Discussion Questions

February 14, 2006

Questions for "Slaughter in the Mud":

  1. Why was the battle of Passchendaele so deadly?  What particular problems did the battle pose for soldiers?
  2. What new did you learn about the soldier experience from the movie?
  3. How does the documentary portrayal of battle, the soldier experience, etc. in Slaughter in the Mud compare to the written sources?  Is there anything that one source or the other is particularly good in depicting?

Other Readings:

  1. How do the readings by Sassoon, Graves, and Fussell compare to one another in their  depiction of the war experience?  Which stands out in your mind, and why?  If you have read Barker's Regeneration by this point, how do those readings compare to the novel?  **(we will be re-examining this question in our March 7th discussion)
  2. From those readings for this week, what do we learn about the nature of soldier, and the nature of the battle experience?  What is the nature of the battle experience for the soldier?
  3. What is the importance of class in attempting to understand the soldier experience?
  4. According to one WWI historian, "Many soldiers were exposed to colleagues from widely differing social backgrounds, and military service clearly  broadened horizons.  For working-class recruits, however, the army might not be far different from the regimentation of the factory....It could be argued, therefore, that the majority of soldiers would not have recognized the disillusionment said to have been experienced by those of literary sensitivities...."(p. 221)  Discuss.
  5. What is "morale" and how was it maintained?
  6. How would you assess this weeks "literary" sources as sources for the historian?  In doing so consider that Beckett argues that "It should certainly not be accepted that a handful of well-known sensitive intellectual, or otherwise literary-minded wartime officers like Seigfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen, Robert Graves...were in any way representative of their armies as a whole." (p.217)  Do you agree with Beckett?  If Beckett is correct, then what would be the value of their experiences to the historian?