NationStates Jolt Archive

This is kind of just a random thought, but after seeing the thread on the US geting involved in WWI, I started thinking. That the treaty that ended WWI played a major role in leading up to WWII is something that many diferent historians have put forward and is fairly well accepted at this time. Concidering this conection I was wondering if these wars might be considered by historians a few centuries down the line to be one war, in a similar way to how we now efer to the Hundred year War even though it wasn't actualy a hundred year block of war, but more of a prolonged period of war. No idea where I'm going with this just thought I would see what others think.

Twenty years between the two wars make them different conflicts.

Yes, but the Treat of Versilles was a cease fire. So techincally it is one big war.

Twenty years between the two wars make them different conflicts.
Yes but a hundred something years from now that twenty years might not seem to be as big a deal as it does now, which is what I'm refering too, what historians sometime in the future will think about the conflict.

Twenty years between the two wars make them different conflicts.
The French Marshall Foch after Versailles, 1919:

"This is no peace, this is just a ceasefire for twenty years!"

I kid you not, this is one of the great quotes of human history.

Yes, but the Treat of Versilles was a cease fire. So techincally it is one big war.
AFAIK, the treaty of Versailles was a full peace-treaty, which would've had Germany paying reperations well into the seventies.
The ceasefire was declared in 1918, the peace in 1919.

But ask Olantia, that guy knows everything about international law. Seriously!

The French Marshall Foch after Versailles, 1919:

"This is no peace, this is just a ceasefire for twenty years!"

I kid you not, this is one of the great quotes of human history.
Hm, I've never heard that before, or if I have I can't remember so it dosen't count ;) , thats pretty creepy/cool/interesting.

it certainly possible to see them as one war, there was some shifting of sides and japan was not involved in ww1 but you can certainly argue they were broadly speaking one war revolving around germany's attempt to become the prime european power vs. france, britian and russia with the us siding with the allies and germany picking up allies wherever it could, though ww1 was actually started by austria hungary and not germany, though germany obviously fought it to further its own interests not just to fufill its secret treaties.

Why was Germany blamed?

Why was Germany blamed?

because it lost... actually it got off easy in ww1, its two main allies austria hungary and the ottoman empire were both fundimentally broken apart in the settlement, germany just lost more peripheral territory.

We wouldnt have this problem if the ArchDukes driver didnt take a wrong turning.

I dont think Allied troops entered Germany until 1944-45 so what was it that made Germany conceed?

Germany is the reason you aren't all speaking Russian. You owe us.

Assuming humanity survives a few more centuries, the two World Wars will eventually be recognized as two parts to an extended period of conflict.

I dont think Allied troops entered Germany until 1944-45 so what was it that made Germany conceed?
in ww1 massive civil unrest... germany was in serious danger of a russian style revolution... that's why the nazis blamed the communists and the jews for the defeat, just like the american right blamed the antiwar movement and the hippies for the loss in vietnam.

I dont think Allied troops entered Germany until 1944-45 so what was it that made Germany conceed?

You're confusing WWI and WWII.

Assuming humanity survives a few more centuries,
Stop bein such a pesimist :(

it certainly possible to see them as one war, there was some shifting of sides and japan was not involved in ww1

Japan was involved and it used the oppertunity to snatch up German Pacific Islands. Japan was involved in the Treaty of Versailles, were disputes over Chinese territory and the a racial equality clause caused the further alienation between Japan and the Western Powers.

in ww1 massive civil unrest... germany was in serious danger of a russian style revolution... that's why the nazis blamed the communists and the jews for the defeat, just like the american right blamed the antiwar movement and the hippies for the loss in vietnam.

The Americans lost Vietnam because the Soviets threatened to enter the war if North Vietnam was invaded. Still don't see why America couldn't keep defending the South though...

Germany is the reason you aren't all speaking Russian. You owe us.
germany did spend the last year of ww2 desperately trying to loss to the west and not the reds, if you look at german losses in the war they were much higher on the eastern front.

In both World Wars, the economy of Germany collasped. That would be sufficient pressure to force it into a cease-fire or peace settlement. But then again, Hitler decided he would fight to the end, and let his people die against pretty much impossible odds.

Japan was involved and it used the oppertunity to snatch up German Pacific Islands. Japan was involved in the Treaty of Versailles, were disputes over Chinese territory and the a racial equality clause caused the further alienation between Japan and the Western Powers.
True

Stop bein such a pesimist :(

One should always be pessimistic as optimism is dead. If something good happens one can be pleasantly surprised.

Why was Germany blamed?
Long story, nonetheless I'll try to be the first to answer.

Serbia was allied with Russia, which wanted to protect other Slavic people and access to the mediterannean.
France was allied with Russia because they were both scared by Germany.
Britain was allied with France because...hmm, well they were good friends for some time (Crimean War etc).

