History buffs: Which is more interesting to you - WW1 or WW2?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I don’t have any personal or family connection to it, but I’ve always been fascinated by the Pacific Theater because of (what seems to me) its utter lack of romanticism or Band of Brothers trumpeted glory. After reading William Manchester and James Jones books on the conflict, it seems like it was miserable muddy malarial hell.

William Manchester rebutting visions of idyllic island paradises in Goodbye Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War: “Move a thousand yards inland. Just be sure you take a compass and leave a Hansel-and-Gretel trail behind you. If you don’t–you will die.”

22

If we’re talking geo-political causes and effects, then WWI has it in spades over WWII.

If we’re talking large-scale strategy, then WWII beats WWI hands down- between the large scale naval warfare and large scale operations in all 3 theaters, there’s nothing to compare in WWI.

From a human perspective, it’s about the same for me. Reading about the Poilus, Tommies, Doughboys, Diggers and German soldiers is equally as fascinating as reading about their WWII counterparts. (same goes for any war, really).

23

WWI, simply because it was so senseless and didn’t have obvious villains and heroes.

24

WWII in many ways marks the beginning of the modern age, while WWI marks the end of a previous era. I’m more interested in endings than beginnings.

25

To be clear, I was referring to the Naval warfare in the Pacific. The fighting on land was brutal hell.

Speaking of romanticism, most WWI air victories were ‘murders’. Yes, there were dogfights, and yes, there was the occasional act of chivalry; but the high-scoring aces advocated sneaking up on an enemy and shooting him in the back before he even knew you were there.

26

I had to throw another vote to WWII, just to be honest with myself. But I’m taking a class now (“WWI: Causes, Conduct, and Consequences” - how could anyone NOT take that class?) that has me rethinking my stance on the First World War. I used to be one of those guys who thought, “WWI? Bloody, muddy Western Front. Not much else. Cool bit with airplanes.”

The truth is there were multiple theaters in WWI too. The colonial fighting in Africa is quite interesting and not much like the fighting in Europe. The Eastern Front was almost like a totally different war from the Western Front. And there was plenty of naval action to satisfy the wet-foot historians too.

One of my “back-burner” subjects for further reading is the story of the crew from the German cruiser Emden. Sunk by Australians on 9 November 1914 at Direction Island during a raid. The landing party seized another ship, sailed to Yemen, crossed the desert, and eventually turned up in Constantinople. Now THERE’S a movie for you.

27

It’s so hard to pick just one, but I went with WWI.

My biggest interest in history is in the social/cultural homefront stuff, and I find it endlessly fascinating how WWI can be seen as this turning point between the old world order and the modern era, and pretty much launched us right into the 1920s, a decade of upheaval if there ever was one.

It’s also hard to say why some emotional aspects hit me harder than others … obviously, the holocaust – very tragic. Hiroshima – very tragic. But the thing that gets me the most is the whole Flander’s Field concept, that so many of the British soldiers didn’t come back. I think I read Testament of Youth at an impressionable age and cried for a week.

Of course, WWII has lots of interesting aspects as well, so it was a tough choice.

28

WW2
It was fought on a much wider/grander scale.
The planes, tanks, and ships were much more impressive in their firepower, speed, and range.
The technological advancement of the weapons and weapon systems from the beginning of the war to its end was more breathtaking.
The leaders of the participant countries were much more charismatic and/or insane.

29

Its hard to actually decide what you mean by peace.

When do we consider these wars began and finished, because it can be differant from whichever perspective you choose.

For China, WW2 began in 1931, however it had not been one of the major protagonists of WW1.However for them, there was also added in the communist revolutions, plus the various purges.

Poland only had a short break before it was in conflict with Russia.

The US arrived into the conflict zones quite some time after the main starts, so you can argue from this viewpoint that there was a gap.

For the inhabitant of Russia, there simply was no peave between the wars at all, from the revolution, to war with Poland to the purges, its hard to see any time of peace as far as their citizens.

For Vietnemese the ar prettymuch started in 1940 -ish and kept going until the US left.

Like the Hundred Years War between England and France, the 20c centry is well described as being one century of war with more significant periods of conflict, many of the causes of these series of actions had their roots in earlier conflicts, from empires collapsing through to huge political changes that were themselves the results of the major periods of conflict.

How likely is it that the Russian revolution would have not ocurred but for WW1? Korea was a reaction to the fall out from WW2 as was Vietnam… and so on. We can make a case for the Mid East wars being due to fall out from WW2.

I have not seen a formal study, or book that treats the entire century as a one of war with short periods of peace, but seems to me it would make a lot of sense to join up the dots.

30

WWII was just a much better soap opera. Especially much better villains.

31

Have you read The Red Baron’s Last Flight: A Mystery Investigated? It is a few years since I read it, but I enjoyed it a lot.

32

WWII. Much more decisive, changed the course of history.
WWI was like two rival teams meeting in the championship game, only to find out that nobody had remembered to bring a ball.

33

Yes. A very convincing analysis, IMO.

34

Yes Good descripton.

WWII has more battles and campains.

35

It was on the news this mroing. A Vietnamese in ar who had kill her three colonial pwoers. They are taking the pwoers back to New York too lady to rest. My pary are with the UN who lost his international mandate. I am truley sorry for your lots.

36

WWII did’nt have obvious heros and villians either. The Allies did pretty much eveything the Germans and the Japanese did.

37

Makes me shudder this thread at the lack of historical knowledge that exists even on the Dope.

The stalemate on the Western FRont was just one part of the War. There was the Eastern Front, the Salonika Front, the Austrian Front with Russia, the Italian Front, where you saw some of the worst mountain warfare in history, at least until the 1980’s with Pakistan and India, Africa, the Middle East and Mesopotamia.

Someone mentioned Battle of the Atlantic in WWII, there is a reason that its called the *Second *Battle of the Atlantic, WWI was the first and the germans came so close to starving Britain at one point (FWIW they never came close in WWII).

Plus the rise of nationalism, the ends of empire etc etc. WWII was a huge killing orgy. WWI OTH was a killing orgy and interesting as well.

All those who think WWI was Red Baron and trenches in Flander and France only, kindly report for execuction.

38

Oh, they rememberd, all right

39

Really I agree with the posters who feel that the two wars are more of a continuum. Personally I find them both fascinating, but the actual military campaigns of WWI are too depressingly similar to each other and that makes the military aspects of the war (as differentiated from causes and politics) dreary.

One of the more interesting and provocative proposed causes I’ve read for WWI recently was John Keegan’s chapter in The Second World War, “Every Man a Soldier,” in which he argues that dramatic improvements in medicine/public health, industrial production, transportation, and economic growth may have been the primary causes. For the first time in history, national economies could equip (industry) and pay (economy/taxation) standing regular armies, conscript huge numbers of civilians quickly (recordkeeping), keep them relatively free of epidemic disease (public health), and deliver them in quantity to the front lines quickly (railroads) – and had, above all, big booms of surplus population available thanks to the influence of all these factors in civilian life. WWI may not have been as much about the breaking of empires, the rise of industrial total war, or the passing of the romantic age, as it may have been an irruption of lemmings or locusts, a big population spike leading to immediate release of population pressure through conflict.

40

WWI because of the futility of the killing. Thousand die to gain a few inches of land? That and the barren kill zone that was no mans land. There’s also the permanent alterations to the land. 90 years later and you can still see the trenches and craters.