For those who fought in the trenches of the First World War, witnessed the horrors, the battles and the futility of war, and somehow survived it all, it was imperative that their experience should never be forgotten, so it would serve as a warning for future generations to avoid even contemplating such colossal human cataclysm. Little did they know that, within their lifetimes, just 20 years later, an even worse episode of worldwide carnage, genocide and destruction would break out. But, in the meantime, through art, political essays and strategic rethinking, many embarked on a project of sharing their experiences, partly as a cathartic exercise to help them cope with the traumas they had suffered, and partly to caution their societies from sending their young ones to take part in needless wars. In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, which came to an end 100 years ago this month, many of those who returned home were already concerned that those who had not shared their experiences would rather not hear about them; and that those who had would rather not talk about them. To them, the British soldier-poet Siegfried Sassoon asked: “Have you forgotten yet?.. Look up, and swear by the green of the spring that you’ll never forget.” There are countless lessons to be learned from the “Great War.” First and foremost, that wars can break out even if no one has an interest in them, is prepared for them or has the faintest idea of what their outcome might be. To be sure, this war was slow cooking, due to the gradual erosion of the 19th century post-Napoleonic European balance of power. It was the case that leaders were controlled by events instead of the other way around. The assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, by the Slavic nationalist Gavrilo Princip in June 1914 was not the cause of the war, but was an acute catalyst. What followed was a series of miscalculations and bad judgments by those who ended up leading their countries into a confrontation with each other, with no plans or strategies, and with commitments to alliances and causes that no longer served their purposes. This was the last hurrah for many of the old European regimes and monarchies, whose downfall was the price they paid for such folly. It is not unusual for a war to fail to achieve its political goals, as in 1914-18. But it is rare for the victors to be so badly damaged that they cannot recover in time to prevent a fresh catastrophe, in this case the Second World War. The First World War was expected to last a few months, but it endured for years and expanded geographically, resulting in approximately 40 million military and civilian casualties, around 16 million of them dead. Its impact was felt by generations to come. This was the last hurrah for many of the old European regimes and monarchies, whose downfall was the price they paid for such folly. Yossi Mekelberg The First World War was also a conflict that revolutionized warfare by introducing new and more lethal military technologies than ever before. Tanks, armored vehicles, airplanes, electricity and radio-based communications, as well as chemical weapons, all made their debuts. In this sense, it was the first modern war, but it also provided the evidence that, to this day, politicians and their generals still refuse to recognize: That advances in weapons technology do not guarantee victory on the battlefield or political success. Bloodshed without any political achievement, especially as it manifested itself in the trenches of the Western Front, demonstrated that the excessive use of manpower on the battlefield, without any consideration given to loss of lives or soldiers’ wellbeing, can only lead to the opposite of the required result. It was also the war in which two future rival superpowers were in the making. The US presented itself as a world leader, even if it later retreated to Fortress North America for another two decades before returning to save Europe from itself for a second time. And, for Russia, the war enhanced the conditions that triggered the October Revolution of 1917 and sowed the seeds of the Cold War. It was not only President Woodrow Wilson’s leadership in taking his country to war that tilted the balance in favor of the Allies against the Axis powers, but also his post-war “Fourteen Points” program, by which he attempted to reshape the world system. His vision of the world was one in which, in order to avoid the duplicity of the pre-war agreements that had contributed immensely to the outbreak of war, secrecy in international diplomacy would be abandoned and replaced with “diplomacy (that) shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” Moreover, Wilson envisaged that a lasting peace should be based on what was later labeled as liberal idealism, entailing absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas; the removal of economic barriers and the creation of a level playing field in trade for everyone; disarmament to a degree “consistent with domestic safety;” and the end of colonial claims, resulting in the spread of self-determination. And the jewel in the crown was supposed to be an international body upon which great powers would be bestowed to ensure peace and security for everyone. Tragically, Wilson couldn’t convince even his own people to sign up to the problematic Treaty of Versailles that included these ideas. The experience of an international war that had cost the lives of 116,516 of its soldiers was more than his country could bear, and America retreated from European affairs. Europe subsequently embarked on its most destructive period, with the emergence of weak, ineffectual and divided political systems on the one hand, and the rise of fascism and Nazism on the other. The end result was the tragedy of the Second World War, with its even more disastrous consequences. It was only after this that many of the lessons arising from the First World War were actually learned, in terms of post-war reconstruction and avoiding further conflicts. Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view