I feel as though the statement saying war was "romanticized" before WWI, allowing more and more parties to get involved and more and more deaths to occur, is a huge over simplification of how the war got started.
Is it true for everyone that they were inspired about going to war, including the average, lower class prescribed citizens? How did everyone not see through all this bullshit?
What was the genesis of this thought, and how much propaganda was involved with it? What sort of economics incentives were at play to push this idea of romanticism? How was the suffering and catastrophe of modern warfare against pre-industrial revolution/horseback tactics not obvious to all parties involved? SO MANY QUESTIONS!
The romanticism of war is as old as conflict its self, and tales of great battles and heroic deeds are common place in every civilisation. In the pre World War One world, and even to this day, we are constantly told about heroic stories, great deeds done by great men and women. Imagine then, as a Middle income young man in Britain before World War One, to him Joining the army offers an adventure, travel and a chance to serve your country, to live out your boyhood fantasies of been a hero on the battlefield. The British had only know colonial wars in the 19th century since the fall of Napoleon and stories from the recent boar war and tales of bravery reported in the boer war (another war powered by nationalism ) make a young British man proud. Now imagine this happening in every country in Europe, and to majority of men and women. In summary, when you grow up your entire life fed heroic war stories, and when the horrors of war aren't allowed to be communicated in the media, and that war hadn't broken out yet with two sides using modern weapons we saw in world war 1, it is easy and dangerous to romanticise war as a 'grand adventure'.