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.
User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4318
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

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

Postby Terry Duncan » 13 Sep 2017 20:00

doogal wrote: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.


As Attrition has suggested, sufferage was restricted in the same way for the rest of the UK, a lot of the men who fought in WWI were not eligable to vote until after the war rather like the better known case of women. It Ireland it was not so much a North/South divade as the border today suggests, as the heart of British rule was in Dublin from the time of King John in the early 13thC right up to partition.

The many Irish who did fight in WWI saw themselves as full citizens of the UK first and only after that did they split off down religious lines for the most part. Even today there is often more ill-feeling between Irish Protestants and Catholics than between either community and the rest of the British people, they may not love the mainlanders but they can often hate their fellow Irish of the opposite religion.

With regards the idea of a German victory in WWI, the peace would have been dictated by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, like the HL decrees that ruled Germany in the late war years, the same Ludendorf who concluded 'The best security for the nation followed from the total annihilation of other nations.' as quoted in the link Doogal provided. This is borne out by the terms of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, so the idea a peace with the west would be less punitive than Versailles is fairly obviously incorrect if Germany was capable of enforcing her terms.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 13 Sep 2017 21:17

Good afternoon Attrition,

Belgium didn't start playing until 1908 ?

That was the official date involving the last will and testament (a testamentary trust ?! ROFL ) transferring privately-owned real estate to the government of Belgium.

Leopold's International Association of the Congo was in 1882 and these "arrangements" were accepted by the US Government.

I know above by accident. Long ago was assigned to prepare a bulletin board display for Hispanic Heritage Week. I featured Spanish Holland.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3471
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 14 Sep 2017 09:05

Not the state; was it a bail-in or a bail-out? ;o)

I remember being a little startled in the VIth form to find out that the Netherlands had been Spanish.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1917
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

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

Postby South » 14 Sep 2017 20:27

Good afternoon Attrition,

Well received.

All this.....or, at least, some of this,.....relates to attitudes re opinions comparing WWI and WWII.

Besides Spanish Holland, we have Ceuta Spain and Melilla, Spain competing with Gibraltar, BCC.

France's Dalmatian coast (across from Italy) was beautiful French territory.

Will close by mentioning Stanley, Malvinas.

~ Bob
Virginia, USA

I hold off mentioning China's borders and its "Unequal Treaties".

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3471
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

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

Postby Attrition » 14 Sep 2017 22:23

I was never all that fond of Stan; neither was the British state, its owners only wanted the offshore oil.


Return to “First World War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]