In Dismembering the Male (1996), Joanna Bourke states that the most important thing about the First World War is that the male body was “intended to be mutilated.” This pretty much sums up the war, doesn't it? Young men were dismembered (see photo below). Bourke take this a step further, observing that the male body was intended to be mutilated.

Wikipedia: "The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million: estimates range from around 15 to 22 million deaths^[1] and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history." 

The facts are pretty much indisputable and accepted by historians. Yet we still know nothing: all of the geniuses that regularly read my Newsletters: Scott Atran, Omer Bartov, Howard Bloom, Brian Crim, Malcolm Dean, Stephen Fritz, Ljubomir Frckoski, Michael Geyer, Roger Griffin, Jeffrey Herf, Paul Kahn, Laura Wittman, Jordan Peterson, David Redles, Michael Roberts, Juha Siltala, Walter Skya, Michael Vlahos, Slavoj Zizek, Stephen Hicks (and many more).

WHY WERE NATION-STATES DISMEMBERING AND KILLING THEIR OWN PEOPLE?  We don't really know. Or we won't say we know.  Or: we don't want to know. 

If any of the people mentioned above (or any of the others who regularly read the LSS Newsletter) have some ideas, I'll be happy to publisher your views. 

In Dismembering the Male (1996), Joanna Bourke states that the most important thing about the First World War is that the male body was “intended to be mutilated.”

This is pretty much sums up the War, doesn't it? Young men were dismembered. Bourke takes this one step further, observing that the male body was intended to be mutilated.

Wikipedia: "The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was about 40 million: estimates range from around 15 to 22 million deaths^[1] and about 23 million wounded military personnel, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history."