Five Reasons Why World War One Was an Unprecedented Act of Madness, Waste, and Utter Futility
When World War One erupted in 1914, it ushered in an entirely new and previously unimagined era in warfare.
“The peoples of Europe leapt eagerly into war,” wrote A.J.P. Taylor in his famous book, The First World War. Previous conflicts had often been perceived as uplifting, even purifying experiences for the nations involved. Populations of opposing nations watched reverentially as their formal, dignified, uniformed soldiers marched off to war, determined to bring glory to their country, their platoon and themselves. Why would World War One be any different, they wondered?
It was expected to be like previous wars — a swift sequence of marches and battles — and over by Christmas!
Thus, soldiers entered the conflict with ‘innocent enthusiasm,’ driven by a singular goal and hope: to win and return gloriously for their nation. After all, they believed that God was on their side!
If only that was true…
Reason #1: The Origins of World War One
The origins of World War One aptly illustrate why World War One was an act of madness. Here’s how it unfolded:
Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand married Countess Sophie, the love of his life. In an era of arranged marriages among royalty, this was highly unusual, as most royal children were expected to marry for political advantage rather than personal affection.
Because Franz loved Sophie, they travelled together. In July 1914, they went to Bosnia-Herzegovina to inspect the Austro-Hungarian troops stationed there. At the time, Bosnia was under Austro-Hungarian rule, a situation that caused significant tensions and terrorist activity from Serbian nationalist groups eager to reclaim Bosnia-Herzegovina.
One such nationalist, Gavrilo Princip, a member of the Black Hand movement, saw the royal couple together and decided to act. He fired a pistol and shot and killed both Franz and Sophie.
What followed might almost seem absurd if it wasn’t so tragic.
In response to the assassination of their heir apparent, Austria-Hungary’s government began to mobilize its troops against Serbia — note, they mobilized, not declared war. This was primarily ‘saber-rattling’ — a form of diplomatic bullying.
Russian Tsar Nicholas I, a long-time ally of Serbia and Croatia, intervened, strongly advising Austria-Hungary to stand down. To show his resolve, the Tsar government began mobilizing Russia’s troops.
The German government, alarmed by Russia’s actions and eager to defend its Austro-Hungarian ally, demanded that Russia cease its mobilization. When Russia refused, Germany declared war on Russia and mobilized its own army.
If it had ended there, it might have been a war between just two nations.
But Germany’s government wasn’t satisfied and turned its attention to France. France’s leaders, allied with Russia, refused to stay neutral in the German-Russian dispute, prompting Germany’s government to declare war on France.
Unlike the other governments that were merely flexing their military muscle, Germany’s leaders took it further. The day after mobilizing, the German Army invaded Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan, which which was designed to quickly defeat France before turning east to tackle Russia.
The British government, outraged by the violation of Belgian neutrality, felt compelled to declare war on Germany.
Thus, the first global conflict in a century began.
The origins of World War One are reminiscent of a boxing match where competitors use psychological games, aggressive posturing, and bluffing to intimidate their opponents into backing down.
However, as history showed, these threats and displays of power did not lead to retreat. Instead, they made each side more determined to strike back, culminating in World War One.
So, from the assassination of this relatively minor royal figure by an obscure terrorist, emerged the worst war the world had ever seen involving thirty nations from around the world.
The irony and futility of it all are encapsulated by a statement I once saw scrawled on a toilet door in the history department of my alma mater: “Extra! Extra! Franz Ferdinand Found Alive! World War One a Mistake!”
Reason #2: World War One as a War of Attrition
World War One on all fronts was an aimless war — a grueling war of attrition.
It pitted heavy artillery and machine guns against soldiers only equipped for nineteenth-century warfare. This mismatch led to one of the most futile and devastating aspects of the conflict: trench warfare.
Most generals of World War One largely failed to grasp the futility of their methods. The traditional tactics they had used in the past were woefully inadequate in the face of modern weaponry and resulted in horrendous stalemates, with neither side capable of achieving a decent breakthrough.
The battlefields of the Western Front became a labyrinth of trenches, stretching from the North Sea to the Swiss border. Soldiers lived, fought, and often died in these muddy ditches, facing a relentless barrage of artillery and the constant threat of machine-gun fire.
The space between opposing trenches, known as “No Man’s Land,” became a deadly expanse where countless lives were lost in futile attempts to advance a few yards.
The hope of a quick, decisive victory disappeared as each side dug in deeper, and the war devolved into a brutal struggle to outlast the enemy. The phrase “going over the top” became synonymous with sending men to their deaths, as waves of soldiers were ordered to charge into a hail of bullets and shrapnel, achieving nothing but a staggering number of casualties.
The war of attrition turned the conflict into a grinding endurance test. With nations of equal industrial might on either side, no significant breakthroughs were possible, and the war dragged on in a horrifying loop of attack and counterattack, with millions of lives sacrificed for minimal gains.
The ultimate futility of this approach was perhaps best summed up by a veteran’s bitter reflection: “It was a war of lions led by donkeys.”
Reason #3: The Lunacy of the Battle of the Somme
The Battle of the Somme on the Western Front in France is a classic example of the sheer madness and unprecedented waste of World War One.
In an attempt to break the terrible stalemate after two futile years of war, where little had been achieved, British Commander-in-Chief Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig planned the battle in two main phases.
The first phase was to be a massive preliminary bombardment of the German battle trenches to “soften them up.” The idea was to devastate the German defenses so thoroughly that, by the time the British and French infantry attacked, the German soldiers would either be dead or have abandoned their trenches to seek shelter in the rear lines. It was believed that the subsequent infantry assault would be a “piece of cake.”
There was only one problem: the German trenches were exceptionally well-constructed and fortified. The British artillery bombardment, while intense, barely made a dent in these defenses.
So, on that fateful day of July 1, 1916, when the British troops rose from their trenches, they were met by German soldiers who were ready and waiting with their machine guns.
The result? British soldiers were mown down like skittles. On that first day alone, there were nearly 20,000 dead and nearly 60,000 casualties! To this day, it remains the worst single day in British military history.
General Rawlinson, one of the main architects of the attack, described it as “… a very disappointing day.” An understatement if there ever was one!
Over the next five months, the British and French launched attack after attack on the German lines, with similarly tragic results.
In a desperate effort to break the deadlock, the British introduced a new weapon — the tank. This new invention was supposed to protect soldiers assaulting the German trenches. Initially, there was a brief flurry of optimism, but the tanks’ slow speed, frequent mechanical failures, and inability to traverse soft or heavily cratered ground quickly diminished their impact. They did not provide the decisive advantage the British had hoped for.
By the end of the battle in November 1916, about 300,000 lives had been sacrificed for almost nothing — just thirteen kilometers of muddy trenches to be exact.
The Battle of the Somme was one of attrition, mirroring the larger conflict of World War One itself.
In essence, nothing of value was gained… but everything valuable — the lives of countless young men — were lost forever in the muddy fields of France.
Reason #4: The Soldiers’ Lack of Understanding and the Realization of Futility
As World War One dragged on, the soldiers fighting in the trenches found themselves increasingly bewildered about the reasons behind the conflict.
Thrown together in brutal combat, they were ordered to kill each other using guns, bayonets, and grenades. They followed these orders, not out of personal animosity but because they were told that this was the essence of war.
This profound disconnect between the soldiers’ actions and their understanding of the war is beautifully captured in Erich Maria Remarque’s famous novel, All Quiet on the Western Front.
The protagonist, Paul, comes to understand that his fallen foe is no different from himself, merely a man from another country that his own leaders have labelled as the enemy. Paul’s heart-wrenching words encapsulate this revelation: “Forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy?”
Another powerful illustration of this disillusionment is the legendary Christmas Truce of 1914. During this brief respite, German and British soldiers emerged from their trenches and saw each other face to face for the first time.