EDIT: Britain was not fully allied with France at all. AFAIK, the Entente Cordiale (="friendly understanding") didn't require either side to be of military assistance. It just turned out that way because of the Belgium situation.

Germany under Bismarck had been friends with almost everyone, but when the old emperor (or "Kaiser") died, and the young one got the throne, he wanted to become the new big shot superpower.
That started to piss off Britain and the others, and Germany was soon pretty alone in the world.
So they allied themselves with Austria-Hungary, which wanted all of the Balcans for itself.

Now, on the Serbian national holiday, Austria wanted to prove a point and send their crown prince down into Belgrade for a parade.
That pissed off the Serbian nationalists (which wanted a big and powerful Serbian empire) and they shot the crown prince.

Austria blamed the Serbian Government and demanded all kinds of stuff from them (remember it wanted control of all the Balcans).
Serbia agreed to most, but not to all claims.

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "

The Americans lost Vietnam because the Soviets threatened to enter the war if North Vietnam was invaded. Still don't see why America couldn't keep defending the South though...

because it was unwinable without the ability to invade the north, army morale and discipline were degenerating under the stress of antiwar draftees and rampant drug use, american society was showing signs of fragmentation... ect ect

One should always be pessimistic as optimism is dead. If something good happens one can be pleasantly surprised.
Id agree with that in the short term, but theres no cause for long term pessimis b/c you wouln't be around to be suprised ;)

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "
ROTFL :p

I definately agree that WWI and WWII will be considered one war in the future... when I took a European History class, we actually discussed this idea. But since WWII was a direct result from the economy collapse due to WWI (which allowed Hitler to rise to power) instead of a totally separate issue, it is definately feasible that they will be lumped together as one war in the future.

On a slightly humorous note... some friends of mine had made a short film about how Kaiser Wilhelm II was to be blamed for all the problems in the world... Failing a class? Can't find your keys? In some way, it can be tracked back to Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."


That sounds like Britian was walking by, "HEY! Thats just not cricket!"

because it was unwinable without the ability to invade the north, army morale and discipline were degenerating under the stress of antiwar draftees and rampant drug use, american society was showing signs of fragmentation... ect ect

Hey, it worked in Korea, why not Vietnam?

Germany is the reason you aren't all speaking Russian. You owe us.

i was thinking russia's the reason we aren't all speaking german.

the state department in the united states followed a policy of "let them kill each other, it will keep them away from us" through the 30's and very early 40's....

They'll still be considered seperate wars a few hundred years down the track because despite the fact that the two sides from both wars look fairly similar on the map, the politics of it all were radically different. Germany and Italy weren't continuations of the old regime, they were governed by the end products of coups which had produced a new and very distinctive form of government. Japan, which had fought with the Allies in WWI, entered WWII on Germany's side as an openly hostile imperialistic agressor. And perhaps most importantly Russia had been transformed from an aging monarchy dragged into a world conflict by treaty obligations, into yet another powerful new form of government completely divorced from its historical roots. And like the Axis powers it ended up fighting against, its motivation for the war was primarily conquest.

Or in short, where World War One was a war of great powers of the nineteenth century style engaging in a war for diplomatic advantage in an equally nineteenth century style, World War Two was a war of fully fledged 20th century industrial superpowers going at each other for total world conquest, and several of the major players were ran by new kinds of government never before seen in world history. It wasn't a continuation of old feuds by old countries, it was new powers flexing their muscles.

That sounds like Britian was walking by, "HEY! Thats just not cricket!"
Well, strictly speaking Britain was the guarantee of Belgium's independence, so they were in their rights to do what they did.
Germany had to do what it did because it was the only feasible way of winning a two-front war of that scale, and neither Belgium nor Britain had to agree.
I guess it just didn't quite work out the way it was planned.
At any rate, if Bismarck had still been around, it wouldn't have happened. Because that guy was aware that precisely that would happen if Germany ever took a clear stance on an issue.

Long story, nonetheless I'll try to be the first to answer.

Serbia was allied with Russia, which wanted to protect other Slavic people and access to the mediterannean.
France was allied with Russia because they were both scared by Germany.
Britain was allied with France because...hmm, well they were good friends for some time (Crimean War etc).

Germany under Bismarck had been friends with almost everyone, but when the old emperor (or "Kaiser") died, and the young one got the throne, he wanted to become the new big shot superpower.
That started to piss off Britain and the others, and Germany was soon pretty alone in the world.
So they allied themselves with Austria-Hungary, which wanted all of the Balcans for itself.

Now, on the Serbian national holiday, Austria wanted to prove a point and send their crown prince down into Belgrade for a parade.
That pissed off the Serbian nationalists (which wanted a big and powerful Serbian empire) and they shot the crown prince.

