Support NeoGAF

[SnakeswithLasers]

I'm sorry FreeMufasa, I was just trying to be funny and frankly I thought you made that up.

It's extraordinary that you had a great grandfather who lived that long, I've never known anyone who lived that long.

Again, my apologies. Bad joke.

Nicely done.

Anyway, anyone have any good recommendations on WWI books? I'd like to learn more and just want a balanced look at the history, not a super in depth glance at a single facet.

 

[Messypandas]

she lived

 

[Forceatowulf]

I'll second this.

 

[Eiji]

I shall never die. Chromium Picolonate, every orifice, everyday.

What are you taking Chromium for? You got blood sugar problems?

 

[cdyhybrid]

/salute

Kinda sad. End of an era.

 

[BanGy.nz]

It's amazing to think that we're quickly approaching a time when the great war is no longer in living memory.

 

[Monocle]

I sometimes wonder, if the globalisation, internet and social medias has/will spare us of a third World War.

Probably not. One can hope that the next major war will be documented in thorough explicit detail that will sicken people sufficiently to prompt a serious and enduring global peace effort. History doesn't inspire much confidence that this will occur, but still.

 

[Kabouter]

Probably not. One can hope that the next major war will be documented in thorough explicit detail that will sicken people sufficiently to prompt a serious and enduring global peace effort. History doesn't inspire much confidence that this will occur, but still.

You don't think WW2 applies there? Man, I've seen quite a bit of footage in WW2 documentaries I'd rather forget.

 

[McNei1y]

You don't think WW2 applies there? Man, I've seen quite a bit of footage in WW2 documentaries I'd rather forget.

Exactly. While we have twitter/facebook for instant media/news, I wouldn't think it'd be anything different. There has been tons of documented images and studies on such vulgar wartime situations. I don't see why anything would change (one can only hope though).

edit: RIP. End of an era indeed. I remember being taken to a restaurant that had a much more elder crowd about twelve years ago when I was around a young age and there I talked to a couple of my aunts and uncles friends who were World War II vets. One was a combat pilot who saw action in Europe and the other two were soldiers in the 501st (IIRC). It was weird after talking to them since I said to my parents how it would be weird to see such a generation end.

 

[Steelrain]

Damn. She had a full life.

I remember seeing a video of of Civil War vets on a parade awhile back.

That shit blew my mind.

Luckily WWI has been documented very well on video so it won't take much effort to imagine what it was like.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

What are you taking Chromium for? You got blood sugar problems?

He's referencing a King of the Hill episode.

 

[Monocle]

You don't think WW2 applies there? Man, I've seen quite a bit of footage in WW2 documentaries I'd rather forget.

I certainly had WW2 in mind. I've seen and read utterly horrifying things from and about the war. Of course it was very well documented, and its historical significance and political effects can't be overstated, but for all that, countries still engage in armed conflict, world powers still don't consistently intervene to prevent genocide, and the threat of future nuclear war is by no means off the table.

Though I'd prefer to stay optimistic, if the past has anything to teach us about human nature, it's that our tribalistic instincts win out in the end.

 

[Majine]

Probably not. One can hope that the next major war will be documented in thorough explicit detail that will sicken people sufficiently to prompt a serious and enduring global peace effort. History doesn't inspire much confidence that this will occur, but still.

We have been close to a WW3 but what is the major threat now? Iran? Might be considered a major war if shit hits the fan, but I think the term World War is a thing of the past. Or atleast I hope so.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

You don't think WW2 applies there? Man, I've seen quite a bit of footage in WW2 documentaries I'd rather forget.

It's also who films it that matters. If you see a combat reporter following the soldiers and taking the time to set up a tripod, then you feel that there is some control and less chaos.

But look at the videos from Libya and Syria, with people using their cell phones to take videos of fire fights, not only is the actual quality of the video higher, but you know that it's a regular person with no body armor holding the camera while trying not to get killed.

Also you don't need a film studio to edit, distribute, and censor the really horrible parts of the video, anybody can just upload something to youtube. Conflicts in the future will probably look more violent than the World Wars, I hope.

