Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#121

Post by michael mills » 12 Jan 2016, 04:52

This book, written in 1925, goes into some detail about the anti-German sentiment in the U.S. before WWI. There were not bad relations necessarily on a governmental level but there was very much a negative attitude toward the German Empire.
Irish-Americans were not anti-German. Their enemy was Britain, the oppressor of their home country, not Germany, which was fighting Britain.

Jewish-Americans were not anti-German. Their enemy was Russia, from which most Jewish-Americans had recently emigrated in order to avoid oppression there. In general, Jews at that time had a very favourable impression of Germany, which was fighting Russia, their arch-enemy.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#122

Post by michael mills » 12 Jan 2016, 05:00

I am not too sure why you categorize Trotsky as a 'mass murderer'? I am not aware of any atrocities attributable to his orders, indeed most of the POW's held by the Russians spoke well of the treatment they received (see Lt Gen Brian Horrocks).
Captured members of Entente intervention forces may have been treated well, but not so members of anti-Bolshevik Russian forces who were taken prisoner by the Red army. Trotsky was responsible for large-scale massacres of members of the White armies, for example of Wrangel's forces who were unable to escape from the Crimea in 1921.


michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#123

Post by michael mills » 12 Jan 2016, 05:07

The goals of the Entente were far more progressive than those of the Central Powers. That is the difference that matters.
In what way?

Because they had the goal of liberating "captive nations"? Germany and Austria-Hungary were in fact the first states to recognise the independence of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Georgia.

Because they had the goal of bringing democracy to the World? They did not establish democratic systems in any part of the Ottoman Empire conquered by them.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#124

Post by Attrition » 12 Jan 2016, 11:32

michael mills wrote:
The goals of the Entente were far more progressive than those of the Central Powers. That is the difference that matters.
In what way?

Because they had the goal of liberating "captive nations"? Germany and Austria-Hungary were in fact the first states to recognise the independence of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Georgia.

Because they had the goal of bringing democracy to the World? They did not establish democratic systems in any part of the Ottoman Empire conquered by them.
Although I might not agree with your reasons, the facts are as indisputable as the cod-historical propaganda narratives, concocted to legitimise both world wars to those of us who live in the lands of the "winners". Moltke the Elder pointed this out in the 1870s.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#125

Post by BDV » 12 Jan 2016, 22:35

michael mills wrote:Not so. In the First World War the German armed forces did not suffer the same degree of attrition as they did in the Second. There was no equivalent of Stalingrad, or the Falaise Gap, or the annihilation of Army Group Centre during "Bagration".
They did have the Battle of the Frontiers, Verdun, Somme, Kaiserschlacht, the Ypresesess, and the "100 days rout", plus the multitude of battles of the East Front (where Russians were actually shooting bullets, despite tales to the contrary).

The reason why the German military commanders asked for an armistice in October 1918 is that they realised that the Home Front was on the point of collapse, that there would be revolution if the war continued, and that they needed to bring their troops back relatively intact in order to restore order at home.
"Dolchtosslegende-redux", perchance? That the Reich's own front in France and Belgium had collapsed played no rôle in the decisions taken?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#126

Post by michael mills » 12 Jan 2016, 23:47

"Dolchtosslegende-redux", perchance? That the Reich's own front in France and Belgium had collapsed played no rôle in the decisions taken?
The German frontline had not collapsed. At the time of the armistice, the German armed forces still occupied a fixed defensive line established after their withdrawal from the Hindenburg Line. As I wrote, the German Army was making a fighting withdrawal, that is, falling back from one defensive line to another, not in headlong disordered retreat.

And as I further wrote, in October 1918 the Allied military commanders believed that they faced at least another year of heavy fighting, and were concerned whether their men could stand the strain. I suggest you consult Ferguson's book "The Pity of War" on that point.

If there had been no armistice in November 1918 and the fighting had continued through the winter, the German Army would probably have suffered the same fate as the Russian Army had in 1917; social unrest and the outbreak of revolution at home would have eventually caused it to disintegrate.