Austria blamed the Serbian Government and demanded all kinds of stuff from them (remember it wanted control of all the Balcans).
Serbia agreed to most, but not to all claims.

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "

Britian wasn't allied with france. I don't know where you got that idea.

Britian wasn't allied with france. I don't know where you got that idea.
Indeed you're right.
Strictly speaking the Entente Cordiale was not a military alliance as such. I'll edit that into my post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale

AFAIK, the treaty of Versailles was a full peace-treaty, which would've had Germany paying reperations well into the seventies.
The ceasefire was declared in 1918, the peace in 1919.

But ask Olantia, that guy knows everything about international law. Seriously!
:) Seriously, you overestimate me!

The Treaty of Versailles certainly was a full-blown peace treaty... unfortunately, it was also 'the peace to end all peace', which made WWII inevitable.

So are we only including European theatres, or did Japan just switch sides halfway through this 'super combined' war?

The world wars are no more the same conflicts than the Franco-Prussian war is to the great war, they merely depict the implications of the past upon the present, and accordingly confirm ontemporary historical theory. Granted, the combatents in the World Wars were entirely the same, however, we observe the final epoch of traditional Europe in the great war, and its fading in the second, the collision of imperialistic ends in the great war, a collision of ideologies in the second.

Germany is the reason you aren't all speaking Russian. You owe us.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but prior to the Revolution during WWI didn't the ruling classes in Russia primarily speak French, and so isn't it more likely that it would have been a latin tongue that would have spread across Europe rather than a slavic one? (Aside from the fact that without WWI there would have been no revolution, and thus little threat of Russian imperialism across Europe...)

So are we only including European theatres, or did Japan just switch sides halfway through this 'super combined' war?

Nevermind the Japanese, the Italians appear to have changed sides three times during this super-war.

Versailles wasn't a peace treaty. It was an annihilation. And it was meant as such. The idea behind the peace treaty in Versailles was to make certain that there will never ever be any danger coming out of Germany again. The country was to be drained of manpower and economic power to ensure it simply cannot afford building war materials again. Certain (at that time) high tech war material was simply outlawed in Germany.

We all know what it led to. Again spurred by the allied forces, who started to get lenient just in time for Hitler to benefit from it.

The reason for Germany to surrender in WW1 was simple: Exhaustion. You have to know that until this war, wars were some kinda game in high politics. You fight, you win or lose, you give or take a few square meters of land from or to your enemy, then you go home and prepare for the next war. The goal of war wasn't the annihilation of your opponent. So Germany (who was still fully in "enemy territory" at the moment it surrendered) thought, if they surrendered in time, they'd get a favorable peace. And everything would stay the same.

WW1 was also the first "total war". The first war where everyone and everything a country has to push to the front lines was put there. Every country was fully exhausted at the end of this 4 years. So everyone who "won" that war felt justified to have the loser pay for their loss.

This added insult to injury, especially amongst the fighting people at the front. They only saw that, heck, we're winning, dammit! We're still in France, and we're SO deep in Russia that we would die for some Sauerkraut instead of this bleeding Borschtsch.

So Germany, especially the military, didn't "feel" defeated. They felt betrayed.

Nevermind the Japanese, the Italians appear to have changed sides three times during this super-war.

You know, that reminds me of the old saying... what's the perfect war?

German Generals
British Soldiers
US supplies and support
in Russian amounts.

...and Italian enemies.

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "

Best summary I have read in a long time... :p you going to become a historian?

You know, that reminds me of the old saying... what's the perfect war?

German Generals
British Soldiers
US supplies and support
in Russian amounts.

...and Italian enemies.

Ah, but let us not forget that arguably the most famous German general - Rommel - had great regard for the Italian infantry. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it the Italian infantry that held the line when the German armour and foot broke at Tobruk?

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "Slightly flawed:
You forget the part where the Germans said: "Hey Austria, whatever you do, we'll help you."
"Belgium is a country, not a road!" is slightly more impressive and eloquent than "Fuck you!!!"
And the British parliament almost didn't address the issue of Belgium in their session until someone made sure they got around to it shortly before everyone left... ;)

Ah, but let us not forget that arguably the most famous German general - Rommel - had great regard for the Italian infantry. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it the Italian infantry that held the line when the German armour and foot broke at Tobruk?
Wasn't it the Italian army screwing up that had Hitler send Rommel to Africa in the first place? ;)

Yup !! The Laurel and Hardy act of the Axis powers in North Africa. That's another fine mess you've got me into .. Germany's hand was forced by the disasterous campaign that the Italians fought against the Commonwealth Forces. I'm sure that General Von Paulus did not have the same regard for Italian infantry after Stalingrad, but it was all he had to shore up his flanks. It was more an issue of officers in the Italian army and how they deployed or used their men. After all it was the zeal for military conquest that drew Mussolini to strike at North Africa. He under estimated it's defence and was forced to ask Berlin for help to stablise the front. This tied up troops, equipment and supplies that should and would have been used elsewhere. For Britain and Italy the first real land successes of this world war would be decided in North Africa. The outcome would be more than land, it was the motivation of the people at home in the factories and on the home front. The prize was self belief.

germany was a great power in its time and probley the only until the us joined the war

I like this cartoon, drawn in 1919 which points out the obvious....Germany will want revenge:
http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year9links/riseofhitler/versailles_cannonfodder.jpg

Some consider WWII a continuation of WWI. After all, it was the same players, same sides, and iin both wars, Germany had a leader that looked funny.

