Pierre Purseigle Between Participation and Victimization World War I Urban Mobilization in Comparative Perspective

Pierre Purseigle

Abstract:The ‘totalizing logic’1 of the Great War had for consequence to blur the boundaries between combatants and non-combatants, between ‘soldier and civilian’2. Pitting mass armies supported by industrialized economies, the conduct of the war first demanded the commitment of the nation’s material and technical resources to the conflict. The meaning of wartime mobilization thus shifted from its original military definition to encompass the contribution of civil society, whose human, financial, and cultural resources were also expected to directly support the armed forces in the field. At the same time, the new technologies of warfare allowed armies to overcome the physical limitations that had hitherto delineated a clear demarcation between the front and the rear. The development of modern artillery, of submarine warfare and aerial bombardments, like the experience of occupation, thus challenged the cultural and legal barriers which had aimed to protect civilians from the direct impact of military offensives. In the English language, the emergence of the notion of “home front”, first recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary in 1917, merely illustrated the acceleration of an ongoing process that the Second World War was to radicalize. The Wars of German Unification and the Franco-Prussian war in particular had indeed seen the word Heimatfront gain wide currency in the newly unified Germany3. In WWI Italy, fronte interno became a term of choice in interventionist and nationalist circles. In this context, as A. Gibelli points out, the notion conjured up the existence of an internal enemy whose activities should be met as resolutely as those of the enemy at the

History,Sociology