 

[Kabouter]

It's also who films it that matters. If you see a combat reporter following the soldiers and taking the time to set up a tripod, then you feel that there is some control and less chaos.

But look at the videos from Libya and Syria, with people using their cell phones to take videos of fire fights, not only is the actual quality of the video higher, but you know that it's a regular person with no body armor holding the camera while trying not to get killed.

Also you don't need a film studio to edit, distribute, and censor the really horrible parts of the video, anybody can just upload something to youtube. Conflicts in the future will probably look more violent than the World Wars, I hope.

Lots of World War II footage was shot by cameramen without tripods, obviously without any body armour, whilst trying their hardest not to get killed. These were people sent to the frontlines of the bloodiest battles in history, armed with only a camera. They suffered disease in New Guinea, froze to death on the Eastern Front, had to seek cover from shelling and bombardment. They went everywhere the soldiers went, to show the world the suffering and sacrifices of the young men and women risking their lives for their countries. And while the newsreels of the time might have been heavily edited, the original tapes still exist in most cases. The difference isn't nearly what you think it is.

 

[Monocle]

We have been close to a WW3 but what is the major threat now? Iran? Might be considered a major war if shit hits the fan, but I think the term World War is a thing of the past. Or atleast I hope so.

I'm not informed enough to offer a credible assessment of the likeliest country or contingency to initiate the next global conflict. However, the existence and perpetual refinement of nuclear and biological weaponry give world society excellent reason to be nervous about the future of war. One nuke can devastate a city in minutes more thoroughly than any infantry could given a week. One supervirus can decimate an entire country's population.

Humanity has never been more vulnerable to its own war technology.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

*looks around*

Okay seriously that war was bullllllshiiiiit.

Whew, been holdin' that one in for decades!

Worse than just being a pointless war, the terms of peace set the stage for WWII to play out.

 

[Bregor]

Worse than just being a pointless war, the terms of peace set the stage for WWII to play out.

Why was it a pointless war?

 

[Kabouter]

Why was it a pointless war?

I think many are saying that mostly because it didn't provide the lasting peace that people thought it would deliver, given the extreme level of violence and death. I disagree with the overall assertion of pointlessness though. World War I wasn't fought because of the death of an Archduke or the network of alliances that existed between various European powers. It was a war that principally revolved around a changing balance of power in Europe, clashing spheres of influence, the future of multi-national/multi-ethnic empires, the clash between absolute monarchies and democracy and so on. All those themes returned in the Second World War because none were truly solved at the end of the First World War. In fact, I would say that they weren't resolved until the end of the Cold War.

 

[Bregor]

I think many are saying that mostly because it didn't provide the lasting peace that people thought it would deliver, given the extreme level of violence and death. I disagree with the overall assertion of pointlessness though. World War I wasn't fought because of the death of an Archduke or the network of alliances that existed between various European powers. It was a war that principally revolved around a changing balance of power in Europe, the future of multi-national/multi-ethnic empires, the clash between absolute monarchies and democracy and so on. All those themes returned in the Second World War because none were truly solved at the end of the First World War. In fact, I would say that they weren't resolved until the end of the Cold War.

I agree completely. The reason I pressed him is because I get irritated by the widespread misconceptions about the reasons the war started and the nature and effects of the peace.

The war did not start just because of an assassination and the web of alliances. It was a war long anticipated (and to some degree wanted) by France and Germany. Both of them felt they had unfinished issues to settle from the previous war, and were itching to finish things off once and for all. (And to establish themselves as the premier continental power.)

The end of the war developed some idealistic expectations due to the high ideals of Woodrow Wilson - but the French never really saw it that way. The Germans objections to the eventual peace conditions are a bit hypocritical considering that they planned to impose even harsher conditions if they had won. That was the way wars were fought up till then - they were expensive, but if you won you made the loser pay the cost of the war. This isn't to say the peace terms didn't have detrimental consequences, but holding them up as cruel or unusual isn't fair.

 

[Dead Man]

I work with WW2 veterans, and they are pretty old now, and passing away rapidly. Can't imagine someone who saw WW1.