NationStates Jolt Archive

Could World War I and II be seen as the same war, just with a small hiatus in between? And the Pacific theatre was just a related, but separate war. I've been thinking about this recently and although the map changed a bit, some sides switched, technology got better, isn't it really just the second part of WW2? WW2 was certainly caused by WW1 or the results of it. So, what do we think?

Technically no, but I've always consider them to be the same, really long war.

Although most (or at least many) wars do rise from previous conflicts, so how do you seperate them properly if not by the years of relative peace between them?

No i don't think WW1 and WW2 are the same.
Because WW2 could have been prevented, far more easily than WW1.
Mind you alot of equipment used in WW1 was used in WW2, even veterans of WW1 fought in WW2. I can see why you might think both of these wars are really the same sort of thing.

Well, it could well be argued that WW1 was a result of the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars. So we could claim that the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, ww1, WW2 and the Cold War were all a part of the same war, no?

Some historians argue that it basically is. They see WW2 as reactionaries continuing the expansionism attempted before and during WW1, but with a sprinkle of eugenics and antisemitism, whilst not giving a shit about former African colonies.

No i don't think WW1 and WW2 are the same.
Because WW2 could have been prevented, far more easily than WW1.
Mind you alot of equipment used in WW1 was used in WW2, even veterans of WW1 fought in WW2. I can see why you might think both of these wars are really the same sort of thing.

I tink that he means because of causes and effects that they are almost the same not veterans and equipment.

Are wars an intermission between peace, or is peace an intermission between wars?

Are wars an intermission between peace, or is peace an intermission between wars?

In This universe there can only be War.
you could start of thread on that you know.

even the Russians had the Duma and zemstvos

They were basically useless, and were hardly democratic since the Tsar skewed the votes and restricted loads of people to vote.

No. While in the time of WWI each state had some form of democracy (even the Russians had the Duma and zemstvos) and the nationalism that accompanies it, it was still partly a matter of an inter-dynastic conflict over property titles (at least until the entry of the United States.) Whereas WWII was entirely an ideological struggle of abstract collectives attempting to gain dominance over one another.

Are wars an intermission between peace, or is peace an intermission between wars?

If we define peace as the point at which each is rendered their due, then war is the result when this does not happen. As such, war is the intermission between (relative) peace.

They were basically useless, and were hardly democratic since the Tsar skewed the votes and restricted loads of people to vote.

Elections are always skewed, even immaterial since those in office are a particular interest looking to maximize their total income (monetary and psychic.) What matters is that they had near-universal (though admittedly unequal) suffrage which gave at least some impression that 'we are the government', which is a prerequisite of nationalism.

Could World War I and II be seen as the same war, just with a small hiatus in between? And the Pacific theatre was just a related, but separate war. I've been thinking about this recently and although the map changed a bit, some sides switched, technology got better, isn't it really just the second part of WW2? WW2 was certainly caused by WW1 or the results of it. So, what do we think?

They are not the same war for a variety of reasons, but no doubt the French Treaty of Versailles was one of the largest sparks that caused WWII.

They are related strongly because of that (Also seeing Germany and Austria against France, Britain, US, and Russia).

I picked option nine because 'Maybe' doesn't do justice to the fact that I have an opinion, and I feel a slight amount towards yes, but with a majortiy 'no' being there as well.

Not the same war, but very similar due to factors that relate the two wars.

Are wars an intermission between peace, or is peace an intermission between wars?

This is humanity we're talking about. Peace is the intermission between wars.

Since WWII really stemmed from WWI I suppose they could be considered the same though that would imply that the period of time in between the wars was a short rest in between battles. That period in time could also be considered a regrouping of German/American/British/etc. troops even if it was for a different cause. In that case than yes, the two world wars could be considered one large war.

Well, it could well be argued that WW1 was a result of the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars. So we could claim that the French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, ww1, WW2 and the Cold War were all a part of the same war, no?

No, not at all. The Cold War was certainly a separate conflict. Two completely different sides and setups.

On the other end, no again. WW1 started with different alliances and problems than the conflicts of the 1800s. Just because the French wanted the land backk doesn't make it the same war.

