+
upworthy

war

Education

Incredible audio shows what WWI sounded like when the guns and bombs just suddenly stopped

It's both beautiful and haunting to hear the ceasefire silence at the agreed-upon 11th hour.

Much of World War I was fought in trenches.

On November 11, 1918, U.S.soldier Robert Casey wrote from the American front in Western Europe:

And this is the end of it. In three hours the war will be over. It seems incredible even as I write it. I suppose I ought to be thrilled and cheering. Instead I am merely apathetic and incredulous … There is some cheering across the river—occasional bursts of it as the news is carried to the advanced lines. For the most part, though, we are in silence … With all is a feeling that it can’t be true. For months we have slept under the guns … We cannot comprehend the stillness.

It was the 11th day of the 11th month, and the war was scheduled to end with a ceasefire at the 11th hour—11:00 a.m. exactly. It had been four years of bloody, brutal fighting in what would later be called World War I. (Ironically, the war that was dubbed "the war to end all wars.")

The sense of relief at the ceasefire had to have been palpable, and thanks to modern technology, we can get an idea of what it sounded like to have the constant gunfire, artillery shells, fighter planes and bombs just…stop.

The following audio is not a recording, since magnetic tape recording technology didn't exist in WWI. It's a sound recreation based on visual "sound ranging" recordings the military used to determine where enemy fire was coming from. Special units placed microphones in the ground and used photographic film to visually record the noise intensity of gunfire, similarly to how seismometer measures an earthquake.

The lines you see in the film below are vibrations from noises at the River Moselle on the American Front, which were interpreted by sound company Coda to Coda using meticulous research on the kinds of weaponry that would have been used and how far away they were, even taking into account the geography of the area.

The result is the sounds soldiers would have heard during the last minute of World War I. Listen:

The little bird chirp at the end really punctuates it, doesn't it? Beautiful, yet haunting.

The fact that there was an exact minute when opposing forces agreed to lay down their arms and then did so is a bit surreal. If you know you're going to stop shooting, why wait for a few hours and keep shooting one another? Why not just say, "Stop, we're done now"? Communication took time and the various forces needed to be informed of the ceasefire agreement, so it makes some sense, but still. The armistice agreement was signed six hours before the ceasefire. In those six hours—when peace had already been agreed upon—3,000 soldiers were killed. Talk about senseless deaths.

Of all the things humans have devised and systematized, war is probably the weirdest. Leaders get into disputes over political or geographic particulars, and then one says, "I'm going to send my people to kill your people." Another responds, "If your people kill my people, then my people will kill your people." Then the worst of human atrocities are perpetrated by people who would normally never dream of doing such things to one another until, at some point, they've all have had enough of the senseless destruction, the leaders come to some kind of agreement and say, "OK, our people will no longer kill each other. Good talk."

Of course, it's all a bit more complicated than that, but at the same time, it's not. War as a concept is simply stupid and stupidly simple. Humanity in general does seem to have grasped the stupidity of it, as we've been making global progress toward a more peaceful world for many decades. But as conflicts ignite and violence explodes in certain regions, we feel the tenuousness of that progress, which makes peacemaking skills all the more valuable.

Twenty million people were killed in WWI, more than half of them civilians. Many of them died from famine and disease brought on by the conditions of war. This audio is a reminder that these things don't just happen—they are choices that human beings make. Destruction and diplomacy are both choices. Retaliation and restoration are choices. War and peace are choices.

We've tried choosing war followed by peace, many times over. Maybe we should try choosing peace without having to go through the stupid, senseless killing part first.

Photo by Jordan Whitt on Unsplash

The mothers of the world stand in solidarity with those who are trying to protect their children from war.

Dear mother huddled with her children in the basement in a war zone,

As I sit in my living room reading reports from Ukraine, my thoughts scatter to many places at once. The analytical part of me wants to understand the historical and geopolitical forces that led up to this moment. The middle-aged side of me remembers with visceral tension the nuclear threats of the Cold War era. The American in me ponders what my country's leadership should, can and will do under the circumstances.

But the mother in me—the raw, human heart of me—goes straight to you and your children.


As you sit huddled together in a basement or a subway or perhaps a leftover bomb shelter from another generation's war, my 13-year-old son cuddles close to me on the couch. He looks at me with wide, worried eyes and asks what we would do if we were in your shoes. He's barely old enough to know the truth, but I tell him anyway: I don't know.I honestly don't know.

