[MUSIC]. We are in the context of the Twentieth
Century and looking at other material. Compared to the photography and the films
that we've discussed a little bit earlier.
Let's think about possibly the most famous painting by Pablo Picasso.
One of the iconic images of the 2oth Century.
His painting in 1937 of Guernica. Now, in considering how to represent the
interpretation of images within the 20th century, Guernica immediately came to
mind. I cover this instance in a, another
course that I teach. and I'll talk a little bit more about
that in background to, our discussion of the Viva painting itself as we go through
this introduction. But, when I was drawing together all my
dictionaries. I found that the 1997 Oxford Dictionary
of the 20th century. Had part of the Guernica picture on its
front cover. So, even something as mundane as a
dictionary has this image on it as a representation of the century, perhaps,
as a whole. let's bear in mind that more people died
in war during the past century, than any other and that may be our lingering
historical memory of what went on during that time.
The course in which I touch on Guernica is in the context of a third year unit.
is called The Bomb, Atomic Weaponry and Society in the Twentieth Century.
And we start and do the first term as moving from fears of bombing.
works of H.G. Wells, speculative fiction, before the
First World War. All the way up to the dropping of the
atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, one of the things that I think is
important in explaining that transition is the willingness of societies to accept
the mass slaughter of civilians. An escalation of that process, as it goes
through from the First World War, experiences in the 1930's, and then an
intensification in the Second World War, that leads to the dropping of the atomic
bombs. Now, if you want to put this in, in
context, During the First World War there was an element of bombing.
It was inaccurate, frequently find pilots throwing darts and small munitions from
their cockpit on infantry formations. We do have bombing of London, via
Zeppelins. In fact it was such a curious and unusual
occurrence that various members of the London population came out and pointed
upwards to the German airships raining bombs, somewhat inefficiently, down on
them. It was such an unusual sight.
While bombing really wasn't a major contributor to the way that the First
World War was settled. We do see the technological development
of aircraft and the weaponry that can cover, oh sorry.
And the weaponry they can carry becoming more sophisticated.
As we go through the 1920's and particular the 1930's.
Some of you will be familiar with the phrase of the British politician, later
prime minister, Stanley Baldwin talking in the early 1930's about defense, the
phrase, the bomber will always get through.
The fear that such was the nature and development of technology that, defending
a large area, a city, a civilian residencies was going to be virtually
impossible. So the type of tactic that would need to
be employed, will be something akin to what we saw after the Second World War.
Mutually assured destruction, although that term wasn't used in the 1930's to
any great degree. We will bomb you, you will bomb us.
The deterrent is if you don't bomb us, we will not bomb you.
A form of madness, but nevertheless one that became prevalent over long periods
of time, and particularly in the presence of nuclear weapons.
Now I would hesitate to express anything like the expertise as my colleague Helen
Graham of regarding the Spanish civil war, which ran from 1936 through to 1939.
this is a, a schism in European history. The first real attempts to, on a military
basis, put forward a, a Right Wing dictatorship, ultimately under General
Franco. In the scale of things, Paul Preston who
has written voluminously on the Spanish Civil War, asks why Geurnica remains so
important to the collective memory of warfare and the 20th century.
In terms of the numbers killed, And I think the 26th of April 1937.
One hesitates to describe them as trivial.
No death is trivial, but in the scale of the desrtuction of human life during war,
during the 20th century Preston actually describes it as perhaps small beer, and
he's not being disparaging in this regard.
If you're considering the bombing of Hiroshima, perhaps 80,000 people died,
almost instantly. When we're looking at Geurnica, in 1937,
we may be looking at hundreds dead. And possibly thousands injured.
The reason that historically that it's important is that it's deemed to be the
first time that we have, intensive bombing of a purely civilian target,
which was not defended. And it is the escalation of the process
of mechanical warfare. The first world war was mechanical
slaughter of human beings and the very static nature of the battles concerned on
the western front particularly does emphasize this.
