Stunning photos of London's new WWI memorial

[jimmy olsen]

WWI changed everything?

It basically destroyed Western Imperialism. If not for WWI, Algeria would probably still be French.

[Sheilbh]

WWI changed everything?

Yeah. It remade the world to an enormous degree (far more than WW2). The map of Europe and the Middle East change, the European system is changed forever and the way of war changes. I mean Fascism and Communism are a little exotic but they're recognisably modern in a way that the Ruritanian pre-WW1 world isn't.

In terms of the UK as well it's a huge catalyst for changes that we now can see were already underway. It marks the start of the end of the British Empire and that sort of settled late-Victorian Downton Abbey society. I think for the Commonwealth countries (certainly Australia, Canada and New Zealand - maybe South Africa too?) it seems to me it's a part of creating nations distinct from colonies. It's important in places like India too - the failure of the British to give concessions to India after so many had fought (like the failure to create 'homes fit for heroes' domestically) is an important moment in the radicalisation and growth of the independence movement, so was the abolition of the Caliphate.

Edit: Not to mention women working and the boost it gave to suffragettes in the UK and, I imagine, elsewhere.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

For the UK more Brits died in WW1 than any other war, around 2%, proportionally I think only the Civil War was worse.

[Jacob]

I think for the Commonwealth countries (certainly Australia, Canada and New Zealand - maybe South Africa too?) it seems to me it's a part of creating nations distinct from colonies.

Yeah, Vimy Ridge is very much taught as the birth of the nation in Canada. From Veterans Affairs Canada:

[Vimy Ridge] also was a turning point in [Canadians'] self-image. Many Canadians had joined up to aid the mother country. But as the war went on, they became more and more conscious of being Canadian. This seemed to crystallize on Vimy Ridge. Brigadier-General Alexander Ross was a battalion commander at Vimy, and later recounted his feelings as he watched the Canadian troops advance that morning: "It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade. I thought then...that in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation." Many others who were there would agree.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/canada/tomb-unknown-soldier/thetomb/vimyback

[Razgovory]

WWI changed everything?

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

[Jacob]

WWI changed everything?

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

[Valmy]

Sort of.  We were handed the opportunity and retreated from it in a conservative 'return to normalcy'.  So it was a false start to what would become the norm during and after WWII.

[Razgovory]

WWI changed everything?

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

The US was probably a top tier power before 1914, though few in Europe recognized it as such.  I'd say the US could properly be called a great power after destroying the Spanish empire.  However, like Valmy said,  the US largely retreated from the responsibility of being a great power till 1941.  Even after WWII many in the US wanted to go back to isolationism (which wasn't really isolationism it was simply ignoring Europe while ruling Latin America), but the Korean war essentially ended that.  I doubt that in the history of all the world has a country shuffled its feet so much on the way to hegemony.

[CountDeMoney]

The US was probably a top tier power before 1914, though few in Europe recognized it as such.  I'd say the US could properly be called a great power after destroying the Spanish empire.  However, like Valmy said,  the US largely retreated from the responsibility of being a great power till 1941.

I disagree it retreated;  while it was tremendously interventionist up to and through WW1--particularly in former Spanish holdings and Latin America--the US, from Open Door with China to to the Washington Treaty to Good Neighbor in the early 1930s, was practicing a markedly more benevolent brand of big power across the globe.  "The responsibility of being a great power" doesn't always mean aggression.

[DGuller]

The endless poetry has indeed reinforced the perception of WW1 as the greatest pointless horror of human history.

 

[alfred russel]

Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Also, everyone killed back then would be dead now anyway. At least some of those killed in WWI might have died believing that they were dying for a greater cause. The rest of us endure each day just for the opportunity to endure the next, and will probably die of horrible diseases in the knowledge our lives amounted to nothing.

[Martinus]

WWI changed everything?

Not here in the States.  We largely missed the bullet.  I have a hard time distinguishing WWI and WWII.  To me they are all part of a piece.  I like the second thirty years war idea, though I would put the starting date to 1911 with the Italian conquest of Libya as it set off the Balkan wars and Balkan instability played a rather large part in the beginning of the WWI.

