+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Which was a bigger world changing thing, World War One or World War Two?

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default Which was a bigger world changing thing, World War One or World War Two?

    In other words, did the world change more between 1914 and 1918 or between 1939 and 1945?

  2. #2
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    978 land
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    My eight grade Social Studies (history) teacher emphatically believed WWI was a bigger change. It was the first total war, the first mechanized war, the first time things like poison gas were used on a widespread basis, the first time casualties from one battle had to be measured in hundreds of thousands, etc, etc.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    It is a hard one to call really imho (hence me starting the debate!), partly because World War Two was a pretty direct result of World War One. However, the Great War was largely a European war, whereas WW2 had several major theatres and encompassed a larger geographic area. Both wars were spurs for innovation and social change. Although some empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and to an extent the Russian) dissolved after WWI, WWII encouraged independence movements in most parts of the world claimed by European colonising powers and put paid to their empires by and large.

  4. #4
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I would lean towards the idea that the two wars were effectively a single event and will be viewed that way in a few hundred years. In the short term though WWII was bigger as at the end of it two new super powers arose and one with atomic bombs and one soon to get them. The old world order was over. Where the US introduced itself in WWI and the USSR was formed, by 1945 these were the new powers with Europe and England exhausted. Technology really took a big leap forward with WWII and its immediate aftermath also. Socially the western world changed a fairly large amount also. Women rights and race relations actually took a huge step forward with WWII.

  5. #5
    Free Exy Cluricaun's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elgin IL
    Posts
    3,641

    Default

    I'm inclined to say WWII, but that's because it's still within living memory of people I know, whereas WWI was something that happened while they were children or before they were even born.

    I do like Jim's idea that eventually they'll be seen as a single event, at least in the European theatres. I've always thought of America's involvement in WWII as really two seperate wars fought at the same time, one in Europe and one in Asia and therefore I'd also throw Korea in as a vestige of WWII's Asian theatre.

    Ultimately though I'd say WWII due to the fact that while there were technical advances made prior to and during WWI that live on today (the Colt 1911 pistol for example) people were still lining up and charging at each other, which for me puts it as the last great war of the prior era, whereas WWII had many more advances and was less charging the enemy with bayonets and more blowing them the fuck up with airplanes which is what we still do today.
    Hell, if I didn't do things just because they made me feel a bit ridiculous, I wouldn't have much of a social life. - Santo Rugger.

  6. #6
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Socially the western world changed a fairly large amount also. Women rights and race relations actually took a huge step forward with WWII.
    You could argue though that WWI had a bigger impact on women's rights than WWII. While the suffragettes had begun before WWI, the integral role of women in WWI can be seen as a significant reason why universal suffrage was passed shortly thereafter in the UK and the US.

    With regard to technology, aerial warfare, submarine warfare and tanks were pioneered or refined during WW1, all technologies that would be a huge deal second time around. Of these though, IIRC, tanks were the only technology actually developed during the war. Aerial warfare had been used as early as the Italo-Turkish War of 1911. Obviously by the time of WWII, aerial warfare was much more developed, deadly and of deeper strategic value.

  7. #7
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Well in the US I believe suffrage movement was going to get its amendment with or without the war. The momentum was pretty strong by the time we joined the war and the 19th Amendment passed in 1920. I don't know English history well enough to know when they got suffrage. WWII was really a turning point in the US though for women and blacks. Not to mention to a lesser degree Jews and Native Americans. Jews did not need as big a change and the Native Americans' gains were smaller.

    Another aspect of WWII was it was really the serious beginning of the end of Colonialism. I regret not mentioning that in my first post. Sadly it was not handled all that well, but it was were Colonialism really started to end significantly.

  8. #8
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    With regard to colonialism you could argue that WWI put paid to near-colonialism, while WWII ended far-colonialism. The Irish Free State separated from the UK (not in 1918 but shortly enough thereafter), the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved, with most of its constituent groups getting their own nation states, the dissolution of the Russian Empire also resulted in the (albeit short lived) establishment of ethnic nation states in Eastern Europe. Something similar happened in the Ottoman domain. This actually probably backs up the idea that WW1-WW2 should be seen as one long war and not as separate ones. It is funny when you read about stuff like the War of the Roses or the 100 Years War. After the fact historians put a cohesion on a long series of events that probably would have been thought quite separate at the time they happened.