I just want to say both wars were started by one group. (Since the defeat of Germany of WWI was the reasons for WWII happening) The same group that started the Bosnian war. Those damn serb terrorists.

Edit: Forgot, since the Soviet Union was happened partly by how badly Russia was losing they also started the Cold War. In fact execpt for the Gulf war, all of the other wars all came from that one day when Gavrilo Princip put that bullet in Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Russia: "You Serbians are our friends (and strategic interest)! Austria! Don't attack our friends"
Austria: "Germany, Germany! The evil Russians want to protect a terrorist regime. Help us!"
Germany: "Russia, you shouldn't get involved. If you mobilise your army, we'll bash you!"
Russia: "Come here and try if you dare!"
Austria: "You Serbians are scum! Attaaack!!!"
Russia: "You evil Austrians! Attaaack!!!"
Germany: "Goddammit. The French are the friends of the Russians - so we'll be at war with both of them. You there, Frenchy, I'll take you on!"
Germany (nicely): "Belgium, our army needs to walk through your country to attack France before Russia is ready for war. Will you let us?"
Belgium: "Fuck you!!!"
Germany: "Attack! Take that Belgium! Take that Russia! Take that France!"
Britain: "You're not supposed to attack Belgium! Belgium is neutral! We consider ourselves in a state of war with his majesty Kaiser Wilhelm II."

Italy: " :cool: "
Brilliant! Just need to work in the Turks and it'll be complete.

Best summary I have read in a long time... :p you going to become a historian?
Brilliant! Just need to work in the Turks and it'll be complete.
Well, I appreciate it, but Laerod has a point when he says:
You forget the part where the Germans said: "Hey Austria, whatever you do, we'll help you."
"Belgium is a country, not a road!" is slightly more impressive and eloquent than "Fuck you!!!"
Although it must be said that the German Chancellor wasn't happy with Austria doing this stuff at all, and it was the military that was quite happy to give Austria confirmation without official consent from above.
Wilhelm was keeping conspicuously quiet...

Hey...why stop there?

You can say that WWI was just a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War!
Germany took Alsace-Lorraine and France wanted it back. In fact the first action taken on the western front was by the French, who promptly marched into Alsace expecting the populace to rise up. They didn't...maybe because they new the Germans were about a day away.

Or you could say WW1 was an extension of the Balkan War of 1912.

Of course the Russian Revolution would have never happened if WW1 hadn't.

And if not for the Russian Revolution, there would be no Communists in Russia and hence no Mao in China, no Korean War and no Vietnam.

Hell....it's all just one big war!!!

Eugene Weber called WWI and WWII "The Second Thirty Years War." How clever is that?

This is kind of just a random thought, but after seeing the thread on the US geting involved in WWI, I started thinking. That the treaty that ended WWI played a major role in leading up to WWII is something that many diferent historians have put forward and is fairly well accepted at this time. Concidering this conection I was wondering if these wars might be considered by historians a few centuries down the line to be one war, in a similar way to how we now efer to the Hundred year War even though it wasn't actualy a hundred year block of war, but more of a prolonged period of war. No idea where I'm going with this just thought I would see what others think.A lot of what has been siad is interesting, I wouldn't dare to comment on it directly.

I do tend to endorse as "it sounds about right" a view that a people I know (educated in the subject) tend to put forward, insofar as WW1 was essentially the last gasp, and final battle, of the whole Napoleonic Wars episode.

And, indeed, it was the point when the old warfare methods (horse charges, huge blocks of manpower and the like) finally gave way to the 'new technology' warfare, by way of the kind of mass-produced warfare that was prototyped in the ACW, but which itself became a victim to the developments of armour and technology (planes, tanks and the concept of Blitzkrieg as pinched from Britain before they even knew what they'd come up with) that meant long-range war and war now involving civilian populations in ways never previously envisaged...

But all of that is an insufficient summary.

Essentially, WW2 was a completely different /type/ of conflict to WW1, and while it is arguable whether or not there could have been a cessation of hostilities in 1918 that prevented WW2 (and thus separated them) there are significant differences to separate them from being the 'same conflict'. My opinions aren't particularly educated, though, merely absorbed from the most reasonable opinions argued between those I know who are... ;)