As Ferguson points out, although Ludendorff had suffered a crisis of confidence in September 1918, as a result of the defeats suffered in August, and recommended asking the Allies for terms, by October he had regained his confidence and believed that the German forces could continue to hold out until war-weariness on the Allied side would lead to a willingness to negotiate a compromise peace. It was the realisation that the Home Front was beginning to collapse and that there was a revolutionary situation developing in Germany similar to what had happened in Russia that led the German military leadership to conclude that it was imperative to end the fighting on the Western Front by any means available, so that the German Army could return intact to the homeland to restore order.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#127

Post by Graeme Sydney » 13 Jan 2016, 04:05

michael mills wrote: And as I further wrote, in October 1918 the Allied military commanders.....
That would be the same commanders who said the war would last 6 weeks I suppose. :roll:
michael mills wrote:.... believed that they faced at least another year of heavy fighting, and were concerned whether their men could stand the strain. I suggest you consult Ferguson's book "The Pity of War" on that point.
If the Germans didn't actually "collapse" it was damn close to a collapse.
michael mills wrote:If there had been no armistice in November 1918 and the fighting had continued through the winter, the German Army would probably have suffered the same fate as the Russian Army had in 1917; social unrest and the outbreak of revolution at home would have eventually caused it to disintegrate.
Give me a break, 12 months you must be kidding. Leaving aside the social. political, the morale and the economy, militarily and strategically German was weak, getting weaker, and on it own. A.H. had surrendered to the Italians and I don't think the Italians would be allowed to sit around having pizza and vino. The Germans would have to deploy some (non-existent) armies against this threat. Conversely the Allies were getting stronger and strong in every which way.......and exponentially. All those experienced divisions in M.E. and the Balkans becoming available. And that is not to mention the Yanks arriving.

No it was 'game over'; probably dec-Jan and another 200,000+ dead.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#128

Post by Terry Duncan » 13 Jan 2016, 05:35

michael mills wrote:
"Dolchtosslegende-redux", perchance? That the Reich's own front in France and Belgium had collapsed played no rôle in the decisions taken?
The German frontline had not collapsed. At the time of the armistice, the German armed forces still occupied a fixed defensive line established after their withdrawal from the Hindenburg Line. As I wrote, the German Army was making a fighting withdrawal, that is, falling back from one defensive line to another, not in headlong disordered retreat.

And as I further wrote, in October 1918 the Allied military commanders believed that they faced at least another year of heavy fighting, and were concerned whether their men could stand the strain. I suggest you consult Ferguson's book "The Pity of War" on that point.

If there had been no armistice in November 1918 and the fighting had continued through the winter, the German Army would probably have suffered the same fate as the Russian Army had in 1917; social unrest and the outbreak of revolution at home would have eventually caused it to disintegrate.

As Ferguson points out, although Ludendorff had suffered a crisis of confidence in September 1918, as a result of the defeats suffered in August, and recommended asking the Allies for terms, by October he had regained his confidence and believed that the German forces could continue to hold out until war-weariness on the Allied side would lead to a willingness to negotiate a compromise peace. It was the realisation that the Home Front was beginning to collapse and that there was a revolutionary situation developing in Germany similar to what had happened in Russia that led the German military leadership to conclude that it was imperative to end the fighting on the Western Front by any means available, so that the German Army could return intact to the homeland to restore order.
The German army had very much collapsed by Nov 1918, partly due to Ludendorff's demand for an armistice, partly from successive defeats in the field, to the point resistance was possible only for one or two weeks more when the armistice was signed, due to lack of supplies of things like ammunition, as the home front had by this time also fallen apart, mostly after Ludendorff's demand for an armistice became known. Until then the home front was still supportive of the war effort for the most part. Ludendorff simply changed his mind in order to try and place the blame elsewhere for the defeat, it was never going to be admitted by him that the army (and therefore Ludendorff) had lost the war, but interestingly, none of the army commanders agreed with him by the end of October.

