hope to know more. >> fascinating. of course, you can follow all the stories we are covering on al jazeera by logging on to the website at aljazeera.com. the top story is the ceasefire in gaza. >> the war to end all wars didn't. but it did change things in ways big and small. world war i began 100 years ago this summer, and we live in the world it made. it's the "inside story." >> hello, i'm ray suarez.

100 years ago, the leaders of europe failed to head off a war they kind of stumbled into. and their pema insured each other it would be over quickly. home by christmas, it said. and what followed was blood letting on a scale that stunned societies. at the battle for four months in 2016, the british and the french lost 4,000 men, and british forces lost an estimated 27,000 men dead. in contrast, in 8 and a half years in iraq, some 4800 americans were killed. a war that began with military planners amassing forces to equip large cavalries ended with bombard. civilian populations. monarchies in germany and russia all ended the war with republics with monarchs discredited or dead.

for years that shook the world, the great war is the "inside story." meeting at the site of one of europe's intense battles, the french president and the german president took comfort in how much the world has changed 100 years from world war i. >> we the descendents, it's up to us to recall the ordeal that they faces and barbarism and never coming back. >> the two leaders in former enemy nations ended the ceremony by sealing a time capsule for future generations. >> france and germany's history proves that determination can overcome fatality. and in a few years, reckon sile.

>> reporter: world war i is one of history's deadliest conflicts. sparked by the shooting of duke ferdinand of austria in 2013, it cost more than $200 billion at the time. more than nine million solers and airmen died in the four years of the war. that's more than the entire population of new york city. another 6 million innocents died as a result of the war. targeting civilians, first of their kind. >> . >> the technology, the killing technology. so we were seeing -- i think it was everybody's conflict. >> reporter: modern warfare was completely revolutionized in those four years, on horseback, and ended with soldiers on

machine guns and poisonous gas, driving tanks, and submarines and bombers. >> nobody was prepared for what they faced. the weapons of destruction. >> before the conflict, empires ruled the world. the british empire was at its peak, and the auto man empair, and owning a passport didn't exist. by the end of the war, europe's power structures had completely changed. the automan empire broke up. the consequences we deal with today. the russian czar was overthrown by the pole bolsheviks. >> world war i was the key turning point. the end of one and the beginning.

>> it an i'll lated the economies, paving the way for the u.s. to be an economic powerhouse. but yet the u.s. was seen as a political teenager. the idea of turning to the americans to play a decisive role in a global conflict was unheard of before then. >> there were appalling things that came out of the first world war, obviously, but it also led to votes for women, and improvements in mezvinsky, and improvements in public health. there were huge changes that came about because of this vast global conflict. >> the war effort shattered traditions of daily life. for the first time in history, women, en masse, left the house and went to work, and when the women returned from the factory, many did not have husbands to return to. in britain, for example, 1.2 million women, from 25-34, were still not married by 1921

because so many young men died in battle. from global leaders to people on the streets, these entennial events are a reminder that people in much of the world were touched in some way by the first world war. in war, diplomacy, science, the arts, economics, we wrote the rules and cast an enormous shadow over the decades to come. but the next great war has filled up our imaginations in most recent decades. on the 100th anniversary of its start, we'll continue it the first war on the program. the author, nyberg, the author of dance with the furies, world war i. and the national security affairs at the marine core staff college. and

katrina, a lectorrer in the united kingdom. michael nyberg, since we're commemorating the beginning of the world war, rather than it's end, did anybody contemplate the possibility for introduction that was emerging in the summer of 1914? >> i don't think so. i think if you could having fast forwarded it to show the leaders of the world they were creating, i don't think that any of them would make the decision to go to wash. they had in enter minds a shorter conflict, hopefully something to be resolved in months, and not putting them in a conflict. the introduction of the four major monarchies in europe. >> professor, were they fighting a 19th century war with 20th century tools? >>

. >> well, it may have started out that way, because there had not been a major war in europe for almost a century. you had some individual affairs like the franco prussian war dragged on a bit. but it was over quickly. the crimine war was over refine quickly. and no one had imagined the kind of stale on which it would have been fought. but very quickly, they found themselves in a 20th century war. in 1915, the germans had found a study and found out that in the first five months of combat, in the west in 1914, they fired more artillery shells than they had in the entire franco prussian war. and this obviously meant that you're in a new situation, and obviously, a different approach

