on the front lines are won and lost. After all, a country is no better or worse than the average citizen. If the people can sacrifice to do all they can for their soldiers and support them then their country will succeed in battle.

Falling from Grace

WWI forced all those involved to confront the fact that under pressure, nationalism is easily defeated by hardship. Within the article, Evelyn Blücher describes the poverty and difficulty felt by the people at home. Ever before have we heard of the horrors seen by soldiers in the trenches. From this we learn that normal conditions at home were almost as bad. "The less [food]... the more we talk of it." Despite the fact that this article is almost completely focused on the sacrifices made by civilians on the home front to give more to WWI, the war is hardly ever mentioned. The focus is primarily on what was lost, or rather never had. Even seemingly useless things in war (a church bell [possibly melted down for metal]) were taken by the "military authorities," not without "tears and protestations." That the people would protest the taking of object of sentimentality shows us that their focus was more on themselves and not on easing the way for their soldiers at war. This implies that people were no longer thinking on a national level, but more individually: how much food will I eat today? Will I fall asleep hungry? This is understandable. It is more easy to think grandly of yourself only as a part of a group when life is prosperous. When everyone feels the privation, the mentality becomes more of personal survival. It was no help that "in the towns they [were] considerably worse off." The thriving centers of a town would have been the heart and soul of nationalism, large groupings of people who, surrounded by humanity, felt a part of something. When these people were reduced to "waiting to get but a pound of cabbage, onions, etc." they could no longer gather and promote nationalistic ideals. It comes as no surprise that when everyone began to feel the strain, the propaganda began to fail and the people were less emotionally involved in the outcome of the war - it began to matter less who won, and more how soon it would be over. Suffering made the people lose their grandeous ideals, defeating the role of nationalism in the first world war.

READ and SOAPS Evelyn Blücher's "The Home Front" (primary source.) WRITE a blog post in which you explain the take-away point and the significance of the source. How might you use this source to prove a thesis about nationalism and the Great War?

Evelyn Blücher portrays the scarcity of all the food sources and how the population is struggling to survive until the harvest is the main focus of “The Home Front”. The hardships that the civilians had to endure while all the supplies were being used for the soldiers in the war were devastating. The name of the article, “Home Front”, is itself showing the affect of the war on its civilians. Home Front’s definition is that the war is fought to the extent to the civilians. No one is a civilian and everybody is part of the war, which gives the enemies the liberty to attack them. The civilians of Berlin were suffering in the duration of the entire war, not because of the war and battle itself, but because of the poverty that struck the country. The question of food was always the topic on everybody’s’ minds because they never knew whether they would have enough food to survive that day. Irony takes place in the war because while the soldiers are fighting for nationalism and for their country, they are making their civilians of the country suffer in the process. The Great War was meant for the countries to fight for their own country and to aid their country in gaining more power. But at the same time, they are putting their country in hardship because of the unusual amount of supplies that they are sending to the armed forces to help the soldiers fight the war. The suffering that the civilians had to endure destroyed the purpose of the war, to gain power and nationalism for each country.