As we approach the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One, the war that was so terrible many believed there would never be another. One hundred years later the terror of war still pervades human society.

I have a great interest in WWI and have read many books on the subject, but I still ask the question; Why? At the moment I am reading 'Scarecrow Army' by Leon Davidson, an account of the ANZACS at Gallipoli. The book is fascinating for its personal recollections of men who were there in 1915, as they express their feeling and emotions. An anecdote I found interesting;

A Turk climbed out of his trench, I look at him, then I quickly slide back the bolt, take aim and fire. He rolls and comes to rest against a bush, he's not moving. It was a great shot, even if he was a lot bigger than a rabbit.

"Did you get him? " asked Reggie. "Nah, missed by a mile!"..."Better luck next time!" said Reggie.

I don't know why I lied to Reggie, but I couldn't get the Turk out of my head, I watched him for a while, wanting him to move, but he didn't. He was dead and there was nothing I could do about it! The Turk shouldn't have stood up, I wanted to know his name and something about him. I wished I hadn't done that. - Gerald Sievers, Wellington Battalion NZ Infantry Brigade.

When will the senseless murder that is war, end?

Why?
The Kaiser was envious of Edward VII and wanted to be equal in power.
Edward got the following at his funeral 1910:

HM The King of the United Kingdom, the late King's son
HI&RM The German Emperor, King of Prussia, the late King's nephew
HRH The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, the late King's brother
HM The King of the Hellenes, the late King's brother-in-law
HM The King of Spain, the late King's nephew-in-law
HM The King of Norway, the late King's nephew by marriage/son-in-law
HM The King of Denmark, the late King's brother-in-law
HM The King of Portugal, the late King's fourth cousin
HM The Tsar of the Bulgarians, the late King's second cousin
HM The King of the Belgians, the late King's second cousin
HI&RH The Archduke of Austria-Este, heir presumptive to the throne of Austria-Hungary
HIH The Crown Prince of the Ottoman Empire
HIH Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, the late King's nephew by marriage
HRH The Duke of Aosta, cousin of the King of Italy
HIH Prince Fushimi Sadanaru, cousin of the Emperor of Japan
HRH The Crown Prince of Greece, the late King's nephew by marriage/nephew-in-law
HRH The Crown Prince of Romania, the late King's nephew-in-law
HRH Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, the late King's sixth cousin, grandson of the Prince-Regent of Bavaria
HRH Duke Albrecht of Württemberg, cousin and heir-presumptive of the King of Württemberg

HRH The Crown Prince of Serbia
HRH The Prince Consort of the Netherlands, husband of the Queen of the Netherlands
HRH The Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine, the late King's nephew
HRH The Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the late King's second cousin
HRH Prince Henry of Prussia, the late King's nephew
HRH The Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the late King's nephew
HRH Prince Johann Georg of Saxony, the late king's second cousin once removed
HRH The Duke of Västergötland, the late King's nephew-in-law by marriage
HSH The Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, brother of the late king's sister-in-law
HRH Prince Mohammed Ali of Egypt, heir presumptive to the throne of Egypt
HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught, the late King's nephew
HH Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, the late King's brother-in-law
HH Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, the King's nephew
HH Prince Alexander of Battenberg, the late King's nephew
His Grace The Duke of Fife, the late King's son-in-law
HSH The Duke of Teck, the late King's second cousin
HSH Prince Francis of Teck, the late King's second cousin
HSH Prince Alexander of Teck, the late King's nephew-in-law
HRH Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, the late King's nephew by marriage/great-nephew-in-law
HIH Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia, the late king's third cousin once removed
HGDH Prince Maximilian of Baden, the late King's nephew-in-law by marriage
HRH The Crown Prince of Montenegro, the late King's third cousin-in-law