  9. #9
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Good points. The near-colonialism is something I tend to overlook. Though I am unsure how to classify those countries that fell behind the Iron Curtain then. That seemed very much like near-colonialism and lasted over 40 years. Even the Soviet Union itself was a case of near-colonialism and lasted for roughly 80 years.


    More on the World Wars being one long conflict to change the world. The tricky part here is that it opens up arguments that the war got going with the Franco-Prussian war which resulted in the formation of Germany and left the very open wounds of Germany seizing Alsace-Lorraine. Also in this time period is when Italy came into being.

    Let's see, Franco-Prussian was 1870-71 and Italy actually unified in 1861 a bit before that. But it was really during the Franco-Prussian war the Italy consolidated its control over the peninsula.

    On the other side of the world, it might be said that the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) was the opening blow of the so-called Pacific war. The Japanese aggression in WWII actually started with the Manchurian occupation in 1931.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    In the East it is muddied by the fact that Japan was an ally in WWI though.

    If you want to really get into it, World War One can be traced back to the Treaty Of Verdun but yes the Franco-Prussian War did indeed set the scene to a certain extent.

  11. #11
    For whom nothing is written. Oliveloaf's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,180

    Default

    I think WW I was responsible for more border shifting.
    "I won't kill for money, and I won't marry for it. Other than that, I'm open to just about anything."

    -Jim Rockford

  12. #12
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    In the East it is muddied by the fact that Japan was an ally in WWI though.

    If you want to really get into it, World War One can be traced back to the Treaty Of Verdun but yes the Franco-Prussian War did indeed set the scene to a certain extent.
    OK, I had to look that up. But I think the argument that WWI & II were one long conflict is not hard to make, but the arguments going back to Franco-Prussia are even pushing it too far. I was just offering up an opinion I heard that had merit in my eyes but I do not actually accept.

    As to Japan as an Ally, so was Italy.
    Quote Originally posted by Oliveloaf View post
    I think WW I was responsible for more border shifting.
    Tricky though. We saw so many changes in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and of course Germany itself was split by WWII. I'm not sure that WWI actually had any more border shifting than WWII.

  13. #13
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    I'd go for WWI. The European empires had, of 1914 reached an amazing point, who knows how long they could have lasted and what they could have accomplished, then they rushed to destroy themselves over stupidity. Everything changed.

    I am, however, sympathetic the the idea that from a historical point of view, it was all the same war, with the Hundred Years War or maybe the 30 Years War being good parallels.

  14. #14
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Cluricaun View post
    I'm inclined to say WWII, but that's because it's still within living memory of people I know, whereas WWI was something that happened while they were children or before they were even born.
    It's interesting that people still refer to WWII as "The War," even though there have been some not-so-insignificant conflicts in the interim.

    My answer, though, is probably WWI, as I think that was the time when people started thinking globally vs. their own local concerns.

  15. #15
    Elephant Feirefiz's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    802

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    If you want to really get into it, World War One can be traced back to the Treaty Of Verdun but yes the Franco-Prussian War did indeed set the scene to a certain extent.
    Yes, but if you include it you end up on a slippery slope. For example, what about the rest of the Wars of Unification? The German War of 1866 pushed Austria out of Germany for good, brought most of western and northern Germany under direct Prussian rule and left Bavaria as a de-facto client state. It didn't create any major new conflicts directly but it did certainly set the stage.

  16. #16
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    There's something to be said for the notion that WWI and WWII were really just the same huge conflict, with a 20-year opportunity for the combatants to catch their breath, restock and rearm, and of course with some key realignments (Japan, Italy, Ottoman Empire/Turkey) between its two active phases. I think their historical designations as two distinct world wars are pretty well-rooted, though, and likely to persist in the popular imagination. They were dissimilar enough in scope and methods of warfare, and far enough apart in terms of actual fighting - a literal generation - that's how people are probably going to continue to think of them.

    As to which was a bigger world-changing event, I'd have to say WWII. The rise of the Iron Curtain and the onset of the Cold War were major events, more significant and longer-lasting than most of the aftereffects of WWI. The introduction and use of nuclear weapons is still shaping international relations today, supplying the most foreseeable reasons for the outbreak of WWIII (Iran, North Korea). The creation of the UN, NATO (still extant) and a much more extensive postwar U.S. military presence worldwide is still having an immense impact, 65 years after the Japanese Empire surrendered aboard the USS Missouri.
    Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 25 Jun 2010 at 11:03 AM.

