107 years ago*, the guns fell silent on the Western Front, marking a temporary and partial end to the Great War which began in 1914, and has continued, in one form or another, ever since. I once hoped that I would live to see a peaceful world, but that hope has faded away.
- As several readers noted, my arithmetic was off – this seems to be happening to me a bit lately. Fixed now. Also, while it was 11 Nov in Australia when I wrote it, it was 10 Nov in the US where our servers are located.
{ 11 comments }
Stephen 11.10.25 at 8:30 pm
From a slightly less (understandably) Australiacentric perceptive: the world before 1914 was not exactly peaceful, some previous wars could reasonably considered as world wars, there were times after 1918 when if the Great War had been going on nobody seemed to have noticed (look up the Ten Year Rule imposed by that incurable warmonger Winston Churchill), and while I would likewise hope to see a peaceful world I would note that it takes two to make peace, it takes only one to make war. V V Putin currently being the one (though not, of course, against Australia).
John Q 11.11.25 at 4:12 am
Stephen – I hadn’t heard of the Ten Year Rule, about which I should think some more. Putin gave us 8 years notice, and arguably more, before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, but it wasn’t clear how to respond.
And yes, in both the 1920s and the 1990s it seemed possible to imagine that the Great War was over. And for some places (China) and some peoples (First Nations nearly everywhere) the 19th century was worse than the first half of the 20th.
Jonshine 11.11.25 at 12:27 pm
I tend to disagree – these are just a totally different set of geopolitical conflicts.
The Great War stretched from its first half beginning 1914 through the long ceasefire of the 1920s and 1930s until the end of its second in 1944-5, was defined, in retrospect, by the co-operation of Britain, France, Russia and America against, fundamentally, Imperial Germany and the Habsburg Empire, and the later Nazi incarnation.
The Cold War era conflict, from the 1950s through 1990s, and its 2010s reincarnation under Putin (given a new flavour in this 3rd millennium by the re-emergence of China as a premier global power), harks back to the ‘Great Game’ of the mid-to-late 1800s, broadly between Britain, France, and America as opposed by Russia.
reason 11.11.25 at 10:34 pm
It seems to me ALL of those conflicts are fuelled by excessively large countries with imperial ambitions. I think once countries become too large, they start to cause problems along their borders that are hard to contain by the international community.
Just like there SHOULD be no billionaires, there should be no empires (and no political presidents for that matter). For exactly the same reason, very large concentrations of power are bad news.
Alex SL 11.13.25 at 9:15 pm
Here in Australia, colleagues and monuments alike say “lest we forget”. The beauty of that phrase is that it is completely empty of meaning, entirely open to interpretation.
I often wonder if I should ask those who say it what it is we should not forget, but I worry the answer will be “our brave heroes during the Boer Wars and Vietnam” instead of “the horrors of war, so let’s never have any of those again, ever”.
reason,
It is simply that large countries can large conflicts, so in that sense, yes, if we could wave a magic want to have only lots of tiny countries, we would likely not have world wars. We might still have the same amount of dead from many tiny wars, though. See what the ancient Greeks got up to among each other while they were city states, or more recently, the Football War of 1969. Too many people are short-sighted, selfish, and emotionally immature. Some of those who are like that are leaders, others elect leaders after their own fashion.
The bigger problem is that there is no plausible mechanism for ensuring that there are only lots of small countries.
Austin Loomis 11.13.25 at 10:28 pm
And they become harder to hold together without enforcing cultural unity by fair means or foul. (Compare and contrast Canada, China, the Russias under the Romanov and Ulyanov dynasties, and Unistat in its transcontinental phase.)
KT2 11.14.25 at 2:54 am
“and has continued, in one form or another, ever since.”… including….
Saddened, and astounded to read, a century later….
“Gas gangrene reappeared during Russo-Ukraine War.[22]”
“Gas gangrene (also known as clostridial myonecrosis)[4] is a bacterial infection that produces tissue gas in gangrene. This deadly form of gangrene usually is caused by Clostridium perfringens bacteria. About 1,000 cases of gas gangrene are reported yearly in the United States.[5]
“”During World War I and World War II, Clostridial myonecrosis was found in 5% of wounds, but with improvement in wound care, antisepsis and the use of antibiotics, the incidence had fallen to 0.1% of war-related wound infections by the Vietnam War.[3]
“Clostridium species produce more toxins and exhibit higher degrees of virulence than any other bacterial taxon.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_gangrene
22;
“Gas gangrene returns to Ukraine in echoes of First World War trench warfare
Military medics say Russian drone strikes make evacuation almost impossible – creating conditions that cause infections to surge”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/gas-gangrene-ukraine-war-russia-trenches-europe/
No need of ai to develop superbugs, just flood the zone with drones.
War, what is it good for.
engels 11.16.25 at 1:45 am
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr9r4qr0ppo
engels 11.16.25 at 1:50 am
Tool Time, with Tim Taylor
https://youtube.com/shorts/Yk8m6hp1pd4
Austin Loomis 11.16.25 at 10:03 pm
KT2 reminded us of the classic question:
Friend only to the undertaker.
engels 11.19.25 at 9:06 pm
Friend only to the undertaker
Not quite.
https://moneyweek.com/investments/investing-in-defence-the-easiest-way-to-buy-into-the-boom
Comments on this entry are closed.