HRH Prince Christopher of Greece and Denmark, the late King's nephew by marriage
HH Prince Philipp of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the late King's second cousin
HRH The Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the late King's third cousin
HRH Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza (Brazil), the late king's second cousin twice removed
HRH The Duke of Penthièvre
HRH Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
HH Prince August Leopold of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the King's second cousin
HSH Prince Wolrad of Waldeck-Pyrmont, first cousin once removed of Queen Alexandra
HRH Prince Bovaradej of Siam
Those who followed behind in the carriages included:

Caesar (dog), the late King's dog who led the funeral procession with a highlander walking behind the carriage that carried the King's coffin
HM Queen Alexandra, the late King's widow
HIM Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia, the late King's sister-in-law
HRH The Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, the late King's daughter
HRH The Princess Victoria, the late King's daughter
HM The Queen of the United Kingdom, the late King's daughter-in-law
HM The Queen of Norway, the late King's daughter
HRH The Duke of Cornwall, the late King's grandson
HRH The Princess Mary, the late King's granddaughter
HRH Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, the late King's sister

HRH The Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, the late King's sister
HRH Princess Henry of Battenberg, the late King's sister
HRH The Duchess of Connaught and Strathearn, the late King's sister-in-law
HRH The Dowager Duchess of Albany, the late King's sister-in-law
HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught, the late King's niece
HH Princess Alexandra of Fife, the late King's granddaughter
HH Princess Maud of Fife, the late King's granddaughter
HH Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein, the late King's niece
HH Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein, the late King's niece
HRH The Prince Albert, the late King's grandson
HRH The Prince Henry, the late King's grandson
HRH Prince George of Hanover and Cumberland, the late King's nephew by marriage
HIH Prince Zaitao of China, representing the Qing Dynasty
His Excellency Former President Theodore Roosevelt, representing the United States
Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphen Pichon, representing the French Republic
Samad Khan Momtaz os-Saltaneh, representing Persia.

Dear Paul,

War occurs as a result of a political decision -
usually a decision by older men that younger men
should fight for what the older men believe to be
worth fighting for. There can be no war unless
the leaders of at least two societies with conflicting
interests decide that they prefer war to any alternative
means of settling their differences.

Soldiers themselves go to war - frequently not
knowing what they are fighting for, and usually terrified
of meeting the enemy in battle - because a legitimate
political authority is determined on that course of
action. War is actually a highly structured social
activity. It can't be sustained without a strong
political authority that can persuade people to risk their
lives for a purpose beyond themselves.

There's many factors that may influence the decision to
go to war - the personalities of the leaders, the influence
of nationalist, religious, or other ideologies, the
extent of popular support for war, the anticipated economic gains
or losses, the ambitions or advice of the military, perceptions
of the other side's motives and intentions,
the expected reaction of the international community, and of
course, expectations about the likely outcome of the conflict.

One factor that seems particularly likely to encourage war
is preparations for it. Military build-up by country X
may make country Y feel threatened, leading Y to begin a
defensive build up. Country X perceives the new build-up
as a hostile move and increases its armaments, proving to Y
that its suspicions about X were right all along and that more
arms are needed - and so on.

Whether we choose to
destroy our civilisation or save it it is a collective
decision - and hopefully will be made within our
lifetimes. But if more and more nuclear weapons are built
and if more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised
and if more nations get control of these vile devices, then
we surely risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse this process, then we can divert
our energy to the real problems
that face us.

Hi Foxy,

I despair that in 100 years, mankind has failed to reach a position of enlightenment whereby war, and violence in general, had become obsolete and no longer was a part of mans ethos. Ten thousand years ago, our ancestors were struggling to invent the wheel, and at the same time throwing rocks at each other in acts of war. Today we have progressed to a point whereby we are sending men to the Moon, yet we are still throwing rocks at each other in acts of war. The only things that has changed is the rocks have become somewhat more sophisticated.

// Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it it is a collective decision//

I don't believe war is a national collective decision, the majority may certainly agree with war, well initially, as the decision makers and their supporters whip up patriotic fervour among the general populous. Saying that, its not a "collective decision" made through some democratic process, rather it is something imposed by authority. Australia as a war prone country, and we are up there with the best of them when it comes to getting involved, has never asked its citizens should we be in it. The government has asked the populace many important questions Such as; Should the Constitution be changed to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and have them included in the census, also a non binding vote regarding the question of gay marriage. The government has never seen it as important enough to gain general approval to send soldiers off to war, and have them killing other human beings in our name.