We tend to think of the Second World War as being far more mobile, when face to
face confrontations take place, yet our understanding of what happened in the
Second World War is a large degree of quote standoffs on the Western Front
compared to the Eastern Front from 1941. And, anything but standoff.
four years of bloody slaughter once more. When the BBC, was going through a series
of millennium reviews, and wanted to consider what was the war of the 20th
century, they picked out the eastern front.
The intensity of destruction there was unparalleled and with perhaps 20 million
people dying in direct conflict. Now, we put that into context of the
Twentieth Century and again, if we're looking at those numbers are those
numbers meaningful? Can we actually relate to figures of that
size? With it comes to Geurnica, it's a
relatively small village in the vast countryside.
Yes, it had a small ammunition's factory. But it wasn't necessarily as tactical a
target, as we might consider being developed.
And there is an element that is the trialing of a new form of warfare.
One of the things that we find certainly between about 1936 and 1941 is the
Germans developing and moving forward with a form of warfare, which maximizes
their technical advantage in trying to defeat the opposition.
In the case of Guernica, we're looking at Yonkers, JU52 transport aircraft at the
time used as bombers. German Heinkel 51s, HE51s biplane
fighters but, probably more significant in the development of what co, what was
to follow. The first uses of Heinkel HE111's which
were synonymous. Which became synonymous with the Blitz.
And also the Messerschmidt BF 109's, the fighter escorts that were associated
with, very much with the Battle of Britain.
And the defense of the Reich all the way through the Second World War, You have
waves of bombing on what turned out to be market day in the late afternoon, and the
early evening. There was at best small arms fire in
response. Practically, we see the destruction of a
small town. Through the use of high explosive and
insengery bombs to terrorize the population.
Not purely the population of Guernica but, all of those who learn of it.
And it is an opportunity of the Germans in support of Frankher's forces to try
and develop their tactic in the use of this form of modern warfare and it was
just the beginning. Now, the reporting of what happened in
Geurnica was important to it's significance overall.
George Steer, who is a correspondent for the, the Times of London.
Wrote back and wrote back emotively about the aftermath.
Relating back, eyewitness accounts, and commenting on the devastation.
Francos forces actually denied that bombing had taken place.
They actually suggests that the Basques had dynamited part of the city themselves
and it was a controversy that went through until the 1970s, 1980s and even
the 1990s. Franco's reign all the way through to the
1970s meant that Geurnica's resolution historically took some considerable time.
It's accepted in the West as being one of the first instances, if not the first
instance when we actually have this sort of bombing.
In considering the legacy of Geurnica and the Spanish Civil War, the most obvious
example as I lead off this little discussion is Pablo Piccaso's painting.
Now he'd already been commissioned to provide something for a Spanish
exhibition within Paris but was profoundly effected by the reportage that
he received. George Steer's newspaper report for The
Times was translated and reprinted around the world.
Now Picasso was very. careful not to add an additional
interpretation to the, to the painting that he produced that year.
but we do see this, as I said earlier, an image from the 20th century, which
carries a lot of weight in terms of interpretation and meaning.
And the U.N actually generated a tapestry of the same picture.
to be held officially or rather displayed officially.
Such was the way it carried forward. Now in that context it might be useful
just to get you to look at the actual picture itself and to reflect upon it.
I make no claims of being an art historian but the fact that it is a
monochrome work. As a mural, as a painting to a certain
degree reflects, probably not deliberately but reflects on the way that
we deal with images. And a certain currency is given to black
and white. We're more trusting of black and white
photographs. for no really good reason, we think of
them in terms of being authentic. They are reportage.
Color is almost a devotion. Now Pablo Picasso had the choice as to
how he painted his representation of Guernica, from the newspaper reports.
And from a Spaniard thinking about how his fellow countrymen and women and
children were affected by this. And it is, a striking image.
Because it displays death in a way that's not intended to be realistic in terms of
reportage. But, what it does give is a sense of
turmoil and anguish and bewilderment that stems from the event, and remember this
is Picasso working not as an eyewitness but, working as someone who is dealing
with Those who f-, favored the government side, those who had seen the events, and
those who are reporting on it internationally.