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
CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

#1

Post by CJK1990 » 21 Jul 2015, 17:17

I truly do not understand why WWI is so hated compared to WWII.

Some examples:

--The idiocy of the Allied commanders is constantly emphasized in WWI but the same exact idiocy in WWII gets swept under the rug.

--People have no problem claiming banks and war profiteers caused the U.S. to enter WWI but these exact same banks and profiteers are judged completely innocent when it comes to U.S. entry into WWII.

--Anti-German propaganda in WWI is judged harshly while similar anti-German propaganda in WWII is either still believed or conveniently forgotten.

--The suffering imposed by the British blockade in WWI is emphasized while the blockade of WWII is largely ignored.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

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

#2

Post by Terry Duncan » 21 Jul 2015, 18:50

To be honest, I have always felt much the same way about how the two wars are compared. I think a lot of it comes from the way the politicians sold the war after it was over as 'the war to end all wars', as the general impressions after the war was that it had been worthwhile and the losses justified. Once WWII began, this was no longer seen as being true (not that it ever really had been), so all the losses and costs were seen as a waste, even if this did require a lot of hindsight and selective recollection of the war. The major factor though is probably the governments of the opposing sides. WWII can be portrayed as a 'good war' in that the Nazi government can be seen as very much malignant, the Japanese brutal and expansionist, the Italians slightly less 'evil' but still expansionistic and willing to use poison gas in their conquests of the late 1930's, whilst in WWI the governments are rather bland by comparison, none being that much worse than the others, if anything Tzarism being the least enlightened and least predictable, Germany the most militaristic (somewhat unfairly in some respects but not all), whilst Britain and France were probably closest to what we would term modern democratic governments (again, not entirely true, but overall they are seen as less oppressive).

Oddly, WWI was more cohesive than WWII, in that the alliances were mostly fighting the war from the outset, whilst in WWII the alliances formed more after the war began, and could even have seen Britain and France at war with the USSR over Finland as well as at war with Germany, with a chance Germany could have been at war with Britain, France, and the USSR at the same time! WWII was more opportunistic in many ways, but still far to sell to the masses as a war that had to be fought.


CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

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

#3

Post by CJK1990 » 21 Jul 2015, 20:18

Terry Duncan wrote:To be honest, I have always felt much the same way about how the two wars are compared. I think a lot of it comes from the way the politicians sold the war after it was over as 'the war to end all wars', as the general impressions after the war was that it had been worthwhile and the losses justified. Once WWII began, this was no longer seen as being true (not that it ever really had been), so all the losses and costs were seen as a waste, even if this did require a lot of hindsight and selective recollection of the war.
But even before WWII began WWI was already seen in a negative light.
The major factor though is probably the governments of the opposing sides. WWII can be portrayed as a 'good war' in that the Nazi government can be seen as very much malignant, the Japanese brutal and expansionist, the Italians slightly less 'evil' but still expansionistic and willing to use poison gas in their conquests of the late 1930's, whilst in WWI the governments are rather bland by comparison, none being that much worse than the others, if anything Tzarism being the least enlightened and least predictable, Germany the most militaristic (somewhat unfairly in some respects but not all), whilst Britain and France were probably closest to what we would term modern democratic governments (again, not entirely true, but overall they are seen as less oppressive).
But even in WWI Germany and Austria were certainly very different than the Allies, they were correctly labeled as autocratic regimes run by a pre-modern aristocratic elite. They certainly weren't as extreme as the fascists later were but they pretty much thought exactly the same way as the fascists did. For example the Kaiser was largely supportive of Hitler and vice versa. Nazi Germany was also relatively mild prior to WWII compared to Soviet Russia.

Imperial Germany had an expansionist colonial program, I understand this is downplayed on the grounds that other countries were doing the same thing. Yet Nazi Germany's expansionist program has always been treated as proof of a desire for world conquest despite there being absolutely no evidence. Again, why the double standard?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

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

#4

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Jul 2015, 01:45

CJK1990 wrote:But even before WWII began WWI was already seen in a negative light.
Only really in the period 1936-1939 when it became clear another war was likely, look up the 'Rememberance Day' activities in the 1920's, there was the solomn parade, two minutes silence, and wreath laying, but then there were parties and celebrations. Politicians memoirs, notably Lloyd-Georges, also helped as they tried to pin the blame for all the losses on the generals and to make heroes out of the politicians - ignoring it was often they that had forced the generals to attack in unsuitable places against all military advice. The cost was too high for people anywhere to believe it was a war that had been worth the cost entirely, but the idea that there would be no more war did allow it to be seen as a war that had brought about a good result.
CJK1990 wrote:But even in WWI Germany and Austria were certainly very different than the Allies, they were correctly labeled as autocratic regimes run by a pre-modern aristocratic elite. They certainly weren't as extreme as the fascists later were but they pretty much thought exactly the same way as the fascists did. For example the Kaiser was largely supportive of Hitler and vice versa. Nazi Germany was also relatively mild prior to WWII compared to Soviet Russia.

Imperial Germany had an expansionist colonial program, I understand this is downplayed on the grounds that other countries were doing the same thing. Yet Nazi Germany's expansionist program has always been treated as proof of a desire for world conquest despite there being absolutely no evidence. Again, why the double standard?
None of the WWI governments were genocidal, and autocratic regimes can exist perfectly well alongside others, just as right from the beginning, democracies have always been far more warlike than many like to admit. Germany was autocratic and militaristic, but France was democratic and just as militaristic, and conscripted a much higher proportion of the available men than Germany did. The Austro-Hungarian state was very repressive with regards representation of its ethnic groups, many of which wanted to form separate states of their own, but Russia was also very repressive and still prone to massacre people protesting for better conditions or more representation in the government.

The double standard is due to there being no further general war since WWII so far, therefore it can be seen to have achieved global peace to a degree longterm (minor wars aside), so it has simply taken the 'war to end all wars' tag that WWI had been given, and due to the massive numbers deliberately killed, it can be sold as a war of good against evil. There is also the simply fact that we read mostly western texts, and they are written with the background of Britain and its empire, France, and the US, collectively taking fewer losses than the Battle of Verdun cost, Victory still had to be bought, but as the USSR payed the price and not the western nations, western writers tend to point to the high casualties these nations took in WWI compared to WWII, and carefully ignore the massive losses the USSR took, something of a product of the Cold War from both sides, the west for not wanting to give full credit to the USSR and the USSR wanting to say it lost far fewer men than it really did - Robert Conquest was once criticised by the USSR for saying they lost about 20 million in WWII, they insisted he was giving a figure far too high, but then in the 1990's he was criticised for making the figure far too low at 28 million!

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

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

#5

Post by CJK1990 » 22 Jul 2015, 04:06

Terry Duncan wrote: Only really in the period 1936-1939 when it became clear another war was likely,
Based on what I have read there was already a very strong backlash against WWI in the 1920s.
None of the WWI governments were genocidal,
Have you forgotten the Armenian genocide? In any case Nazi Germany did not become genocidal until 1941-42, so the genocide has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the war.
and autocratic regimes can exist perfectly well alongside others, just as right from the beginning, democracies have always been far more warlike than many like to admit. Germany was autocratic and militaristic, but France was democratic and just as militaristic, and conscripted a much higher proportion of the available men than Germany did. The Austro-Hungarian state was very repressive with regards representation of its ethnic groups, many of which wanted to form separate states of their own, but Russia was also very repressive and still prone to massacre people protesting for better conditions or more representation in the government.
And my point is that those same exact arguments apply just as well to WWII.
The double standard is due to there being no further general war since WWII so far, therefore it can be seen to have achieved global peace to a degree longterm (minor wars aside), so it has simply taken the 'war to end all wars' tag that WWI had been given, and due to the massive numbers deliberately killed, it can be sold as a war of good against evil. There is also the simply fact that we read mostly western texts, and they are written with the background of Britain and its empire, France, and the US, collectively taking fewer losses than the Battle of Verdun cost, Victory still had to be bought, but as the USSR payed the price and not the western nations, western writers tend to point to the high casualties these nations took in WWI compared to WWII, and carefully ignore the massive losses the USSR took, something of a product of the Cold War from both sides, the west for not wanting to give full credit to the USSR and the USSR wanting to say it lost far fewer men than it really did - Robert Conquest was once criticised by the USSR for saying they lost about 20 million in WWII, they insisted he was giving a figure far too high, but then in the 1990's he was criticised for making the figure far too low at 28 million!
As I said before, WWI was already seen in a negative well before people could know WWII was going to happen. And WWII was viewed positively in the 1950s despite many people believing that WWIII was a possibility.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

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

#6

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Jul 2015, 13:39

CJK1990 wrote:Based on what I have read there was already a very strong backlash against WWI in the 1920s.
Mostly in the US certainly, in Britain and France there was a feeling of great loss but that the war had been necessary.
CJK1990 wrote:Have you forgotten the Armenian genocide? In any case Nazi Germany did not become genocidal until 1941-42, so the genocide has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the war.
Far from it, I have been discussing it elsewhere only a day or so ago. Nazi Germany did not start the main part of the killing until 1942, but there were many signs and even incidents that pointed to a deliberate policy of killing unwanted elements of society, certainly from 1939 onwards, even if we ignore Hitlers public speaches threatening to anihilate the Jews prior to the war starting. The Ottomans were oppressive everywhere, but had never resorted to such mass killings of an ethnic group leading up to WWI, and there had been no indication they would adopt such a policy until well after they were at war. I agree these were not reasons anyone went to war in either case, but they did make it easier to justify the war afterwards, but the Armenians were a very distant people from those who wrote the histories, so they fate was mostly forgotten.
CJK1990 wrote:And my point is that those same exact arguments apply just as well to WWII.
As I said, I agree with what you said in your initial post, I am only laying out how people perceive things, rightly or wrongly.
CJK1990 wrote:As I said before, WWI was already seen in a negative well before people could know WWII was going to happen. And WWII was viewed positively in the 1950s despite many people believing that WWIII was a possibility.
Because it had been possible to sell the war as one between 'good and evil', where the mass killings of 'undesirables' had ranged over all of Europe and was well documented by those that wrote the histories of the war, whilst similar atrocities in China during 1931-1945 are almost forgotten other than the 'Rape of Nanking'. Few people in the west remember the Japanese released bubonic plague on the Chinese people. It is wrong that the wars are remembered in such ways, but it is the product of the majority of us here being exposed to histories written mostly in the west.

CJK1990
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 10 Apr 2010, 21:15

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

#7

Post by CJK1990 » 22 Jul 2015, 14:37

Was Nazi Germany at the end of the day more "evil" than Imperial Germany was? Even assuming that it was, I don't see why that fact by itself should be allowed to completely warp the perceptions of the two wars to such a ridiculous extreme.

In reality though, I do not believe Nazi Germany was objectively speaking much different than Imperial Germany. Militarism? They were about the same. Expansionism? As I said before Imperial Germany had an expansionist program too. Atrocities? They were probably no different, but unlike imperial Germany Nazi Germany had to face various partisan movements which encouraged them to resort to atrocities more often.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

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

#8

Post by Don71 » 27 Jul 2015, 13:27

Oh my god,

you realy want to say that Nazi Germany was objectively speaking not much different than Imperial Germany?

I think you have not much clue about german history!

Where and when had Imperial Germany an expansionist program other then GB, France, Italy, USA, Japan and Russia. Where was the Imperial Germany expansionist program at Europe, proved by primary sources, before September 1914?

Where were the racist campaigns and laws at Imperial Germany?
Where were the pursuits with real consequences for the political opposition at Imperial Germany?
Where were the ethnic pursuit at Imperial Germany?
Where were the concentration camps at Imperial Germany?
Where were the Nürnberger laws of 1935 at Imperial Germany?
Where was the euthanasia program at Imperial Germany?
Where was the proscription of political parties at Imperial Germany?
Where was something like the Röhm coup (1934) with something about 200 killied political opposition members at Imperial Germany?
Where was something like the Night of Broken Glass at Imperial Germany?
etc.

Do you heard about the general men election right for the Reichstag at Imperial Germany, which was a more democratic election then the elections at GB?
Atrocities? They were probably no different, but unlike imperial Germany Nazi Germany had to face various partisan movements which encouraged them to resort to atrocities more often.
This sentence is so rediculous, if you look at the atrocities of Nazi Germany at Poland and UdSSR, that it dispense every base!

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

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

#9

Post by Sheldrake » 27 Jul 2015, 15:56

Narrative theory. People like a story they can understand.

WW2 is commonly regarded as a tale of good versus evil, with the bad guys even dressing up in all the paraphernalia.

WW1 is harder to understand. At the time it was thought to be the Great War For Civilisation and victory medals were issued in that name. The cost of losses were justified as a sacrifice to end all wars. With hind sight it had not settled anything and any thought about causes was morally messy. By the mid C20th it became easier to see the war in the form of another well known tale - as an old testament plague or a disaster movie. Morally corrupt or wicked leadership leading the people to costly folly. The left told the take of the failure of capitalism and how no one had listened to the prophet Marx, but from the ruins came the better world of the marxist state. The heroes are the ordinary soldiers; the villains were the capitalists and the generals. Add a slice of anti-semitism to the picture of profiteering and you have a tale for the Nazi right as well as the communist left.
Last edited by Sheldrake on 27 Jul 2015, 21:49, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#10

Post by Attrition » 27 Jul 2015, 21:36

~~~~~Britain and France were probably closest to what we would term modern democratic governments (again, not entirely true, but overall they are seen as less oppressive)~~~~~

Unless you're Irish, Indian, South African etc, etc ad infinitum. Try "proto-fascist military dictatorships"....

France democratic? When did French women get the vote? 1944 except in Algeria (1958). The similarity between the willingness to resort to war of Euro-autocratic regimes and the pseudish western autocratic regimes demonstrates the generic nature of nation states, not the difference between Tsarist tyranny and British parliamentarism.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

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

#11

Post by wm » 28 Jul 2015, 17:53

People living in the so called Euro-autocratic regimes enjoyed freedoms we can only dream of now.
Like for example no IDs, freedom of travel (without passports and any other documents), the right to self-defense (today denied entirely in many countries), economic freedom (today severely restricted all across Europe by bureaucratic regulations and interventionism), low tax rates.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

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

#12

Post by South » 28 Jul 2015, 18:07

Good afternoon all,

Here's an additional perspective regarding CJK1990's initial question:

The new Republic of China had additudes molded by both internal warlords and the new Power, Japan. When WWI started in 1914, Japan joined the Allied side and obtained the German concessions in China's Shangtung Province. Recall the famous beer, Tsingtao, ... high quality even today......This was a German brewery !

Omitting much......

In 1917 China declared war on Germany with view to reclaim its lost Shangtung Province.

At the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference Japan had its claim on Shangtung validated regardless of China's and US President Wilson's protest.

This was the political environment China dealt with.

Later, back at the FEBA ......Forward Edge of the Battle Area......The Great War, Part 2, has a final chapter with Japan the recipient of the atomic attacks.

The dust settles after the war's end and only 4 years later, Communist governments are in place from the Baltic to the Pacific.

Thus, CJK1990's question from the Chinese perspective is as clear and predictable as white light passing through a prism.

Warm regards,

Bob

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

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

#13

Post by South » 28 Jul 2015, 18:07

Good afternoon all,

Here's an additional perspective regarding CJK1990's initial question:

The new Republic of China had additudes molded by both internal warlords and the new Power, Japan. When WWI started in 1914, Japan joined the Allied side and obtained the German concessions in China's Shangtung Province. Recall the famous beer, Tsingtao, ... high quality even today......This was a German brewery !

Omitting much......

In 1917 China declared war on Germany with view to reclaim its lost Shangtung Province.

At the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference Japan had its claim on Shangtung validated regardless of China's and US President Wilson's protest.

This was the political environment China dealt with.

Later, back at the FEBA ......Forward Edge of the Battle Area......The Great War, Part 2, has a final chapter with Japan the recipient of the atomic attacks.

The dust settles after the war's end and only 4 years later, Communist governments are in place from the Baltic to the Pacific.

Thus, CJK1990's question from the Chinese perspective is as clear and predictable as white light passing through a prism.

Warm regards,

Bob

User avatar
Phaing
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 23 Jul 2015, 05:51
Location: Medford, Oregon

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

#14

Post by Phaing » 28 Jul 2015, 22:05

wm wrote:People living in the so called Euro-autocratic regimes enjoyed freedoms we can only dream of now.
Like for example no IDs, freedom of travel (without passports and any other documents), the right to self-defense (today denied entirely in many countries), economic freedom (today severely restricted all across Europe by bureaucratic regulations and interventionism), low tax rates.
Wow, that made me sit back and think for a moment.
Very true, but they also did something that seems weird in retrospect. They ran out into the streets and cheered the news of the war, they celebrated it. I didn't see any pics like that for WW2, maybe a couple in Japan that looked staged but that was about all.
Maybe those cheering mobs lost faith in themselves, or it was used that way to take freedom away from them over the course of the next 100 years.

And, what now? Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany were similar?!?
Yeah, that must be the reason for all the purges and all the intimidation the Nazis visited on their own people, from the night of the Long Knives to the aftermath of the July 20th plot, Hitler was more intimidated by other Germans than he was by any external threat. I never heard of the Kaiser carrying on like that.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

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

#15

Post by JAG13 » 29 Jul 2015, 02:32

Phaing wrote:
wm wrote:People living in the so called Euro-autocratic regimes enjoyed freedoms we can only dream of now.
Like for example no IDs, freedom of travel (without passports and any other documents), the right to self-defense (today denied entirely in many countries), economic freedom (today severely restricted all across Europe by bureaucratic regulations and interventionism), low tax rates.
Wow, that made me sit back and think for a moment.
Very true, but they also did something that seems weird in retrospect. They ran out into the streets and cheered the news of the war, they celebrated it. I didn't see any pics like that for WW2, maybe a couple in Japan that looked staged but that was about all.
Maybe those cheering mobs lost faith in themselves, or it was used that way to take freedom away from them over the course of the next 100 years.
The last war in Europe had been almost a good 50 years earlier and were relatively short affairs with a few decisive battles and a few thousand dead, by WW2 everyone knew better.
And, what now? Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany were similar?!?
Yeah, that must be the reason for all the purges and all the intimidation the Nazis visited on their own people, from the night of the Long Knives to the aftermath of the July 20th plot, Hitler was more intimidated by other Germans than he was by any external threat. I never heard of the Kaiser carrying on like that.
Imperial Germany was the most scientifically advanced country in the world, Nazi Germany is what you get when the crazies take over the asylum.

Same for Iran, Cambodia, Russia, and lately I kinda expect the US to follow them given the collection of wackos they have running now...

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”