Attacks in Paris

The generation that used the term 'great war' never considered any good connotation in the word 'great'. My granny, who.of course, lived through both world wars, always used that term because until 1939, it was the 'great' - in the sense of immense - war. I have rarely heard this term being used by subsequent generations and never by my parents. When I grew old enough to understand, it was always the 'first world war'.

Anya, I asked a question , is asking a question now stupid ? Or does it again depend on the poster ?

"exacerbated the smell of untreated he man waste "

Yeah. Nothing to do with us girls.

I always laugh when I hear someone who is losing an argument call the other person's views 'simplistic' - it usually means the bare bones of the argument has been laid out and they can't think of an answer

Annie where on earth did you get the 'pacifists sell arms' bit from? What a very odd interpretation to put on anything that's been posted.

Can you please explain that very stupid post?

I understand the relevance of alea's comparison. The Great War was great in the sense that is was the biggest and most widespread war that had yet been known, ditto the Great Fire and the Great Plague, but no-one thought or thinks since that they were great in the sense of wonderful - and there was a Great Freeze, which perhaps the children thought great for skating, but no-one else was favourably impressed by.

Thee are two meanings to the word great, and granjura is conflating them. I don't think anyone else does.

In passing, the two meanings of grand exist in French too. I remember a lecturer on an induction course in Paris in 1967 saying that we all agreed that de Gaulle was un homme grand (tall), but was he un grand (great) homme?

I shudder whenever I heard WW1 being called 'the Great War' - it killed millions in the most atrocious of ways, on both sides- and served no purpose at all, none

Just trying to illustrate what we mean by Great in this context in English.

What has any of that to do with anything?

To the Great Plague and Great Fire could be added the Great Stink of 1858 in London when the hot summer weather exacerbated the smell of untreated he man waste and industrial effluent from the River Thames. That can't have been fun either! But fortunately led indirectly to Joseph Bazalgette plan for the creation of the system of sewers which has lasted into this century.

No, no, no! You are still putting a different interpretation on "great" despite your protestations, GJ! As rosesarered says, nobody sees any connotations of praise in the word great, it was designated "the war to end all wars" (alas, proved wrong) that is its tragedy.
Great = very big, that is all.
I suppose the same misinterpretation could exist in the word "grand" which in one language can be used as in "Ee, that were grand, champion" and in French simply means "big".
Cf the Great Fire of London -not a "wonderful day out" or indeed the Great a plague of 1665, the last major plague in England.

roses, of course I am aware of that. But everytime I hear it- it still shocks me, as there was nothing 'Great' about that terrible war, apart from the sheer size of the massacres.

It was called the Great War because it was so big, involving so many countries and went on for so long, not because anyone thought it was actually 'great' as in wonderful granjura lost in translation?

Well said Granjura

I shudder whenever I heard WW1 being called 'the Great War' - it killed millions in the most atrocious of ways, on both sides- and served no purpose at all, none.
I read 'all quiet on the Western Front' as a teenager, and it marked me forever- the film too.

WW2 was very different- and the question often goes through my mind- was it just and necessary? Or would another way been possible? I think it was perhaps necessary- but sometimes I just do not know any more. Woud Hitler have died and run out of power- and the number of deaths be actually less than those created by war? I don't know.

What is for sure, is that the situation now is totally different. There is not one clear enemy in one clear region- so we can't just go and bomb all over the place- without making things much worse.

As for Churchill- he was a brilliant man- but he was very lucky- and even more the soldiers who could have all perished had the weather forecast turned out to be as he was advised. He took a huge gamble, and won. He could have lost too- and that does not bear thinking about.

We have armed all the dictators, to OUR own ends- and have created this terrible situation- with the sale of OUR arms (French, UK, USA and yes... Switzerland too)- and now the world is reaping the results- and there does not seem to be solutions in sight. Bombing 1000s of innocent civilians will just create more and more terrorists...

A separate issue, but I've often wondered. If I was growing up in Gazza now- would I be a pacifist or a 'terrorist' - what is the difference between a terrorist fighting to save his people and country, and a soldier?

soon, I spoke of Donald Soper and asked your opinion, you replied you were too young to know of him. Later you said you did look him up and you disagreed with him. So why are you asking others ? you have decided you do not agree with pacifism

Whitewave, WW1 was the war to end all wars and it was going to last less than six months , 16 million deaths and five years of fighting and we still want war.

Yes Quakers are still pacifists. Nice lot I always think

The Quaker movement is an interesting example of refusal to join in wars. Not sure if they still keep to that. Soon you would be interested in them.
We had Quaker friends when we lived in Hull. James Reckitt a famous Quaker set up business there and was a great philanthropist.

Two close friends - 55 and 46 - would be horrified if anyone thought they knew nothing about WW1, WW2, pacifism, suffragism and many other significant episodes in recent history.
No-one in that age group should use the excuse that 'it wasn't on the school curriculum'.
You've had decades to continue your own education and FIND OUT,

soon, please stop using the I am too young to understand . I am sorry , not being unkind but I think people in their fifties know as much about pacifism as people in their twenties or nineties

I am in the middle of a course about WW1 casualties. There were at the absolute minimum 16 million deaths -we have yet to look at the injured. What did this war solve? - bugger all. We were at it again within 20 years having successfully ensured through our punitive actions, a vicious fascist regime flourished in Germany. Does that ring any bells?
That is why many people are saying think, think and think again what we are doing. Use some intelligence and reason, gungho tactics will solve nothing.

Because soon you are more than capable of finding out this information yourself , if not than you are in no position to criticize

I seem to remember a tv programme ages ago about how the US starts wars in order to maintain a fear level in the US population to keep them in line. Give them something to focus on and unite against. And distract from internal problems. The U.K. was also on the list of governments using this tactic. The logic was quite scary in the way it made sense. Does anyone else remember it?

If Syria is a 'planned war' as Mr Pilger implies I think they may have misjudged and it's got out of hand.

Well said Merlot.

I've just seen a post on facebook saying, 'War = Old people sending young people away to die. Surely we can do better?'

Yet when you ask pacifists what they would do to make things better they just say, 'I don't have an answer'

None of us have a bloody answer. If we did we wouldn't be reading about thousands of people being massacred by IS.

And it's the OLD people who accept that because they've been there before.