A Review of the Invention of the War Machine
In “The Invention of the War Machine”, Mark and Anthony Mills discuss why World War I has been called the “war of the engineers”, and why that can be somewhat misleading. I would judge that the intended audience for this piece is an academic one, specifically a senior thesis for college. The authors lay out a series of technological advances attributed to World War I, and break them into three categories: weapons technologies, medical innovations, and non-weapons technologies. As each invention or technology is examined, the authors give us the corresponding civilian technology that had been invented before the start of the war. In addition to the preexisting technology, the later inventions that spawned out of the war are also parsed. The main theme of the essay is not to demonstrate when inventions were created, but to illustrate how several different industries/fields came together as one, to ultimately rise to the challenge of World War 1 and the corresponding civilian advancements.
Weapons such as the German U-boats, Tanks, and chemical warfare are discussed. For example, submarine technology was not invented in World War I. Mills tells us “…the submarine was not a German invention and even predated the war by a half-century…”. When the Germans used this tool of war so effectively it caused the allied nations to adapt and develop new technology. The Author gives the example of the hydrophone (originally developed for civilian use) being combined with the invention of the depth charge to root out German U-boats. This is the sort of “military-industrial-complex” the author is referring to when he uses President Eisenhower’s later words.
While the “war machine” did create new powerful means of destruction, it therefore also created the need for new methods of life saving equipment. Mills gives the example of Marie Curie driving vehicles equipped with the first mobile X-ray machines. He also touches such innovations as: rapid medical transport, blood transfusions, and even the development of penicillin. “…tremors, hypersensitivity, confusion, lassitude, a thousand-yard stare- became know as “shell shock””. Soldiers returning from WWI with such conditions were not treated with effective remedies. However, the problem was then focused on and better treatments were developed.
I think the authors have drawn interesting conclusions from their historical research. It would certainly seem as though the innovations from the industrial military complex helped not only the war effort, but civilian advancements as well. The process of introducing industrial research to military problems seems to have worked to great effect.
Hello Rob. I found this an in interesting summary. First off I never knew World War I was referred to as the “war of engineers”, so thank you for that bit of information.
1. In the first paragraph when you cut too “ I would judge that the intended audience…..” I would suggest moving or even removing that sentence all together.With that sentence removed, the paragraph would flow better..
2. In paragraph two, you used good examples, especially when you talk about how “submarine technology was not invented in WWI”.
3. Great transition of topic in paragraph 3 when you go into the medical aspect of WWi, and great informative quotes.
4. I would say that the ending paragraph feels rushed. There’s not much information about your thoughts on the article itself. I would say just give more of your thoughts, and you will be all set.
Consecutively, your paragraphs are focused and coherent, besides the second sentence in paragraph one that throws it off a bit. Also, I am not seeing any cited sources, which is very important.
Hi Paige,
Thanks for the feedback. I was definitely a little rushed with this first draft, so thanks for struggling through my fast writing. I will certainly rework that sentence in the first paragraph, and find a better way to explain the intended audience. The essay over all is going to be expanded for the final draft. Ill try and work some of your suggestions into my final draft. Thanks again, and good luck with your own essay.
A very good start! As always, your sentences are clear and well-formed and paragraphs focused. You do a good job with first half or so of article, but seem to have run out of time. start with intro para. You (and the author) set out structure of first part of summary as ‘weapons technologies, medical innovations, and non-weapons technologies.I see one para. on weapons technology, another on medical advances–where’s the third? Use section heads to help organization–missing sections on Little and Hale, as well as concluding sections on Public Interest, Progressivism, and Peace and Too Much Science? Or Too Little?
A couple of the main things to work on or add in revision:
–Note that assignment suggests a general first para. to introduce context and issue before launching into summary (typically starting summary at para. 2).
–You need to find and integrate at least one other source, and then include both sources on a works Cited page.
–Response is quite short Try to develop several more paras. to balance summary and response. It’s a hard article to respond to since so much of this is factual, but there may be opportunities to think and write more generally about the role of science and technology in society and how ethics fits into it (if it does).
–One minor point: in para. 2: “For example, submarine technology was not invented in World War I.”–connection not fully explained, what’s this an example of? Look for examples of this sort of telegraphed writing, where ideas not fully connected.