They are not the same war for a variety of reasons, but no doubt the French Treaty of Versailles was one of the largest sparks that caused WWII.

They are related strongly because of that (Also seeing Germany and Austria against France, Britain, US, and Russia).

I picked option nine because 'Maybe' doesn't do justice to the fact that I have an opinion, and I feel a slight amount towards yes, but with a majortiy 'no' being there as well.

Not the same war, but very similar due to factors that relate the two wars.

You don't say how they aren't the same war.

Mmm. I have some sympathy for that idea, since in some views, it is entirely fair to note that the First World War was directly responsible for the Second. The Nazis that are the lynchpin. Whether WW1 is directly causal to WW2 depends on whether it was directly causal to the rise of National Socialism. In my opinion, it was. The somewhat extortionate reparations Germany had agreed to pay in Versailles were the direct cause of both Germany feeling the Great Depression and the nationalist sentiment that led to the Nazis getting elected in response to an economic crisis.

the nationalist sentiment that led to the Nazis getting elected in response to an economic crisis.

Yeah, that and rigging the elections. :p

I do agree 100% percent with your post. I had never considered them to be the same war, but I had never made the consideration of the possibility at all. I still mostly say no, buit it is definately and interesting discussion.

The somewhat extortionate reparations Germany had agreed to pay in Versailles were the direct cause of both Germany feeling the Great Depression

This is actually false. The Great Depression had nothing to do with the reparations whatsoever. However, Germany did suffer a massive economic crisis just after the war, in which reparations helped contribute to, but then they recovered quickly, thanks in part to American investment. The Great Depression then happened in the USA, which subsequently affected the rest of the world, especially Germany (since the USA cancelled all its investments). Had the Great Depression not happened, the Nazis would probably not have come to power.


and the nationalist sentiment that led to the Nazis getting elected in response to an economic crisis.

Actually, the Nazis never received a majority in the Reichstag until the Nazis had to rig it.

You don't say how they aren't the same war.

I assumed that the fairly self-evident reasons against them being the same war wouldn't need to be mentioned. The fact that were, actually different wars, is what composes the largest part of my 'no' vote. They are related, and tied in many ways that makes me want to say yes a little... but they were still different wars. They were punctuated by a span of time that was significant enough to seperate them, as well as being spawned for overall different motivations.

Mmm. I have some sympathy for that idea, since in some views, it is entirely fair to note that the First World War was directly responsible for the Second. The Nazis that are the lynchpin. Whether WW1 is directly causal to WW2 depends on whether it was directly causal to the rise of National Socialism. In my opinion, it was. The somewhat extortionate reparations Germany had agreed to pay in Versailles were the direct cause of both Germany feeling the Great Depression and the nationalist sentiment that led to the Nazis getting elected in response to an economic crisis.

Not to mention the fact the League of nations was a farce, partly due to Russia being excluded as was Germany for a while and the USA not joining in because they wanted to follow isolationist policy.
And the French creating a Little Entente which violated the treaty of Versialles and the Locarno Pact, and creating the Magino Line (a series of fortifications that stretched across the French frontier with Germany), and the French invasion of the Ruhr proved disastrous for their confidence in political power.
Which is partly why the French didn't do anything when Hitler marched into the German Part of the Rhineland in March 7th 1936, with their confidence shaken they didn't want to do anything without British support, that and their military was entirely defensive to stop Hitler. Also with so much political unrest in Europe with Russia controlled by Communism, the Spanish Civil War covered up Hitlers invasion of the Rhineland nicely, French politics was divided into Left parties and Right wing parties.

Also with Communism spreading through much of Eastern Europe, Britain and France didn't want to stop Hitler or Mussolini for a while, as they were a Bulwark against Communism, because with Communism they couldn't trade, so Britian followed a policy of Appeasement with the Dictators in the hope that they would stop unsettling Europe, that and Britain really hated the French and vice versa Britain seemed to support Hitler more than France because they felt guilty of the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany, but eventually started remarming and getting wise to Hitler after the invasion of the Rhineland.

That and Japan not playing ball by invading Manchuria, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (where they used bombers and mustard gas, against the poor Abyssinian's who didn't even have boots for their soldiers) all contributed to World War 2 being caused.