I know that our children look to us for safety, security and reassurance, so I try to imagine what you must be telling your young children as they hear air raid sirens, explosions, gunfire from above.

"You're OK. We're safe here," you tell them, not knowing if it's true. "It's going to be OK."

You lie to your children because you don't know what else to do. You're scared, but you don't want them to see it. If you can't protect them from the violence on their doorstep, you will shield them as much as you can from fear and despair. You—your body, your presence—are their primary shelter and safe place, so you wrap your arms around your babies, knowing full well that your flesh is powerless against weapons of war. You know you would die for them. You worry that won't be enough.

I am keenly aware that only the happenstance of my birthplace allows me to sit safely in my living room while you hide from violence. Whether you and your children are huddled in Ukraine or Yemen or Ethiopia or another war-torn region, geography is the only real difference between us. I didn't choose any of this and neither did you.

None of us wants this for our children. None of us ever has.

War is hell, and women and children beat the brunt of it. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." I've always appreciated his blunt honesty, but I think mothers might hate war more than soldiers. Soldiers are at least trained for the brutality, if not the futility or stupidity. There is no training that can prepare a mother to nurture her children in the violence and chaos of a war zone.

I think back over human history. How many mothers have witnessed the maiming of their children, physically or psychologically, by war? I look into my sweet son's eyes and my heart breaks, knowing not just that he could be hurt or killed, but also knowing that corrupt men with power would eagerly turn him into a killer to satisfy their need for conquest.

Too many mothers have sent their children off to fight in fruitless wars. Too many of those children haven't come back or have come back broken beyond repair. Too many mothers are hiding in basements with their babies in too many places, trying to keep their children's world from falling apart. Too many, too many, too many.

No one truly wins in war, no matter the political outcome, and it's beyond frustrating that humanity has not yet learned that armed conflict causes more problems than it solves. I've often wondered why don't we force the leaders who want to wage war into a boxing ring to duke it out among themselves. It makes no less sense than sending thousands of their people to fight to the death and destroy valuable infrastructure and architecture while they're at it.

I'm so tired of madmen playing violent games with people's lives because they can't figure out how to fill their soul holes. I'm so tired of their attempts to make us enemies, when all that separates us are invisible lines imagined into existence by insecure men. I'm so tired of fallen soldiers being hailed as heroes by those who sent them into battle to be sacrificed as pawns.

Imagine if moms were at the helm instead. Moms who understand that brute force is both immature and unnecessary. Moms who see all the world's children as our own. Imagine that world, just for a moment. What a vast difference that would make.

But here we are in this moment, and all I can do is offer you my solidarity. I hate that you and your children have to go through this stupid and wasteful and tragic and maddening mess that you didn't choose to partake in. I wish I could wave a wand and whisk us into a future where war is obsolete and unthinkable, where we truly accept that we are one human family and where we've chosen as a collective to create real and lasting peace. I have to believe that we'll get there eventually.

In the meantime, you are not forgotten, wherever you are. I am not in your shoes, but please know that I and millions of mothers around the world are wrapping our arms around you and your children, praying desperately for an end to the violence and trauma.

Your children—all of our children—deserve so much better than this.

Editor's Note: Over the past year Upworthy's parent company was a proud partner with the WFP using our platform to share stories of their fight against hunger around the world.

Out of 318 candidates, including youth climate activist Greta Thunberg and President Donald Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize for 2020 has been awarded to the World Food Programme (WFP) "for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict."

Having written about the work of WFP for Upworthy, this news warmed my heart. From researching WFP's efforts to battle gender inequality with food security to reading their educational materials on how climate change impacts hunger and causes forced migration, I was blown away by the broad scope of what they do. As I dug in further and saw the various informational videos put together by my colleagues, the clearer it became that tackling hunger totally requires that kind of scope. Hunger is a multifaceted issue that impacts everything—including war and conflict—and our world will never be at peace if this most fundamental need is not being met for millions.

The World Food Programme is the largest organization addressing hunger and food insecurity in the world. According to the Nobel committee press release, "the WFP provided assistance to close to 100 million people in 88 countries who are victims of acute food insecurity and hunger" in 2019. The committee pointed out that there has been an increase in acute hunger in recent years, with most of that increase being caused by war and armed conflict.

And of course, the pandemic is only making things worse.


The Nobel committee says that they want this award "to turn the eyes of the world towards the millions of people who suffer from or face the threat of hunger." They also point to the need for supporting organizations like WFP financially, making the direct connection between hunger and conflict:

"The world is in danger of experiencing a hunger crisis of inconceivable proportions if the World Food Programme and other food assistance organisations do not receive the financial support they have requested.

The link between hunger and armed conflict is a vicious circle: war and conflict can cause food insecurity and hunger, just as hunger and food insecurity can cause latent conflicts to flare up and trigger the use of violence. We will never achieve the goal of zero hunger unless we also put an end to war and armed conflict.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to emphasise that providing assistance to increase food security not only prevents hunger, but can also help to improve prospects for stability and peace."

While every sincere effort to create peace deserves praise, peacemaking is a far more complex endeavor than signing pieces of paper. Addressing the root causes of war and conflict, understanding the connections between the various challenges facing humanity, and making sure people have what they need so they don't have to fight for survival are all necessary components of creating a peaceful world for all.

Congratulations to World Food Programme for this well-deserved honor. Hopefully this prestigious recognition will lead more people to explore the issues of hunger and food security and support programs and solutions that are proving to be successful.

Learn more about the work of the World Food Programme at wfp.org and wfpusa.org.

On January 4, 2020, the President of the United States threatened to destroy Iranian cultural sites in a tweet.

"Iran has been nothing but problems for many years," he wrote. "Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"


To be clear, the purposeful targeting of cultural sites is a war crime. The U.S. is party to two international agreements, the the Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Convention of 1954, which specifically outlaw the intentional destruction of cultural property. In addition, our own Defense Department's Law of War Manual prohibits destroying cultural sites, and the U.S. War Crimes Act makes such acts punishable within our own justice system. It doesn't matter if someone else attacks first—a war crime is a war crime is a war crime.

Cultural sites do not belong only to the nation that houses them. Over centuries, countries and governments change hands, and being at war with a current government is not the same as being at war with a country's people or culture or history. That's why historically or religiously significant places, as well as renowned works of art and architecture, are treasures for all of humanity and should be protected as such. To destroy them in an act of aggression or retaliation is short-sighted, and a loss for us all.

RELATED: 10 interesting facts about Iran you probably won't hear on the news

Architectural historian and professor at UMass Dartmouth, Pamela Karimi, shared 36 photos of Iranian cultural sites on Facebook to show what could potentially be lost if Trump followed through on his threat. From the ancient relief carvings of Persepolis to 700-year-old gardens to intricately designed places of worship, Iran is home to some of the world's oldest and most beautiful works of the human hand.

Many of the photographs in the collection were taken by Iranian photographer Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji, and they are simply stunning. Those of us living in the West are used to seeing the icons of Western Civilization—the Parthenon, the Sistine Chapel, the Statue of David—as cultural treasures and are often ignorant to the incredible works of human creativity and ingenuity in other areas of the world. Knowing how photos rarely do justice to a place, these sites in Iran are deserving of our reverence and protection, no matter where we happened to have been born.

Just look at these wonders the photographer shared on his own page.

Nasir Al-Mulk Mosque, Shiraz, (1888)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Persepolis, northeast of Shiraz (ca. 550–330 BCE)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Chehel Sotoun palace (literally "palace of Forty Columns"), Isfahan (1647)

Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Vakil mosque, Shiraz (18th century)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Tomb of Cyrus the Great, Pasargadae (6th century BC)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Shah mosque, Isfahan (1629)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Boroujerdiha House, Kashan (1857)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook


Eram Gardens, Shiraz (13th century)Mohammad Reza Domiri Ganji Photography/Facebook

RELATED: 8 Iranian women want you to know what it really means to not wear the hijab.

Despite the president doubling down on the idea, the Pentagon has stated that striking cultural sites with no military value would indeed be a war crime, and that the U.S. military has no plans to do so. Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters at a news briefing, "We will follow the laws of armed conflict." According to the New York Times, when asked if that meant "no" to the question of whether cultural sites would be targeted as the president had suggested, Esper replied, "That's the laws of armed conflict."

However, the U.S. military gets its final orders from the president himself. Let's hope the commander in chief educates himself on international law, abides by our agreements, and acknowledges what a foolish and tragic mistake it would be to go after any of the world's cultural treasures.