is going to have to be taken to essentially do what might be called restoring mobility to the battlefield at the time, certainly to the west. and also the problem of how do you do what the politicians want to do, which is win the war? >> professor pendelton, the united states entered world war i later in the game, and it's casualties as a result were smaller than some of the other great powers that fought, but i think that world war ii has flooded out the first world war in american memory, and it took living in britain for a time to see just the impact that world war i had. explain to americans what a chunk of national memory that war took up in a place like the united kingdom >> the first world war is extremely prominent in british memory, and it had not always

been the case. certainly, it's what jay winter, our colleague at yale has turned this memory bomb, and there's a context there that's important for the american audiences, the second world war framed the memory. and with the advent of the second world war, people were able to reflect on the first, the war to end all wars, and it hadn't. it was more easily understood as a good war, and there's a clear enemy. buff when you have the framework and reflect on the first war, it's hard to see what it was about. who was the clear enemy and what precisely were the objectives? but the first world war is very prominent in british memory and

the commemorations that are unfolding, it's the fabric that's going on here. >> professor nyberg, what is the ambiguity about what it was, and what they fought for, kept the united states out for as long as they did? >> . united states had a lot of reasons to through to stay out of the war. the country was unprepared. and too many americans. we were making money off of the war, and the united states was growing wealthy. but in 1915 to 1917, the threat to american shores grew greater with germany introducing submarine warfare, and it made a threat. and it used to be thousands of miles away, and then it was on

our doorstep. that left americans very few options. especially since before the war, the united states had done next to nothing to fight this war. >> we'll take a short break, and when we come back, more on the tactics and the war on the battlefield. >> gaza and israel, growing up under attack living with violence... the stories you haven't heard 30 days of war hosted by john seigenthaler only on al jazeera america

>> it's a chilling and draconian sentence... it simply cannot stand. >> this trial was a sham... >> they are truth seekers... >> all they really wanna do is find out what's happening, so they can tell people... >> governments around the world all united to condemn this... >> as you can see, it's still a very much volatile situation... >> the government is prepared to carry out mass array...

>> if you want free press in the new democracy, let the journalists live. >> saturday. gaza, experience what it's like on the ground, first hand, as our crew gets caught in the chaos. the reality of war. shujayea: massacre at dawn. saturday, 10:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> welcome back to "inside story" on aljazeera america. i'm ray suarez. we're looking at the first world war on the program because it's more recent and involved the u.s. so heavily, world war ii dominated ideas. but the death and introduction and impacts landed a heavy blow to the empires that began the 20th century and echoed through the decades to come, from moscow to sarajevo, extra

baghdad to istanbul to dublin. one of the memories that stayed with us with world war i, tremendous casualty figures and trench warfare. once the war began to take the toll it did, why didn't anybody step back from it? this seemed to be death for very little in the way of integral objectives for a long time. >> once you've committed to fighting the war, and you've already made an investment, let me say this. the irony is, with all of the casualties in trench warfare, trenches saved live. the wars in 1918 were far bloodier than the ver dunn that

we associate world war i with. this was mike's daily wick, but it was staggering, and as many men killed in four months. so once you've made that investment, you can't sell a compromised piece to a population, be it british, french, german or anyone else. you have to fight the war to a successful conclusion. >> but how do you keep a civilian population, professor, on-side, the british might say when the losses are so staggering. entire villages and graduating classes from preparatory classes and schools. when you look today at the toils of warren graved in chaps and on

the walls of school, and it's astounding flood watch >> reporter: it is astounding, and i think this is really where the sort of interest and the obsession is in british memory stems from. it's almost trying to understand the incomprehensible means that we keep returning and returning to what the first world war was about. moster importantly, how did civilian and soldier populations sustain themselves. how did they survive this? the war continued for 4 and a half years, and it continued on the whole of consent of the british population. this war is as close to a liberal democracy as we found at the beginning o of the 21st century. and they were a liberal government in the out break of the first world war.

in early august the government has to keep a balance. propaganda certainly played a very important role, particularly from 1916 to 1917 to the end of the war. there was a clear understanding that public morale in britain, and don't forget the rising, a clear indicause. and so propaganda played an important role in mobilizing john horn's term of the civilian population, but it's important to remember that people on the whole consented to this war. >> professor nyberg, did we postpone the affects until after the war was over?