As to Ferguson, I am not too sure why anyone would place too much stock on his opinions, he is very much in a minority and mostly writes sensationalist 'history' when away from his field of Economic History. By his standards in 'The Pity Of War', Germany was fighting to retain her great power status, something few at the time would have agreed with.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#129

Post by michael mills » 13 Jan 2016, 06:40

........resistance was possible only for one or two weeks more when the armistice was signed, due to lack of supplies of things like ammunition, as the home front had by this time also fallen apart,.......
The crucial factor was thus the collapse of the Home Fronts in Germany and Austria, which was not caused by a single factor such as Ludendorff's call in September for an armistice. Rather it was a long, slow process, a cumulative build-up of civilian disenchantment resulting from the hardships caused by the British blockade, together with the winding down of German industrial production due to the exhaustion of existing stocks of materials and the inability to import replacements. All those factors came to a head in October-November, resulting in a potentially revolutionary situation that would have led to a much greater societal explosion than actually occurred if the German military leaders had attempted to go on fighting. Wisely, those leaders chose to end the fighting on whatever terms they could get, so that they could lead the forces under their command back to Germany in a relatively intact condition to restore order.

The essential failure of the German Government was that it was not ruthless enough, both at home and in the territories it occupied. For example, it could have prevented starvation among the German population by extracting food from the occupied Russian and Romanian territories in the same way as it did during the Second World War, forcing the population of those areas to bear the burden of food shortages. Instead, the priorities adopted by the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments were to feed the army of occupation first, then the local population, and only then to use what was left over to feed their own starving populations.

Starvation was even worse in Austria than it was in Germany, the main reason being that the Hungarian rulers refused to export their country's traditional food surplus to Vienna, preferring to build up massive stocks at home so as to be sure of being able to keep their own people happy in any future emergency. Thus, Vienna starved while Hungary had plenty to eat, and an accumulated surplus. If the German Government had been more ruthless it would have sent its forces into Hungary and compelled the Hungarian authorities to resume exporting food to Austria to relieve the massive distress there.

Essentially, it was a matter of too little, too late. By the time Germany and Austria gained access to the food and other resources of the occupied Ukraine, after March 1918, the situation had become so bad on their respective Home Fronts that only a massive plundering of the occupied territories and a rapid shipping of huge quantities of food and other supplies back to their civilian populations could have restored morale. As it was, the German and Austrian occupiers never succeeded in extracting from the occupied territories the amounts they needed to keep their armed forces and civilian populations supplied, mainly because they were not ruthless enough, and the German and Austrian peoples continued to suffer great deprivation, leading to the collapse of the Home Fronts (and of the Austro-Hungarian Army) at the end of the year.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#130

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 09:51

That reads pretty much like a description of what the Germans did 1942-45 with the bad bits left out.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#131

Post by Graeme Sydney » 13 Jan 2016, 10:38

michael mills wrote:
The crucial factor was thus the collapse of the Home Fronts in Germany and Austria, which was not caused by a single factor such as Ludendorff's call in September for an armistice. ...............


.........e, mainly because they were not ruthless enough, and the German and Austrian peoples continued to suffer great deprivation, leading to the collapse of the Home Fronts (and of the Austro-Hungarian Army) at the end of the year.
And if they are absolutely successful they delay the inevitable by how much?

And then there is still the military, social, economic (blockade) and political to deal with.

Dah, they were kaputt!

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6272
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#132

Post by Terry Duncan » 13 Jan 2016, 13:56

michael mills wrote:
........resistance was possible only for one or two weeks more when the armistice was signed, due to lack of supplies of things like ammunition, as the home front had by this time also fallen apart,.......
The crucial factor was thus the collapse of the Home Fronts in Germany and Austria, which was not caused by a single factor such as Ludendorff's call in September for an armistice. Rather it was a long, slow process, a cumulative build-up of civilian disenchantment resulting from the hardships caused by the British blockade, together with the winding down of German industrial production due to the exhaustion of existing stocks of materials and the inability to import replacements. All those factors came to a head in October-November, resulting in a potentially revolutionary situation that would have led to a much greater societal explosion than actually occurred if the German military leaders had attempted to go on fighting. Wisely, those leaders chose to end the fighting on whatever terms they could get, so that they could lead the forces under their command back to Germany in a relatively intact condition to restore order.

The essential failure of the German Government was that it was not ruthless enough, both at home and in the territories it occupied. For example, it could have prevented starvation among the German population by extracting food from the occupied Russian and Romanian territories in the same way as it did during the Second World War, forcing the population of those areas to bear the burden of food shortages. Instead, the priorities adopted by the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments were to feed the army of occupation first, then the local population, and only then to use what was left over to feed their own starving populations.

Starvation was even worse in Austria than it was in Germany, the main reason being that the Hungarian rulers refused to export their country's traditional food surplus to Vienna, preferring to build up massive stocks at home so as to be sure of being able to keep their own people happy in any future emergency. Thus, Vienna starved while Hungary had plenty to eat, and an accumulated surplus. If the German Government had been more ruthless it would have sent its forces into Hungary and compelled the Hungarian authorities to resume exporting food to Austria to relieve the massive distress there.

Essentially, it was a matter of too little, too late. By the time Germany and Austria gained access to the food and other resources of the occupied Ukraine, after March 1918, the situation had become so bad on their respective Home Fronts that only a massive plundering of the occupied territories and a rapid shipping of huge quantities of food and other supplies back to their civilian populations could have restored morale. As it was, the German and Austrian occupiers never succeeded in extracting from the occupied territories the amounts they needed to keep their armed forces and civilian populations supplied, mainly because they were not ruthless enough, and the German and Austrian peoples continued to suffer great deprivation, leading to the collapse of the Home Fronts (and of the Austro-Hungarian Army) at the end of the year.
A nice lot of words Michael, but within them you concede my point, however accidently, when you wrote;
All those factors came to a head in October-November
Which of course begs the question, 'why did this happen in October/November 1918?' You had a German army no longer able to continue the war, retreating fast towards Germany, desertions becoming commonplace, all after Ludendorff demanded an armistice and this demand became known. We also have Germany's allies close to collapse now Germany could no longer help prop them up, so it mattered little that the armies still stood on enemy soil, the Germans and Austrians had suffered irreversible defeats.

The desire to place the blame on the home front ignores that it stood pretty unified behind the German war effort until it became known that the head of the army was demanding peace before the army collapsed entirely and suffered total defeat. That dates from the end of September and early October. The home front was certainly suffering the ill-effects of blockade, a loss of morale (along with the army) after the failure of the Spring Offensives, but it did not enter critical decline until it became known the army was looking for any way out of the war. If that demand had not been made, then maybe the war would have continued into 1919, only to the same result with worse casualties.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#133

Post by michael mills » 13 Jan 2016, 14:01

That reads pretty much like a description of what the Germans did 1942-45 with the bad bits left out.
You have hit the nail on the head. German actions during the Second World War were driven by their experience of the outcome of the First.

During the First War they had not exploited the occupied enemy territory ruthlessly enough, with the result that the German civilian population starved and the Home Front collapsed. Once the Second War began, the German leaders, from Hitler down, were determined that there would be no repetition of the collapse of the Home Front, no second "November", and to that end their aim was to keep the German civilian population well fed and supplied with all the necessities of life at the expense of the populations of the occupied countries, even if that meant mass starvation and death among the conquered peoples. As Goering expressed it, the German people would be the last to starve.

Even the mass killing of the captive Jewish population began when in 1942 Hitler was faced with the stark choice between cutting the rations of the German civilian population, the one thing he most desperately wanted to avoid, and allowing a segment of the occupied population to starve or else actively killing it. That represented a diametric change from the German policy in the First War, when the Jewish populations of the occupied Russian/Polish territories were actually favoured and considered pro-German.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#134

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Jan 2016, 15:40

Hi Michael,

"During the First War they had not exploited the occupied enemy territory ruthlessly enough" requires a bit more explanation.

I recall no 1918 stories of feasting occupied Ukrainian peasants while Germans starved. Could you alaborate?

I would suggest that the Germans simply lacked the time to organize the resources of the large territories they occupied in the East in 1918.

Certainly the cumulative effects of the British blockade by 1918-19 were a major factor in Nazi German policies in WWII, but they are not the explanation for the adoption of genocide with respect to the Jews. There were no starving Germans when the so-called "Holocaust" began, though there were already starving Greeks in German custody!

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4009
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#135

Post by Attrition » 13 Jan 2016, 21:43

I suggest you look in Tooze (Ch 16 Labour, food and genocide) for the utilitarian motives for Aktion Reinhard and the necessity after Barbarossa failed in August-September 1941 to find other ways to cope with the consequences of the loss of the anticipated commodities, particularly Ukrainian food.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”