I'm not sure WW1 could have been avoided. Once alliances started being formed most countries needed to join in, and naturally these consolidated into two camps

I'm not sure WW1 could have been avoided. Once alliances started being formed most countries needed to join in, and naturally these consolidated into two camps. Up to this point (over centuries) Europe had regularly been embroiled in local conflicts. War in Europe wasn't novel, and certainly peace was not the norm. So you have these two very large alliances, both fully expecting the other to invade at some point. An arms race develops - both sides unwilling to be perceived as weaker. (And fueled somewhat by manufacturers manipulating public opinion.) All it takes is a spark to set off a series of cascading events. History records it as the assassination of Price Ferdinand, but if it wasn't that it would have been something else. After the assassination the Austrian emperor -might- have had a more measured response, but that's expecting a lot from the sort of person who is, well, an emperor. Sure, he might have found a way out, but there would have been another spark sooner or later. There were just too many munitions around, and the profits of war too appealing to the manufacturers of the day. In the end it's human greed that is the root of every aspect, and consequence of the war. And that never seems to go out of fashion. The recent adventure in Afghanistan cost what, several trillions of $. That money flows to companies and ultimately people. There are lots of interests in keeping that tap turned on. Perhaps a more effective tool in preventing that sort of fruitless combat is to report daily not on how many lives we're lost, but rather how much tax money today cost. The public cares a lot more about money spent than lives lost.