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

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

#316

Post by wm » 27 Mar 2016, 23:49

In national-socialist and real socialist electoral systems the vote was usually something about 99% for. The UK has still a long way to go on their way to fascism it seems...
michael mills wrote:Is that not precisely what Russian settlers on non-Russian land were doing from the 16th Century onward? First in Siberia, then on the "Wild Field" in the south conquered from the Crimean Tatars.

Is it not precisely what British settlers in North America and then Australia were doing?
Russia annexed the territories first - what happened later there can be maybe called internal colonialism. In North America and Australia settler colonialism was practiced, and exploitation colonialism in Africa and India.
So actually colonialism everywhere, but I would say the exploitation colonialism is the real, best known and usually mentioned form of colonialism.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#317

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 00:45

Come off it, FPTP is as fascist as tanks on the lawn, that's why there had never been a democratically-elected government. I want each elector's vote to have equal worth, that is democracy. The continental autocracies of 1914 don't seem so exceptional now, do they.


User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#318

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 00:48

wm wrote:In national-socialist and real socialist electoral systems the vote was usually something about 99% for. The UK has still a long way to go on their way to fascism it seems...
michael mills wrote:Is that not precisely what Russian settlers on non-Russian land were doing from the 16th Century onward? First in Siberia, then on the "Wild Field" in the south conquered from the Crimean Tatars.

Is it not precisely what British settlers in North America and then Australia were doing?
Russia annexed the territories first - what happened later there can be maybe called internal colonialism. In North America and Australia settler colonialism was practiced, and exploitation colonialism in Africa and India.
So actually colonialism everywhere, but I would say the exploitation colonialism is the real, best known and usually mentioned form of colonialism.
Fascism [Colonialism] is nothing but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the proletariat the difference between the types of reaction is meaningless. Leon Trotsky, What Next? (1932)

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

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

#319

Post by wm » 28 Mar 2016, 01:30

Well, it was proletariat and common people that voted for Hitler. The millions of Brownshirts weren't sons of German one percenters, but workers and unemployed.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#320

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 01:40

wm wrote:Well, it was proletariat and common people that voted for Hitler. The millions of Brownshirts weren't sons of German one percenters, but workers and unemployed.
Hitler was never elected to anything and the group most prone to voting nazi was the petit bourgeoisie, as anyone would expect. The nazi party never won a democratic national election either or even the half-bent election of March 1933.

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

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

#321

Post by wm » 28 Mar 2016, 03:54

They say over sixty percent of storm troopers were of proletarian background.
And the German workers were glad and ready to die by millions for Hitler in Russia and in a few other places. Would the British workers do this for their government today?

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#322

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 09:48

Another example of the continuity thesis, their fathers fought for the Kaiser too but I doubt that many people are glad to die. Optimism that submission to the diktat of the boss class may make the boss class less bossy, seems quite common, despite the war of attrition against the concessions made to the working class since 1916.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#323

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Mar 2016, 14:52

Double post. See below.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 28 Mar 2016, 14:54, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#324

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Mar 2016, 14:54

Hi Attrition,

I get the impression that your definition of "Fascist" is "anything that is not radical socialist".

WWII and its continuation as the Cold War were essentially a war between Liberal Dermocracy and Totalitarianism. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both of the latter ilk and tore each other to shreds, to the great advantage of Liberal Democracy and humanity more generally. Their essential difference was that one believed in National Socialism and the other claimed to believe in International Socialism.

"Tanks on the lawn" is actually a Socialist reference, not a Fascist one. It was said by the British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who told trade union leader Hugh Scanlon to "get your tanks off my lawn"..

As a matter of interest, why do you want "each elector's vote to have equal worth"?

Why do you consider one-man-one vote democracy to be a worthwhile goal? 7

How far should it extend? Should there be any qualification for the vote?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#325

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 16:34

I'm not a socialist of any stripe, I believe in democracy.

Liberal democracy eh? What's liberal democratic about colonialism and imperialism? To treat the nazi and Stalinist regimes as fundamentally different to the French, British and US empires is to confuse history and a homily from Blue Peter.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#326

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Mar 2016, 16:54

Hi Attrition.

I did not say that you were a socialist. (Nor, incidentally, do I consider "socialist" an insult). I posted that I get the impression that your definition of "Fascist" is "anything that is not radical socialist".

The "Liberal" in Liberal Democracy also embraces free market economics.

No, "To treat the nazi and Stalinist regimes as fundamentally" the same as "the French, British and US empires is to confuse history and a homily from Blue Peter." The Nazi and Stalinist regimes were totalitarian throughout. The others were not totalitarian either at home, or abroad. No Hero Mothers of the Raj, or compulsory youth movements for Congolese, or state ownership of Australian assets, or one party rule in Canada, or state run trades unions in Indo-China, etc., etc. The tools of British, French or US rule abroad were quite different.

Anyway, back to "Democracy". You left the following questions unanswered:

As a matter of interest, why do you want "each elector's vote to have equal worth"?

Why do you consider one-man-one vote democracy to be a worthwhile goal?

How far should it extend? Should there be any qualification for the vote?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

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

#327

Post by Attrition » 28 Mar 2016, 18:39

You're assuming that labels mean more than behaviour, treating the French, British or US empires as fundamentally different to the German and Soviet empires is not history. As for the free market, it's a myth as events since 1915 demonstrate. The liberal in liberal democracy refers to the C19th parent and its bastard children of the C20th: liberalism, fascism, Stalinism, nazism, Maoism and neo-liberalism. Democracy as the discussion had demonstrated is also a myth except at certain times and places. The Weimar constitution was democratic, which is why the republic was assassinated in 1930. Britain has never been a democracy.

If votes are not of equal worth, they aren't votes, since the point of voting is to find out how many people want something. One person, one vote is valuable because of the above. We're all part of society so deserve an equal say in collective decisions. Everyone over a certain age should have the vote.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#328

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Mar 2016, 13:44

Hi Attrition,

So, "the point of voting is to find out how many people want something". Do you consider this inherently meritorious? If so, why?

I note that you do not believe everyone should vote and that age should be a restriction. What age and why?

Any other restrictions - Insanity? Prison? Living abroad?, Etc.?

Should voting be compulsory to ensure all those eligible are represented?

Should government perhaps be conducted by plebiscites? That would give everyone a say in everything and cut out the middlemen representatives, which would surely be more democratic still?

Cheers,

Sid.

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?

#329

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Mar 2016, 14:30

All fascinating points, but can we at least make an effort to keep it connected to the subject of the thread.

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Jun 2014, 22:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

#330

Post by MarkF617 » 05 Apr 2017, 23:59

Hello,

I realise this is an old thread but as a WWII fan who has just began reading about WWI I thought I could offer a perspective not offered by any of the other posters.

Firstly the reasons I got interested in WWII:

One obvious reason is Hollywood movies. I grew up watching all the classics which used to be shown on a weekend afternoon, then it would be off to the park with all my mates (who had also just watched the film) to play war. These films were all WWII but we just knew it as "the war". I don't think there were any films shown about WWI (I certainly don't remember any). I think the reason for this is three fold:

1. The films were mostly made in America about Americans. World war I was mostly fought in Europe by Europeans. American troops only started arriving in numbers in spring 1918 which is after pretty much all the famous battles have been fought. In WWII the Americans were in much longer and present at many great victories.

2. From a basic point of view WWII seems a lot more straight forward than WWI (see the previous 22 pages of this thread where the whole topic got side tracked into who had the most progressive government). I WWII you have the nasty Germans and Japanese conquering countries and treating everyone horribly with only the tiny island of Great Britain holding on until the United States enter the war and save the day (yes I do know people who actually think this is how it happened including not realising the Soviets were involved or thinking they were on Germany's side)!

3. The attitudes of the people involved seems completely different. From what I know about WWI (not a lot I admit) people seemed to be shocked by what they saw and were happy to write about it, from what I have read about WWII (much, much more) people glossed over the horror and tried to make their stories interesting.

The other reason I got into WWII was simply that my Grandparents were all involved in one way or another and would tell me stories of Hurricanes scrambling and of being a driver for a General. This is a personal aspect I have never had of WWI.

My next step, once the interest had took hold, was documentaries. In this case WWII massively trumps WWI with all the cool technology. Although now I can see how those first, lumbering, rhomboid tanks slowly crossing trenches were a massive breakthrough in technology, to a young teenager they simply couldn't compete with a Tiger tank. The same goes for Fokkers fighting Sopwiths which were no match for Messershmitt vs Spitfire and watching British soldiers being rowed ashore at Gallipoli is no match for troops charging down the ramp of an LCA at Normandy. Add in Paratroopers, rockets, guided missiles and the first jets and WWI seems to lack that wow factor.


So far I have only read 2 books on WWI. The first was Basil Liddle Hart's book which I read a while ago and which opened my eyes to the bigger war as the documentaries I had seen (all British) concentrated 95% on the western front. The second I have just finished and was Somme written by Hugh Sebag Montefiore was to be honest depressing. I picked this book as I have previously read his book on Dunkirk and found it very interesting and at times exciting, however this book was full of tales of horror and of Generals/Colonels who wouldn't listen and sent their soldiers forward to be slaughtered time and time again. The shock to the enthusiastic volunteers is obvious whereas in his Dunkirk books there seems to be an attitude of "the Generals have ballsed up again, typical". I have read a few threads on this site that have kindled my interest in WWI but that single book has nearly killed it.

I think that for these reasons and more (for example my son has just been offered a school history trip to Ypres. The entire itinerary is showing the children how British soldiers suffered) I think WWI has the image of mud, trenches, suffering and walking slowly towards machine guns not to mention bloody minded Generals who don't care for their men (see General Haigh in Blackadder Goes Forth scraping model soldiers off the map into the bin as he plans the big push safe behind the lines).

My interest remains and I will read more on WWI but WWII remains my passion.

Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”