Rip lads.

How “horrible” a war is may be a matter of opinion (and mine is that the static and extended nature of the Great War on the Western Front, combined with advances in killing technology, the absence of antibiotics, and slow and uncertain evacuation of the wounded, did indeed make it “the worst” – at least in European terms), but which industrial war would you suggest cost more lives before 1918? The Taiping Rebellion may have come close, but most of its deaths were not deaths in combat. And while World War II was bloodier overall, that was a function of it’s longer course, wider reach, and especially of the war on the Eastern Front. In the West, British losses were a third of those in 1914-18, for instance. Better medical techniques, the development of penicillin, and easier and surer evacuation of the wounded on at least some fronts made it less terrible overall as well, from the fighting man’s perspective anyway – again, in my opinion.

I am in agreement with you about the “prestigious Department of War Studies” at King’s London, though. It’s where I did my PhD.

Anyone who thinks that preventing German hegemony over Europe and international maritime trade was a ‘futile’ exercise is out of touch with what the Allies who fought to stop Germany knew to be necessary and also what informed historiographical opinion acknowledges today.

Take, for example, this from Professor Sir Michael Howard, who established the prestigious Department of War Studies at King’s College, London:

“If the Germany of 1916 was not that of Adolf Hitler, neither was she that of Konrad Adenauer. Power was contested between an authoritarian, militaristic and increasingly proto-fascistic right wing and a liberal-socialistic left, and every military success strengthened the hand of the former. Victory in war would have established their dominance, not only in Germany, but over Europe as a whole, and with it their determination to destroy Britain’s naval supremacy and to reduce her to the status of a second-rate power as they had done to France in 1871. That at least was the perception in Britain itself, which was why, for better or worse, neither elite nor popular opinion in Britain across the political spectrum for a moment considered defeat to be an option.”

The author of this piece also thinks that “no war seems more terrible than World War I,” and thart “In the four years between 1914 and 1918, it killed or wounded more than 25 million people–peculiarly horribly…” I suggest that he ought to consult John Terraine’s ‘The Smoke and the Fire: Myths and Anti Myths of War 1861-1945′, after which he may wish to revise his impressions of the Great War as either “the most terrible” in scale or aspect, or the most costly in lives.

Best wishes to one and all!

Paul

thank you for the inspiring story with all of the tidbits left in!

Christmas Blessings to all, all the year round!