Paul we now know what those brave men did not, it was a war between family members, the children and grandchildren of Queen Victoria
They died thinking they fought for our freedom, I will honor them forever
In fact fly the lest we forget flag in my front yard
There is no glory in war
But in a world that is ruled such as Trump Putin and so many more war will kill again, in fact is doing just that all over the world right now

Paul, Belly,

The number of people being killed in conflict has since 1945 continued to shrink to the smallest levels in all history.

No the number of wars in Europe is down after WWII.
War deaths in world 19th century were around 41million give or take a few children.
World war deaths after WWII are about 25 million or 50 million for the century at that rate.
Are US , Russia and China agreeing to end military pressures? Are Islam and India?

As an astute letter in the SMH asked the other day, what is the point of war? After a few years killing, maiming and wasting resources on the battlefield, things are eventually sorted out around the conference table.

Why not go straight to the conference table?

Toni,

"Why not go straight to the conference table?"

Because the invaders pouring into your country don't want to do so?

An estimated 250,000 Turkish and Arab troops were killed or wounded defending Gallipoli. Australia shot Muslims to stop Germans going to Russia.
really...

Ronald Reagan:

"...but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender." (from the iconic 'Time for Choosing' speech)

"I think all of us are agreed that war is probably man's greatest stupidity and I think peace is the dream that lives in the heart of everyone wherever he may be in the world, but unfortunately, unlike a family quarrel, it doesn't take two to make a war. It only takes one, unless the other one is prepared to surrender at the first hint of force."

It seems we have a lot of people here who think surrender is the only option.

Let's see how it works:

Stalin could have saved all those Russian lives if only he'd surrendered to Hitler in June 1941.

Think of the all the suffering we'd have avoided if we surrendered to Japan Dec 1941.

Athens could have saved 192 citizen lives in 490BCE if only they'd surrendered to Darius. Of coarse, there'd be no western civilisaton, their young women would have been sold into various harems and their young boys castrated, but heh, avoiding war is surely worth it.

""Why not go straight to the conference table?"

More historic illiteracy. In fact most wars start AFTER the conference (and/or diplomacy) have failed.

Muslims took over Jerusalem . War. Muslims took over Jerusalem.
Germans and Normans took over Britain. War. Germans ruled Britain.

An important element in any peace process is the
international community and its mechanisms for
restraining conflict among its members.

Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made
the nations of the modern world more interdependent
than ever before. Yet today's societies entered the
nuclear age with political institutions inherited
from a previous era.

The human population is spread among a series of
sovereign independent states - and most of them with
own armed forces - and so there is a built-in
potential for warfare whenever two nations have
conflicting interests.

Before the twentieth century there were few
institutionalised ways for hostile nations to achieve
peaceful settlements. When negotiations took place
they often occurred only after a war - for the
purpose of agreeing to a peace treaty that would
specify the spoils of the victor. We now have
better prospects for helping nations to avoid war.

In a world where all nations have a common threat of
direct or indirect involvement in nuclear warfare, some
reliable method is needed to limit conflicts among
sovereign states. We have two vital elements for
international peace-making. The first is the United
Nations, which provides a forum for world opinion and a
mechanism for conflict resolution. The second is a
growing body of international law that specifies the
rights and obligations that nations have toward
one another - particularly with respect to aggression.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

A major difficulty with international peace-making of course
is that compliance with the resolutions of the UN and the
rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for no country is
willing to surrender its sovereignty to an international
body.

The UN is most effective, in fact, when the superpowers
are able to agree on a course of action and mobilise their
blocs to support it.

Even so, the organisation provides an influential forum for
world opinion, and while it does not always prevent war, it
surely makes it less likely.