It was believed to be "The War That Will End War," as British author H.G. Wells first
described in a collection of newspaper articles that were published in a book at the
outbreak of war in August 1914.

Three years later, President Woodrow Wilson, in arguing for
America’s involvement in the war, and only months after getting re-elected on
the promise not to go to war, stated it would be “the war to end war,” a
term he only used once, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s “Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political
Speechmaking.”
Next year we will observe the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, which lead to nine million combatants killed and another nearly eight million missing. In
World War I was the first conflict of the
industrial age and with it came industrial horrors, machine-driven weapons –
tanks and aerial bombardments – and chemical weapons, which, as recently seen
in Syria ,
remain with us today.
As the last century has shown, it was not the war to end war. The peace negotiations in
The allies had little concern about the
consequences of leaving a nation like German nearly destitute and little
thought as to how a family of nations should behave toward one another. It
would take World War II and the creation of the United Nations to begin
dialogue on that concept.
In scope of nations involved and scale of destruction, World War I was unprecedented in history until World War II. Since those wars,
All of these wars and so many smaller ones not mentioned
have links, directly and indirectly, to the outcomes of World War I. It wasn’t
a war to end war; it was a war that spawned wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment