I agree that the US Civil War marked the true dawn of modern warfare. Someone above mentioned that trench warfare came with World War I, and indeed the First World War is characterized by this form of fighting. However, and not to get too far off track, we have trench warfare occurring in the later part of the US Civil War–a precursor to events fifty years later.

I think the true dawn of modern warfare is the Civil War which introduced the ideas for many of the military technologies that took off fifty years later. Our ability to destroy each other in wholesale fashion grew right into the 1960’s and is about as “good” as it going to get – at least until interstellar wars drive a need for some of the planet killing technologies posited in space opera going back at least to the 1930s. Today’s developments are more in the direction of retail slaughter—precision weapons.

I suppose it doesn’t matter too much where technology goes from here. The terror of it all is all about us and keeps shaping our society. I, for one, await the Return of the King as the only ultimate hope.

Another aspect about World War I was this was the first war in which there were Latter-day Saints in opposing countries and possibly fighting each other. (There has been a recent suggestion that there was a handful of LDS who served in both the Union and Confederate armies during the American Civil War). This did not go unnoticed by the First Presidency whose comments on the war were very carefully worded before and after America’s entry into the conflict.

http://www.keepcalmandcarryon.com/

I agree wholeheartedly with your kind words, and am in awe of my parents and grandparents who all were called upon to do their bit. My grandmother’s generation sent their husbands to fight in 1914-18; in the Second World War they sent their husbands and children were called up.My grandmothers are my heroes as they showed how to cope with fear, with dignity and without complaint.

Dan: sorry, I am not sure if you mean the British people or the Government? it’s possibly significant to remember the effects of the Franco Prussian War; the French were itching for a chance to take back Alsace Lorraine, which was one of their stated aims upon entering the war.However, not being French, I’m not really qualified to comment on a comparison of both countries. in Britain, whilst the ‘plebs’ saw war as a chance to escape grim conditions,I’d suggest the Government felt it had little choice but to enter the war, given Britain was a signatory to the 1839 Treaty of London which guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

Maybe the British were ‘excitable’ in a more dignified manner than the French.

My impression from the First World War is that the Brits were more wanting of this war than the French. Was that the case?

My grandmother was one; her first husband disappeared in the mud at Passchendaele in 1917, his body was never recovered. Her second husband (my grandfather) died in 1926, having been conscripted as a 35 year old single man and worn out by his labours as a hospital stretcher bearer in France.The First World War wrecked her life not once, but twice; yet she never complained about it, just got on with things until she died aged 90.