>> well, i think that world world 1, it was a stable system, and one of the problems, through 1918, you see a progressive breaking down of the system. though it was inequitable and people didn't like it, but it was stable. and what you're left with in 1919 is to try to put the pieces back together. and some would say that the problem of the 19th cfo came close to putting the pieces back together. so we're trying to fantastic out what system it's going to give europe and the rest of the world the kind of system that you had in argue in our part of the world. one could argue that we haven't found if yet much. >> but that was a the fact that we're bombing seniorievo in the

90s, and that takes a shot at prichard in 1918. >> that's correct. 1914 begins a process of destabilizing europe and dynamics, and the leaders of europe and the people of europe you were, they're saying, if we could just get back to 1914, we would be okay, but whereas, by 1945, nobody is saying, it would be great to get back to 1941, before world war 1, that has to be increasingly creative, and we need to think of these two wars as a larger conflict. by 1945, the problems they're trying to deal with are essentially the problems created in 1914. >> that's where i want to go next, and we'll take a short break right now.

when we come back, we'll talk about the idea of if that was >> al jazeera america presents >> it's a beginning of a new life for me. i can't keep running from everything. >> 15 stories one incredible journey edge of eighteen coming september only on al jazeera america >> th.

>> al jazeera america.

>> you're watching "inside story" on aljazeera america, i'm ray suarez. on the 100th anniversary of its start, we're looking back at the first world war on this program. for some, they are two clam tus worldwide blad lets with a pause in between. we'll continue our conversation with michael nighburg, at the u.s. army war college, and professor at the marine corp, command and staff college. and katrina from the university of exiter in the uk. and professor pendle, i wonder what you make of that. that one conflict was just continued with the other as the

century progressed. and the unresolved business of the first one got resolved after the second. >> that's a very compelling argument, and i can certainly see mike's point when he makes it. with the treaty of versailles had a lot to answer for in terms of giving hitler and the nazi party a platform on which to really exacerbate in the aftermath of the first world war. in particular, the idea of the stab in the back that the german army was let down by socialists and bowl shevics at home and pass visits at home. and the fact that the article two and three, particularly here, germany was morally responsible for the war,

and and the powers were able to be on germany. but there were almost two decades between the first world war and the second war, and a lot happens in that period of time. and i think it's dangerous if we approach the topic, or if we try to connect it in a way with peace keeping. there particular, with the attempts of the treaties in the 1920s and 1925 to bring together previously antagonistic france and germany, to the point where they were speaking and making progress in security. the league of nations, much aligned and not particularly effective, but it set up the united nations. >> harry truman wallings an artillery officer in the first

world war. charred de gaulle was on the battlefield. and douglas mcarthur was in the war. and there was a very strong memory of that war that was carried into the later century, wasn't there. >> . >> yeah. one of the things that truman carried was a distrust of regular army officers. he was a national guardsman. and he bore animosity against regular officers, and did not think they were regularly trustworthy. and other people as well served in the first world war. mussolini was a first world war vet ran, as was hitler, and wounded a couple of times, and won the iron cross, unusual distinction for a man in the army. and certainly, what a lot of

these people carry, especially on the german side is the fact that they were on the losing end of versailles, and certainly hitler was much more interested in reversing that. as well as his own expansionist idea and so on and so forth. but he certainly wanted to reverse the versailles dick tant, as it was called in germany. and other places as well. a lot of the successor estates that rose out of the australia yap empire. this is why hungary aligns with germany. germany is the only crow in europe by the time they make the jump to enable them to achieve that goal. all of these people carrying with them the memory of what

happened in world war i, to one degree or another. >> michael nyberg, what about the politics? we talked about the international scene, we talked about the military tactics, and how the world war ii generation was shaped by the first, but was there an aversion to war that comes out the first that couldn't carry us into avoiding the second? >> it's interesting, the phrase that comes up over and over again, is never again. but what people mean by never again, people can't quite agree on. what that means, never be fooled into going to war, and to others, never trust neighboring countries, so prepare for war. so what katrina and rich have been hinting at, from 1914 to 19178, there's a continued need to fight this war, and ant the end of the war, there's a reckoning. what has happened?

what does it mean and what does it do for us, the millions of dead and the families that were broken, and at the end of the first world war, there was no remind no -- 1914 was the last thing that perhaps agreed on. and if they agreed on 1914, they certainly didn't agree on what 1919 was. and i think that it's assigning? sort of meaning into what the war meant and going forward. and on that, europeans did not agree. >> michael, richard and katrina, thank you very much. and i hope that you take people back to the terrific literature that goes back to the war to understand it better. that brings us to the end of this edition "inside story."

on"america tonight", a fragile ceasefire takes hold. a more vulnerable community, gaza's children, by the hundreds fallout. drawing the line in texas. >> i want them to go away from the city. they don't have to be where they contaminate the air, the water and the people. a dallas suburb steps up with a first against fracking. can the home owners in departmenton texas keep the drillers at bay when they don't own the rites to what is understand them. it wasn't a frieri