They shared life stories, family photographs, and even private jokes. In an extraordinary moment of humanity amidst the horror of war, they did not fire a single machine gun or wield a bayonet. Instead, they played a friendly soccer match on the battlefield.
The following day, these same men returned to their trenches and resumed their deadly conflict, shooting at each other once again.
As one soldier lamented, “We don’t want to kill you and you don’t want to kill us… so why shoot?” The soldiers on both sides came to realize that their supposed enemies were just as human as they were, sharing the same fears, hopes, and dreams.
Yet, the generals and political leaders of World War One, often far removed from the front lines, sent countless young men into an unwinnable and bloody conflict, with little regard for the human cost. For them, the war had to continue, regardless of the appalling losses and the evident futility of the campaigns.
Sergeant Leslie Coulson, a poet and journalist who was killed in France in 1916, eloquently expressed the senselessness of this slaughter in his verse:
“Who made the law that men should die in meadows?
Who spoke the word that blood should splash in lanes?
Who gave it forth that gardens should be boneyards?
Who spread the hill with flesh and blood and brains?”
It was the Generals and the politicians who enacted the laws, spoke the words, and orchestrated the battles. However, they remained in their cozy offices, or their comfortable quarters, far away from the blood-soaked fields of combat. 🤨
This detachment and disregard for human life epitomize the madness and futility of World War One.
Reason #5: The Horrors of Life in the Trenches
Life in the trenches for the soldiers of World War One vividly demonstrates the sheer madness of war. They were a living hell where men faced relentless hardship and unimaginable suffering.
Aside from the constant threat of enemy fire, they battled vermin like rats and lice which thrived in the filthy conditions. In heavy rain, some soldiers even drowned in the mud, their bodies swallowed by the quagmire. The unsanitary conditions bred a host of infectious diseases such as dysentery, cholera, and typhoid fever, which spread rapidly and claimed countless lives.
One particularly gruesome affliction was trench foot, caused by prolonged exposure to wet and unsanitary conditions. This painful condition led to dead tissue spreading across the foot, sometimes necessitating amputation.
Being trapped in the trenches for extended periods, under nearly constant bombardment, took a severe toll on the soldiers’ mental health. Many suffered from “shell shock,” a term that captured the debilitating mental illness now known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The relentless noise of artillery, the ever-present threat of death, and the ghastly sights of war left deep psychological scars. Soldiers found themselves grappling with the horrors they witnessed and participated in, leading to mental breakdowns that rendered them unable to continue fighting.
Then there was the introduction of chemical warfare, starting with the first use of gas at the Battle of Ypres in 1915.
This new, horrifying weapon killed men in the most agonizing way imaginable by attacking their airways, heralding the advent of chemical warfare. The Germans were the first to use mustard gas, but the British soon responded with their own chemical weapons, including chlorine and phosgene gas.
The effects of mustard gas were horrific and often fatal. The gas caused severe blistering of the skin and mucous membranes, damaged the eyes, and inflicted excruciating pain as it destroyed lung tissue.
Wilfred Owen, one of the most renowned poets of World War One, captured the ghastly effects of a mustard gas attack in his poem, “Dulce Et Decorum Est.” He describes the harrowing experience of witnessing a fellow soldier succumb to a gas attack:
“In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning…
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs…”
Owen’s haunting words bring to life the unimaginable agony of a gas attack, exposing the brutal reality that soldiers faced in the trenches.
The relentless suffering endured by soldiers in the trenches, coupled with the brutal innovations of warfare, illustrates the utter senselessness of World War One.
The trenches also became a symbol of the war’s futility, where countless lives were lost to disease, mental anguish, and the cruel effects of chemical weapons with no military gains.
Conclusion
World War One, often hailed as “the war to end all wars,” was an unprecedented catastrophe that changed the course of history.
It reshaped the nature of warfare and transformed society’s attitudes towards conflict.
No longer could war be glorified as heroic or noble.
Instead, World War One still stands as a stark testament to madness, waste and futility, claiming ten million lives over four harrowing years.
And for what?