For Poland WWI was such an auspicious event, it is weird how it almost even did not register as a war at all in the popular consciousness despite us being essentially in the middle of it.

Obviously, the horrors of WWII eclisped it by far but even before that I think the war of 1920 was seen as more important/traumatic. It could be that the partition powers did not recruit that many soldiers here due to fears of a rebellion/mutiny. And of course, the war ended with an unlikely loss by all partition powers - despite them actually fighting each other.

Edit: actually, checking the stats, it seems half a million Poles died in armies of Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary during WWI. I don't know how this compares, percentage wise, with British losses but I suspect this is comparable. So no idea - except the euphoria of independence and then horror of WWII - why Poles barely remember WWI as a national trauma. Could be we are less histrionic than Brits.

[Martinus]

Sainsbury's Christmas advert made in partnership with the British Legion. Conflicted. Very touching and not in-your-face commercial, but I'm not entirely sure the bloodiest conflict in human history should be used to sell anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWF2JBb1bvM

Errr, WW1 is not the bloodiest conflict in human history. It is not even the second bloodiest conflict in human history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Also, everyone killed back then would be dead now anyway. At least some of those killed in WWI might have died believing that they were dying for a greater cause. The rest of us endure each day just for the opportunity to endure the next, and will probably die of horrible diseases in the knowledge our lives amounted to nothing.

Don't you mean WWII?

[grumbler]

Is WWI a reasonable marker for the rise of the US as the major super power? I'm no historian of the era (or any era, to be honest) but it seems to me that after WWI the US is a top tier power, and the period sets the stage for the US becoming a super power post WWII.

WW1 marked a huge change in the way government worked in the US; the consolidation of federal power in the name of waging a huge war, and the establishment of so many federal agencies to do so, created a new perception of what the federal government could and should do.  The end of the war saw the end of most of the agencies, but not the realization that so many problems could and should be solved by the federal government.  The post-WW1 government remained much larger than the pre-war government, and Roosevelt was able to do what he did because people were willing to let the government have that power again, when the problems of the Depression seemed to demand it.

WW2, and the lead-up to it, were probably more significant than WW1 in terms of the federalization of power in the US, but WW1 was very significant.

[Brazen]

Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

There are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

There was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

[mongers]

Unlike Mart, it doesn't really bother me if the Brits (or anyone) want to look back at WWI. What I do find interesting though is how from an outsider's perspective - talk of WWI does seem to loom large in the ceremonial for Remembrance Day. In contrast, I'd say that the origin points for Memorial Day and Veterans Day in the US have been nearly entirely eclipsed by their modern symbolism.

For the UK and Canada, WW1 looms larger in terms of sorrow as shared memory considers it a largely pointless sacrifice.

In numbers, for example, WW1 killed a larger number of Canadians in absolute terms than WW2 - and of course larger in relative terms (aprox. 64K in WW1, or close to 1% of pop., versus 45K in WW2, or close to 0.4% of pop).

The main difference, however, is the perception that the dead in WW1 largely died for no good reason, while the dead in WW2 died in a good cause. Also, WW1 was the first real experience Canadians had of the horrors of modern warfare - the romantic mythology of war was largely and traumatically shattered by this conflict; by WW2, few had such illusions.

Also, WW1 inspired a lot of mournful iconography and poetry, which shaped the tone of rememberance.

There are currently a lot of people alive who remember people who fought in WWI - I remember my granddad even though I didn't find out about his role in the war until recently. Things might change in the next generation. He never talked about his experiences during his 12-year career as a soldier even to my dad.

There was a huge class aspect to both wars which might be missed by countries where class is defined by largely financial criteria. Generally upper class people ordered lower class people to their deaths. But the largest percentage loss of life was among the middle class NCOs who were required to lead their men form the front.

I don't think that's entirely correct. The officer class suffered disproportionately higher death rates than other ranks. Indeed officers seemed to have made up for a relative lack of tactical skill by tending to get killed in large numbers whilst leading from the front.

I don't know about NCO death rates in the WW1 British army, but many well trained or at least determined armies tend to suffer higher casualties among the NCOs, I believe US operations in Iraq is a good example of that.

Also not sure you'd find British NCOs of that period middle class.