  17. #17
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday View post
    I'd go for WWI. The European empires had, of 1914 reached an amazing point, who knows how long they could have lasted and what they could have accomplished, then they rushed to destroy themselves over stupidity. Everything changed.
    Could we explore this more? The Guns of August was the best book I read on WWI and it did not really go into this aspect much. I'll admit to knowing far more about WWII.

    To my understanding, Germany was later to the game and wanted colonies for itself and was led by a George W. level leader in Kaiser Wilhelm. Russia and the Ottoman Empire were already crumbling fast and near their ends. Italy had little in the way of Empire. This really leaves France and the UK. Both held the bulk of Empires intact through the war and indeed until WWII. Do you think if not for the war, England would have done more with her colonies?

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    It's interesting that people still refer to WWII as "The War," even though there have been some not-so-insignificant conflicts in the interim.

    My answer, though, is probably WWI, as I think that was the time when people started thinking globally vs. their own local concerns.
    I’m not sure, Europeans already were thinking globally due to extensive colonies or colony envy. The US thought globally thanks to my idol Theodore but post WWI really took on our worst case of Isolationism and a naïve hope we could ignore the “Old World”.

  18. #18
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Could we explore this more? The Guns of August was the best book I read on WWI and it did not really go into this aspect much. I'll admit to knowing far more about WWII.

    To my understanding, Germany was later to the game and wanted colonies for itself and was led by a George W. level leader in Kaiser Wilhelm. Russia and the Ottoman Empire were already crumbling fast and near their ends. Italy had little in the way of Empire. This really leaves France and the UK. Both held the bulk of Empires intact through the war and indeed until WWII. Do you think if not for the war, England would have done more with her colonies?


    I’m not sure, Europeans already were thinking globally due to extensive colonies or colony envy. The US thought globally thanks to my idol Theodore but post WWI really took on our worst case of Isolationism and a naïve hope we could ignore the “Old World”.
    Well, I think it's a bit much to say that Russia was "crumbling". It was definitely stressed, but Tsarism has lasted a long time, and who knows what could have happened without the huge stress of the war.

    You've left Austria-Hungary out of your list, the country that actually started WWI. That's the country of Strauss, of Vienna and Budapest, of so much glorious fin de siecle civilization. Britain had an Empire the Sun never set on and a Navy that ruled the waves, Germany had made enormous progress in social welfare and manufacturing...it should have been a glorious time for Europe.

    All blown up for some damn foolishness in the Balkans.

  19. #19
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Good point and bad oversight. What were Austria-Hungary's overseas holdings? Were they such a force that it did not really matter?

  20. #20
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    Good point and bad oversight. What were Austria-Hungary's overseas holdings? Were they such a force that it did not really matter?
    No overseas holdings that I know of, but such a huge presence in Central Europe
    that cannot be forgotten.

  21. #21
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    I don't think Austria-Hungary had any overseas holdings, but the German Empire certainly had, significant swathes of Africa and some Pacific islands. The war in Africa actually only ended a month or more after the Armistice.

  22. #22
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    One thing I found interesting was that in the memoirs of a couple different WWII veterans, they cited WWI as feeling more important to them and as though they weren't quite measuring up to the past. Robert Leckie's Helmet for My Pillow stands out since it's one of the few books I still have (thanks, Rube!). In his mind, the impact of WWI was greater because of the cultural, literary and musical changes that sprang from it.

    So perhaps WWII remains so important in our minds today because we, like the WWII vets, look back with the adoring eyes of the descendants of a previous generation. It's difficult to separate our viewpoints from the realities of history.

    But even so, I think WWII might still have had greater impact. While WWI was the first modern war in many ways and introduced many different technological innovations and a number of political and social changes, the beginning of the Cold War and the introduction of nuclear weapons nudge WWII ahead in my mind.

    Then again, with barely a generation between the two it's difficult to separate the lasting influence of WWI from those of WWII. Ultimately, WWII is the result of the influence of WWI.

  23. #23
    Elephant Feirefiz's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    802

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    Then again, with barely a generation between the two it's difficult to separate the lasting influence of WWI from those of WWII. Ultimately, WWII is the result of the influence of WWI.
    I it were possible to separate the two I think I would lean towards WW2. Since it isn't I think I'll have to go with WW1.

  24. #24
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Perhaps from an American perspective WWII is a bigger deal for any number of reasons.

    For example:

    1. The War In the Pacific and how it started.

    2. Longer commitment, 4 years versus less than 2 in WW1.

    3. WWII put a large American army in Central Europe (I'm not sure what the story was post-ww1), up against Communist forces where they would remain in some capacity to the present day.

    4. the ensuing Cold War and all the machinations related to same.

    5. America ended WWII in undoubted pre-eminence in the world, a cultural, economic and military superpower, post-WW1 they were the new kid in town still, a powerful broker but one of several and still rising to its fuller potential of the '40s and after.

    In contrast, from a German perspective I can see how WWI might be seen as a bigger deal.

    1. Prior to WW1 Germany enjoyed the guts of 50 years of prosperity, economic and military development and became the most powerful country on the European continent. Post WWI Germany was a basketcase for a number of years, racked by hyperinflation and unstable governance.

    2. The aftermath of WWI can more clearly be seen in Germany to have presaged WWII, the turmoil of Weimar years, the relative stability and renewal of the early Nazi era and the territorial gains prior to September 1939, and the ensuing war.

    3. WWI represented a change in the way Germany was governed.

    Etc. Etc.

    It does seem ultimately they'll be seen as a bloody whole.

  25. #25
    Elephant Feirefiz's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    802

    Default

    You could be right about that. From a German perspective the world after WW1 is absolutely nothing like it was before. The connection between the wars is also impossible to ignore. First you have the failed Weimar republic and in various ways this failure was tied to WW1. Then you have the Third Reich as a result of that failure which often explicitely refers back to the lost war. I don't mean to downplay the second world war in any way, but at least in the European theater it is so closely connected to the first one that it has its share in the outcome of both wars.

  26. #26
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,325

    Default

    John Hackett's speculative 1978 book The Third World War told a nice story in which a German man is struck by a powerful, prophetic dream in 1900. He runs out into the village square and urgently tells his neighbors that, in 10 years, their country will be peaceful, prosperous and militarily strong. In 30, it will be economically ruined, its government a shambles. In 40, it will be united and strong, the master of all Europe. In 45, it will be virtually destroyed, and occupied and divided. In 65, it will be peaceful and prosperous again, and just four years later, its people will look at small boxes in the corners of their parlors to watch men walk on the Moon.

    He was immediately locked up as a maniac, of course.

  27. #27
    I've had better days, but I don't care! hatesfreedom's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    WWI to the end of the Cold War is pretty easy to lump together as the second hundred year war. So I'm gonna have to say WWI I guess.

  28. #28
    Registered user CWMorrow's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday View post
    Britain had an Empire the Sun never set on and a Navy that ruled the waves,
    Kaiser Wilhelm envied that navy and empire. His attempt to imitate them was a cause of the war.

  29. #29
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Welcome to Mellophant CWMorrow. Nice to see a new poster posting to serious threads. But don't let that stop you from just visiting as well. Knock around a bit and git to know the place. Post to the welcome thread or start a git to know you thread. We're pretty lose and easy 'round here but tight knit everybody knows everybody like a small town so just jump on in and git to know us it's a good group of folks here.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  30. #30
    Living la vida broke-a Revs's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    the pimple on america's wang
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CWMorrow View post
    Kaiser Wilhelm envied that navy and empire. His attempt to imitate them was a cause of the war.
    It wasn't so much an imitation as an arms race. Both Germany and Britain were building bigger and bigger fleets since each side was doing so, Britain was especially interested in keeping up naval superiority since it was an island nation and depended on open sea lanes for survival.

    Think the USA and USSR during the cold war, except Britain and Germany actually pressed the button. (sort of)
    Give me whiskey when I'm thirsty,Give me a cold beer when I'm dry, Give me root beer when I'm sickly, Give me a headstone when I die.

  31. #31
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CWMorrow View post
    Kaiser Wilhelm envied that navy and empire. His attempt to imitate them was a cause of the war.
    Oh, definitely. There were a lot of "causes". But none of them had to result in the war. It was the way the great powers raced to destroy themselves, with the full encouragement of their intelligentsia, that's stunning.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts