Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a UK-based political analyst. The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Remembrance Sunday saw the public and politicians alike commemorate 100 years since the armistice of the First World War, wherein millions of young men lost their lives in a conflict of tragic proportions.

While like most Britons, I choose to wear a poppy and advocate deep respect for the bravery of those who have chosen to serve their country, nevertheless, there is one element of today that has made me feel uncomfortable.

That is, all the all-around portrayal of the war as an honorable sacrifice for “freedom” and thus, a just cause as a whole. I cannot be silent in saying that this is a willful misinterpretation of history itself.

While I appreciate that the same comments may hold greater weight in the depiction of the Second World War, wherein Europe and the world truly did face the threat of fascism, I cannot agree with the framing of its predecessor in this box.

The First World War was not a fight for freedom, but a European geopolitical struggle for hegemony gone horribly wrong. It had no redeeming qualities in terms of its outcome.

While that does not mean we should no less mourn and respect those who were lost, we must talk about this war for it really was and instead, use its memory as a reason to affirm why this ought to never happen again, than incidentally tying it into narratives that glorify and promote conflict.

What was the First World War? It was not a “good vs. evil” conflict as assumed, it was the output of competing empires who either sought to maintain or attain, hegemony.

Through the industrial revolution, kingdoms in Europe had evolved into highly consolidated and centralized states which were able to generate grand narratives of the “nation” to infer full-scale political obligation toward attaining their goals.

Each nation spoke of its own superiority and distinctiveness, emphasizing aspects such as race and religion to distinguish it from its rivals and justify the creation of global realms.

Through the rapid growth of the industry, shipping, and railways, these states had simultaneously developed unprecedented capability in organizing and mobilizing armies, which with this powerful rhetoric of “national obligation” were able to recruit millions.

The concept of “total war,” where a state could utilize everything in its power, was born. Yet it had not been truly tested up until 1914.

The British Empire had stood consequentially as the world's foremost power at the turn of the 20th century, shadowed closely by France. However, they were facing a challenge. Their global dominion was now being threatened by another state, the German Empire, having developed from a cluster of kingdoms which eventually consolidated itself into a single dominion. Its rapid growth in industrial and scientific capacity poised to displace the dominant players in world order.

The culture of nationalism and militarism consequentially created hyper-suspicion across the continent. In this age, the war was not seen as an unwanted outcome, but an acceptable means of resolving politics, it was normatively permissible.

After all, only decades previously had the Kingdom of Prussia seized land from France. Territory frequently changed hands, and annexation by treaty was a normal procedure.

Thus, to prevent any country from militarily gaining the upper hand, Europe attempted to attain stability through upholding a “balance of power.” If Germany was to increase its capabilities, then the others must do so as well in parallel.

This led to widespread arms and naval races. It also led to the creation of multiple alliance systems in the attempt to check the other. Britain and France allied with Russia, Germany chose Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Small countries were guaranteed by the larger ones. Thus, from the 1870s, a phase of the geopolitical competition called the “concert of Europe” was created.

With the assassination of Austria-Hungary's Franz Ferdinand creating a domino effect of declarations of war, the system of aggressive balancing imploded. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which was guaranteed by Russia, therefore Russia declared war on Austria. This meant Germany declared war against Russia, which would obligate an eventual response by Britain and France. Thus, Germany chose to attack first via Belgium to gain an advantage.

As a result, the historical reality is far from the narrative of “fighting for liberty against German tyranny,” largely drawn from the Second World War, which is used to depict the First World War.

The reality was not praiseworthy, it was a struggle for hegemony between the competing nationalistic empires which spun out of control due to problematic international and structural norms. It wasn't about liberty vs. fascism, but about power on all sides i‍nvolved.

Thus, while we should never forget the millions who gave their lives in this conflict, nevertheless, we cannot erroneously depict the Great War as a good thing. It was a tragedy that was completely unnecessary on every level.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)