The Development of Aerial Militarism... by Paul Scheerbart
Ugly Duckling Presse 2007
Reviewed by Komo Ananda
The Ability to Bomb from Directly Above
Paul Scheerbart is unlikely to be remembered in America for his poetry, if at all for any of his writing. However, in his satirical flyer The Development of Aerial Militarism and the Demobilization of European Ground Forces, Fortresses, and Naval Fleets, Scheerbart writes with ambiguously sardonic and wry humor that speaks to anyone who's watched for the last 100 years, addressing the omnipresence of and social malaise relative to technological development, specifically military development, that presses forward from generation to generation. He criticizes the arms race which took place before the start of World War I and predicts—unknowingly—what later was to be coined Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
The flyer is organized into 16 smaller essays concerning the point “Aerial Militarism is far stronger than ground forces, fortresses, and navel fleets.” Beginning with the first essay, “The Impossibility of a Land Battle when Air-Fleets are Involved,” Scheerbart presumes that two European powers possessing Air-fleets want war with one another. If such a war occurs, according to Scheerbart, Air-fleets would cause great and irreconcilable damage in attacks to military installations, parliaments, and palaces; it would happen so quickly that the troops would be “greeted with a hail of torpedoes,” rendering land troops “totally superfluous.”
In the second smaller essay, “The Impossibility of a Fortress War when air-fleets are Involved,” the author goes on to explain that “a fortress war is inconceivable no matter what, if air-fleets exist on both sides.” Scheerbart states that air-fleets simply aren’t bothered by forts, forts being the standard first line of defense against invading armies. Furthermore, air-fleets can fly with complete freedom and need not pay further attention to forts. He then concludes that forts are superfluous and should be converted for peaceful purposes, a notion rendered with marvelous humor.
Scheerbart’s logical, direct and deadpan humor laughs the reader into identifying with Scheerbart’s position—even if he has no clear “stance” other than the hint that it is careless to brainlessly praise technology for its own sake. You’ll laugh inaudibly at his absurd, yet almost conceivable logic: “many soldiers can hide in the forts. But if they come out, they’re exposed to air torpedoes. They might as well not come out. Now it’s obvious that soldiers who can’t put in an appearance in wartime are totally superfluous.” The irony speaks for itself; the future, and future technology, are incoherent, a little bit frightening and always based on something of a false premise.
A bit antique, Aerial Militarism might raise the “relevance” question at first. But good political satire is timeless; Scheerbart keeps a steady eye on the illogical and contradictory moves by Militarists, as well as their denial of the proliferation of god-knows-what new military technology as it “pursues its own steady progress without regard for humanity or civic sentiment” and “compels a dynamite war.” It also serves to remind us of the speed at which once-fascinating and unnerving technology can become commonplace as newer and more destructive ends are researched.
Figuratively, the flyer (pun intended, if you haven’t determined that yet) claims a war of terror and atrocity, which literally depends on dynamite. There have always been Rules of War, and there have always been people ordered to break them; nevertheless, the question of morality is raised: “in the future, even the dropping of explosive munitions on enemy ships will be possible so that, as in a land war, the battle will have to take another course, and at the very least leave a powerful moral impression.” In the end, Scheerbart strikes a profoundly relevant chord, asking Aerial militarists should “feel a moral lift when, with a couple of dynamite bombs, they succeed in sending a couple of thousand enemies to kingdom come? Indeed—I wouldn’t be surprised if they soon started talking about “holy” dynamite…” What's more holy than victory?
--Feb. 20, 2008
