# data[].attributes.headline
Link to Sustainable Developement Goals Infographic

# data[].attributes.subject
Link to Sustainable Developement Goals Infographic

# data[].attributes.body
https://create.piktochart.com/output/29876595-new-piktochart

# data[].attributes.body
- As the world war started in 1914, Germany and France repeatedly battled against each other on the Western front. (The Battle of Mons and Battle of the Marne)

- During 1915, Germany decided to focus more on the Eastern front with a goal to knock Russia out of the war. They were very successful, breaking through Russia and even to Ukraine, however, Russia was still standing.
- 1916 came, and without any major break through on either sides, the the Chief-of-Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, insisted, in a purported Christmas Day letter to the Kaiser, that the way to victory in the war lay not in the east, against Russia, but in the west, against France. Exhaust France, Starve Britain.

Who supported the change?

- The Kaiser did without real reasoning. He was persuaded by von Falkenhayn’s reasoning.
- As commander in chief of the German armed forces,The Kaiser retained the power to make upper-level changes in military command. Nonetheless, he was largely a shadow monarch during the war.

Who did not support:

- Most likely, many did. However, they did not have a say, as it was ultimately up to the Kaiser. Young soldiers who refused to go to war were called cowards, and were pressured by the society to join.

Intended outcome

- Death of 160,000 french soldiers out of nearly 400,000 casualties

Unintended

- Death of 140,000 German soldiers out of 350,000 casualties

# data[].attributes.body
What has changed?

- The way war is fought has definitely changed. While WWI was fought in the trenches and used machine guns and poisonous gas, WWII was fought using modern artillery and machines utilizing more airplanes, ships, tanks, and submarines. Special operations methods were also developed during this war together with atomic missiles and secret communications. It led to the development of the atomic bomb which was the catalyst in ending the war. Now, there are more advanced and safer ways of fighting the war with the help of technology. Unmanned Vehicles and drones, attacks on computer systems will be a major part of warfare, and so on.

- The way leaders make decisions has changed. There are much less emperors and absolute leaders with rights to make the final decision. In our current day, we have large government bodies and important figures that make collective and more thoughtful decision making.

- There are finally working international peace committees and organizations such as the United Nations.

What has benefited from the change?

Newer and safer ways of warfare, and rational decision making processes in governments have ensured the decline in the number of civilian casualties and waste of soldiers lives.

# data[].attributes.body
- The concept of the battle of attrition:

The battle of Verdun was intended to be a “meat grinder” from the very beginning. Erich von Falkenhayn wrote a memorandum to Kaiser Wilhelm II in which he argued that the war would only be won by inflicting mass casualties on the French army,  which would then force the British to sue for peace. Rather than outmaneuvering them or breaking through their lines, Falkenhayn planned to lure the French into a trap that would force them to throw troops into a battle of attrition where the conditions favored the Germans.

-       The number of casualties on both sides made them realize the stupidity in continuing.

-       The battle of Verdun made people realize how horrific and tragic war was.

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned previously in the change and continuity, technology has changed the way wars are fought, but the human motives for fighting wars have not really changed. In the speech, War is a force that gives us meaning, Chris hedges, a war correspondent and a renown author speaks about common patterns that can be seen in war and in the soldiers that fight in it.

The first thing that he mentions is how "humans have created and lived in a world where violence is the primary form of communication"

Another way this can be interpreted is that war and violence could be avoided if proper communication takes place, which is actually very true. WW1 started because of interlocking treaties, WW2 took place because a couple countries felt they were victimized, and there are many instance in our world today where violence has taken place because of miscommunication.

In Hedges's speech, he also talks about how governments blinds young and innocent soldiers into these conflicts by covering it up through war propaganda. He explains how "war comes complete with manufactured heroes, feel-good stories of our own people , and an enemy that is always painted as barbaric and uncivilized.”

He explains how these propaganda the absence in communication ultimately,
"makes soldiers blunder into nations they know little about, and get caught between bitter rivalries between competing ethnic and religious groups."

These patterns can be noticed for almost every battle throughout history, especially in the battle of verdun. What Chris Hedges talks about relates to the reoccurring idea of innocent soldiers being manipulated and used by higher authority, which is something that will be explored more in depth as my research continues for this paper.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe soldiers at the time had a few different phases.

- In the beginning, because of influence from society and government propaganda, soldiers viewed war as this adventure where nationalism and pride can be shown.

- However, very soon enough, soldiers realized that war wasn’t like that at all. Life in the trenches took a toll on the soldiers both physically and mentally, and their view on the war had changed immediately. In numerous letters, soldiers described trench life as an "everlasting nightmare or a place where hell had broken loose."

-       The third phase was helplessness. Soldiers knew that they were forced into fighting a war they didn't believe in. However, there was nothing to do, as the only way to escape war was through death.

- Finally, soldiers who survived lost meaning in life. They are twenty years old and supposed to be young, finding love and pursuing their own careers, yet they know nothing of life but despair, death, and fear.

By looking closely at the soldiers and their perspectives, the tragic nature of the battle of Verdun can really be shown.

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/Prvr9xLcT1I

# data[].attributes.body
I am doing prompt B: How does understanding a historical issue or time period help us have a better understanding of a literary text written within or about that time period?

Thesis: All Quiet on the Western Front’s connectedness to the actual historical events of World War One makes readers reflect more upon the horrors of war and the gross abuse of authority that allowed it to happen.

This thesis statement works as I have something to argue and I am following the prompt for this paper. I begin by explaining how understanding the historical context has made me realize how similar the events in the book are to what actually happens, and then describing what this does to the readers and why it's important.

First paragraph: