Ebel Response

Since most historians have a hypothesis when they begin to study an era or event, I appreciated Ebel stating his original assumption that, “I began research for this book hoping to find an unequivocal soldierly critique of the mythic religions framing of the war, hoping to find that solider were troubled by the coming together of faith and violence, perhaps deepened in their resolve to be less violent, and more and differently faithful.”  However, Ebel discovers that soldiers reorganized troubling images and contrary ideals of Christian civilization and “the warrior’s experienced the affirmation and strengthening of pre-war faiths.” (3)  Ebel illustrates this reconstruction of faith in light of the fight particularly well in the chapters on redemption and the after-life.  I appreciated that Ebel did not attempt to attach an orthodoxy or Aristotelian logical structure to the soldiers’ theology but rather let them stand on their own, even when illogical.  Each individual constructed their own theology and Ebel merely identifies themes amongst them.  Ebel insightfully and cleverly calls this process of reconciling pre-war faith with the realities of war “a story of reillusionment”(18), not of disillusionment as he originally expected to find.  What was the result of this “reillusionment” on American military policy?  Did this “reillusionment” create a new twentieth century conception of a just war?  Just how deep was this “reillusionment” if President Wilson was slandered as an “idealist” so soon after?