I'm from the UK and when learning about WW1 the phrase "war to end all wars" was thrown around and i have always wanted to know what was behind this phrase.
Was it simply a phrase created by the UK as propoganda? Was it coined to boost the morale of soldiers or civilians on the home front?
Would a common Tommy genuinely believe that this war would lead to a peace which would last forever? Was this only a British phrase or was something similar seen throughout all combatant nations?
Thanks in advance,
Im on mobile so apologies if the formatting is messed up.
I've been reading a lot of diaries and letters from British and Dominion WW1 officers for my research and I do see this phrase pop up occasionally. In terms of publications it's probably most closely linked to H G Wells, who wrote quite a lot about the war while it was happening, the phrase has a broader reach than those reading his work.
The phrase is usually used to refer to moments or events of great horror and lasting impact. It's about the scale and depth of the war, and the enormous cost that it demanded from those fighting it. It's less a propaganda phrase than one expressing a hope that the First World War would illustrate the folly of all war. I think it's useful to think that when soldiers said it was the 'war to end war', they meant that it OUGHT to be the 'war to end war'. In 1898, Polish banker Jan Bloch wrote an enormous work called (in English translation) Is war now impossible?. Bloch made the claim that the reality of modern, industrial war would be too horrific for states to consider. That the endurance of the modern nation-state, together with the immense firepower of modern weaponry meant that war would be so bloody, and would cause so much chaos in the economy and civil life, that it would cause states to fall apart if they attempted it. This vision of war seemed to be played out during the First World War. The absolute destruction, horror and chaos that the war proved to be moved men (I'm speaking of officers mainly) to declare that it should be the war to end war. They could not imagine a greater catastrophe.
Politically, I think the phrase was more or less used ironically. Few amongst the British elite really believed that the FWW would actually stop wars from being fought in the future. Given the continuation of fighting that the British were involved in post-11 November 1918, it seems unlikely at any rate. Archibald Wavell, future field marshal, wrote to a fellow officer in 1919 about the Paris Peace Conference: "After the 'war to end war' they seem to have been pretty successful in Paris of making a 'peace to end peace'."
It was a useful slogan, but it didn't mean very much by the time the war was over.
I would recommend checking out this comment on nomenclature of the World Wars and how their names evolved: