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.
South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1926
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 11 Sep 2017 16:18

Good morning Attrition,

You're correct that a state and its support apparatus, eg the media, prepare and present material to mold public opinion.

The "slaughter of the Second World War" was forecast during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. It was the industrialization base attached to military platforms such as ships, aeroplanes, and tractors. Nuclear ordnance created less casualties than gas warfare, germ warfare, politically induced starvation, etc.

What British Civil War do you allude to ? Ireland ? Please clarify the mentioned 20% territorial loss.

You could argue that the Marshall Plan was an opiate and the first beneficiary was the US. It's a controversial position but has merit.

I doubt if Western Europe could have experienced an economic recovery after WWII without NATO. An analogy can be said about Asia. The US is STILL in Okinawa, less for subjugating the locals and more so to keep Tokyo in artillery range. Look at how every machine and house fixture in Austria was removed and shipped eastward.

Slavery and economic plunder are inherent in the Westphalian nation-state system. It was inherent prior to Westphalia. It continues via the regional organizations today. Is there anything new under the sun ?

"Freedom" and democratic republic are terms with multiple definitions.


~ Bob
Virginia, USA

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 11 Sep 2017 17:25

The 'slaughter of the second one world war' was not just contemporary industrialisation being re equipped and re-tooled to service war needs. Much of the killing went above and beyond what was neccessary from a purely military point of view. Differing nations all set levels of violence which they were prepared to commit no matter the moral ambiguity of the act.

This British civil war I keep hearing about interests me....

I doubt western Europe could have experienced an economic recovery without the United States it's aid, it's loans and it's military presence in the face of the Soviet Union and it's support for a Federal Germany ...

Just as Japan could not have recovered so quickly without the US.. although we are straying a bit from the topic ... :)

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1926
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 11 Sep 2017 20:45

Good afternoon Doogal,

Do be careful. The term "purely military point of view" is subjective. It has more than one objective standard meaning.

See, for example "The Total War" by General Erich von Ludendorff, 1935. He refutes Clausewitz.

I also recommend "Selected Military Writings of Mao Tse Tung" , Peking, Foreign Language Press, 1963.

General Giap's "People's War, People's Army" , Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1962, also fortifies my point that there's more than one meaning to "purely military point of view".

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 11 Sep 2017 22:05

So the ends justify the means... That is what Giap would have said and Mao ....
Off the top of my head Ludendorff would have held a notion similar to ... The idea of one quick decisive victory ( settling a conflict between nations when they mobilised there full range of economic moral spiritual and industrial resources) was obsolete

I completely accept that it is subjective.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3477
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 11 Sep 2017 23:57

[quote="South"]Good morning Attrition,

You're correct that a state and its support apparatus, eg the media, prepare and present material to mold public opinion.

The "slaughter of the Second World War" was forecast during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. It was the industrialization base attached to military platforms such as ships, aeroplanes, and tractors. Nuclear ordnance created less casualties than gas warfare, germ warfare, politically induced starvation, etc.

What British Civil War do you allude to ? Ireland ? Please clarify the mentioned 20% territorial loss.

You could argue that the Marshall Plan was an opiate and the first beneficiary was the US. It's a controversial position but has merit.

I doubt if Western Europe could have experienced an economic recovery after WWII without NATO. An analogy can be said about Asia. The US is STILL in Okinawa, less for subjugating the locals and more so to keep Tokyo in artillery range. Look at how every machine and house fixture in Austria was removed and shipped eastward.

Slavery and economic plunder are inherent in the Westphalian nation-state system. It was inherent prior to Westphalia. It continues via the regional organizations today. Is there anything new under the sun ?

"Freedom" and democratic republic are terms with multiple definitions.


~ Bob
Virginia, USA[/quote]

Ireland (most of it) I rather thought that the Westphalian system put some limits on slavery (within Europe) by making it easier to distinguish between peace and war. I didn't know it made any diffence to European slavers. Democracy has only one definition, hence the US and Britain being republican oligarchies.

Oh and I'm not a Marxist as I've already mentioned. Marx's critique of capitalism is definitive but I disagree with his view of the state; it's the problem not the solution.

Oh again, Marshall Aid was an anti-soviet policy which bought the post 1945 boss class in the US sphere of influence and a counterpart to US aggression against the Soviet sphere.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 12 Sep 2017 07:28

Ireland was an occupied country.... it's gentrified protestant north ( which had been constructed by the UK) and the Catholic south (which gained independence early on in the 20th c) fought an Irish civil war..... It was not a British civil war as the UK was to all intense purposes an occupying power which supported northern Ireland militarily and economically .... .

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1926
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 12 Sep 2017 10:53

Good morning Attrition,

Appreciate reply.

I was not specifically addressing Europe other than now to say that after the treaties of Westphalia, the Russian Czar only started to free his own serfs starting in 1859. Czar Emancipator freed all of Russia's serfs 3 March 1861 - 22 months prior to President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves in US Army liberated areas of the Confederacy. (NOTE: Humanitarianism was less a motive than readjusting labor to start building railroads.)

It would assist all of us if you give some examples. The feudal system in Europe didn't win awards for civil liberties.

Please define "democracy" and present some examples. Is it a pseudo-intellectual abstraction or something that really existed in olden Greece ? I refuse to use the word "ancient"; it was, relatively speaking, recent.)

Had not thought you were a Marxist.

You are discussing "civilization" and not political establishments when saying "the problem..." Look at the regional replacements eg Confederation of the Rhein, The "States of the Church" (now only 1 in Rome; used to be 8. Napoleon can explain). Don't look at Asia ! It's still going on. The Dalai Lama of Tibet, now of India, ran a caste system that made the Indians blush! The lowest caste on the Dalai Lama's chart was........slaves.

Again, appreciate reply.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA
"Hurricane Alley"

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1926
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 12 Sep 2017 11:00

Good morning all,

Was thinking.....

To delve much more into the theme about the negative views of WWI versus WWII, I am recommend the book "Decline of the West" by Oswald Spengler. It was written just about after WWI.

The title says much about the contents and I see it going on from my vantage point here.

Faustian civilization is completed and finished.

Can't go beyond because of the current worldwide political flareups outside the bounds of AHF areas of exploration.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 12 Sep 2017 18:58

Greetings Bob ....

While having not read Ludendorff I found an article by Jan Willem Honig which better explained Ludendorffs refutation of Clausewitz to me:

.The best security for the nation followed from the total annihilation of other nations. Total war thus involved the total mobilization by the total state for the pursuit of total––political and strategic–– aims. However horrific we might now think Ludendorff’s product was, this was a coherent and seemingly practical concept of war that was adjusted directly to political demands. Ludendorff borrowed profusely from other authors without acknowledgment. Even his notorious inversion of Clausewitz’s dictum that politics was really the continuation of war by other means came from some one else. Coupled with his claim that Clausewitz should be thrown out of the window, Ludendorff’s claim that politics was subservient to war could easily lead to the conclusion that the bitter old general was an advocate non-instrumental warfare and substituted war’s political rationale with self-serving militarist values that would lead to pointless and all-consuming violence. That view would not be quite correct. Ludendorff was at pains to explain that modern political conditions were such that the Clausewitzian objective of the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces no longer sufficed. But Ludendorff continued to see war in instrumental terms. In fact, he also continued to adhere to the principle that politics gave war meaning. It was the policies of the state which should be made subservient to the effort of ensuring the ultimately political, public good of national survival. In a fundamental sense, he was thus closer to Clausewitz than he cared to admit. Where he differed from Clausewitz was in the definition of ‘the enemy’ and the appropriate strategic technique necessary to deal with him. He believed it necessary that real war must be helped to escalate as much as possible to attack and render defenceless not states, but nations. Disarming nations required designating their every citizens an enemy and therefore a legitimate target. It is difficult to believe that Clausewitz ever imagined that the genocidal strategy advocated by Ludendorff could have been justified by the reason that he believed endowed the human spirit and that it could come to be part of the ‘basic principles of the art of government’. Ludendorff’s ideas were not fundamentally different from those of Jünger, Forsthoff and many others on the conservative revolutionary right.


http://moodle.suttongrammar.sutton.sch. ... _honig.pdf p,36/37.....

:P

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1926
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 12 Sep 2017 21:27

Good afternoon Doogal,

Just topically glanced at the excerpt.

If you think Ludendorff was evil ... He was a military intellectual of the Nazi party.... the Frau was worse !

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3477
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 13 Sep 2017 01:50

[quote="doogal"]Ireland was an occupied country.... it's gentrified protestant north ( which had been constructed by the UK) and the Catholic south (which gained independence early on in the 20th c) fought an Irish civil war..... It was not a British civil war as the UK was to all intense purposes an occupying power which supported northern Ireland militarily and economically .... .[/quote]

Have you overlooked the Act of Union 1800, the political representation of Ireland at Westminster and the three Irish divisions raised in the Great War? There was a considerable amount of consent for the union until 1916. Once the nationalists had won the civil war, they had a local one to make sure that independence was a no-change change, like the civil war of 1776-1783.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3477
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 13 Sep 2017 01:58

~~~~~Please define "democracy" and present some examples. Is it a pseudo-intellectual abstraction or something that really existed in olden Greece ? I refuse to use the word "ancient"; it was, relatively speaking, recent.)~~~~~

Democracy is the political expression of human equality. I don't know of any democratic polity in Classical Greece but for most of human history, individuals have regulated their relations with other individuals with arrangements best described as anarchist. In the contemporary world there are states and nominal states, which are variations on an autocratic theme. I find it a little surprising that Imperial Germany is criticised here for autocracy when its 1914 rivals had been slave empires for centuries (except for plucky little Belgium which joined the game in 1908).
Last edited by Attrition on 13 Sep 2017 18:54, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 13 Sep 2017 15:09

Attrition wrote :

Have you overlooked the Act of Union 1800, the political representation of Ireland at Westminster and the three Irish divisions raised in the Great War? There was a considerable amount of consent for the union until 1916. Once the nationalists had won the civil war, they had a local one to make sure that independence was a no-change change, like the civil war of 1776-1783.
[/quote][/quote]

The act of union was forced through by a protestant majority with little interest for the catholic south ... its representation in west minster reflected this.... nationalists fought a war for independence for southern Ireland which had a Catholic majority who supported a war of independence from an occupying power ... the north/south split in the Irish divisions from ww1 seems pretty even but would need to examine the reasons men had for joining the colours...
Suffrage in Ireland was restricted to adult male landowners I believe in the 1800's and a large majority were protestant backed gentry who had been given land in the counties.....

I only contest ur use of the term a British civil war ....

Kind thanks Doogal

User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

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

Postby doogal » 13 Sep 2017 17:11

doogal wrote:
Attrition wrote :

Have you overlooked the Act of Union 1800, the political representation of Ireland at Westminster and the three Irish divisions raised in the Great War? There was a considerable amount of consent for the union until 1916. Once the nationalists had won the civil war, they had a local one to make sure that independence was a no-change change, like the civil war of 1776-1783.


The act of union was forced through by a protestant majority with little interest in the people of a primarily agrarian south. Political control through the act rested on Suffrage in Ireland which was restricted to adult male landowners with means. In the 1800's a large majority were protestant backed gentry who had been supported by the English crown and her military over generations. It was an act of imperial colonisation through many decades.
Hence a Protestant minority was able to bring about the act of union.
You are absolutely correct though that from 1802 -1922 Ireland in its entirety was in British law a part of the United Kingdom.

The reasons for Irish participation in WW1 are complicated and varied. Both pro and anti British sentiment existed in men's reasons, some did it just to avoid the shame of not doing it. Others because they truly believed Germany was a menace.

I only contest ur use of the term a British civil war ....

Kind thanks Doogal

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3477
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 13 Sep 2017 18:53

Was the suffrage in Ireland different to England, Scotland and Wales? Not after Catholic Emancipation. The fact is that there was a polity called the UK of GB and Ireland and now there isn't, because of a war. It was a civil war like the transatlantic one in the C18th. Obviously history isn't taught like that because it would upset the myth of continuity.


Return to “First World War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]