Here's one of interest:
If Germany Had Won World War 1...

[...]

It would have been in the military's interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.

[...]

Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

[...]

I would go so far as to say this: something very like the Nazi Party would still have come to power in Germany, even if that country had won the First World War. I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture, and the Nazis represented a kind of politics which was integral with Weimar culture. Salvador Dali once said, perhaps ironically, that he approved of the Nazi Party because they represented the surrealists come to power. The connection is deep, as with the Nazi affinity for the modernist post-rationalism of the philosopher Heidigger, and also superficial, in the styles the party promoted.

[...]

The Nazi Party was other things besides a right wing populist group with a penchant for snazzy uniforms. It was a millenarian movement. The term "Third Reich," "Drittes Reich," is an old term for the Millennium. The Party's core began as a sort of occult lodge, like the Thule Society of Munich to which so many of its important early members belonged. It promoted a racist theory of history not unlike that of the Theosophist, H.P. Blavatsky, whose movement also used the swastika as an emblem. The little-read ideological guidebook of the party, Alfred Rosenberg's MYTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, begins its study of history in Atlantis. Like the Theosophists, they looked for a new "root race" of men to appear in the future, perhaps with some artificial help. When Hitler spoke of the Master Race, it is not entirely clear that he was thinking of contemporary Germans.

[...]

Am I saying then that German defeat in the First World War made no difference? Hardly. If the war had not been lost, the establishment would have been much less discredited, and there would have been less room for the ignorant eccentrics who led the Nazi Party. Certainly people with no qualifications for higher command, such as Goering, would not have been put in charge of the Luftwaffe, nor would the Foreign Ministry have been given over to so empty-headed a man as Von Ribbentrop. As for the fate of Hitler himself, who can say?

The big difference would have been that Germany would been immensely stronger and more competent by the late 1930s than it was in the history we know. That another war would have been brewed by then we may be sure. Hitler was only secondarily interested in revenge for the First World War; his primary goal had always been geopolitical expansion into Eastern Europe and western Asia. This would have given Germany the Lebensraum to become a world power. His ideas on the subject were perfectly coherent, and not original with him: they were almost truisms. There is no reason to think that the heirs of a German victory in 1918 (or 1919, or 1920) would have been less likely to pursue these objectives.

[...]

This of course assumes a victory in 1918, not in 1914.

Anyways, I don't consider them the same war. In Europe they were different kinds of nations fighting each other for different reasons and with a substantial (if often neglected) period of peace between them.

In Asia it was arguably more of a continuation, but of something that started a lot earlier than WWI.

This is actually false. The Great Depression had nothing to do with the reparations whatsoever. However, Germany did suffer a massive economic crisis just after the war, in which reparations helped contribute to, but then they recovered quickly, thanks in part to American investment. The Great Depression then happened in the USA, which subsequently affected the rest of the world, especially Germany (since the USA cancelled all its investments). Had the Great Depression not happened, the Nazis would probably not have come to power.
It's true that reparations and the depression are, of themselves, independent events. However, what I was stating was that if Germany had not been forced to repay reparations to the kind of scale they did, the Depression wouldn't have really affected them. The thing is, unlike the allied powers, Germany had no war-time dependence on US production at all. If not for reparations then the German economy would have been much more stable and, crucially, much less dependent on foreign investments than it was.

Actually, the Nazis never received a majority in the Reichstag until the Nazis had to rig it.
Technically, the Nazis first received a majority in the Reichstag when they coalitioned with a smaller party, but you're right that they did rig it quite a bit. The thing is, they were popular enough among the people for it to stick, and popular enough to have enough people to organise itself nationally, so the fact that it had to be artificially enhanced to succeed can be ignored in light of the fact that it was not so artificially enhanced that it was not successful.

I don't know, I wasn't alive back then u see...

No. WWI was by far the most useless war in history ever. Honostly. Millions of causulties for 2 feet of land. With battles lasting months while troods live in disease filled trenches. For one minor assasination. Thus WWII would be useless. Thus the Cold War is useless. Thus the US doesnt arm Afganis fighting the USSR. Thus Al Queda doesn't exist. Thus there is no 9/11 Afghanistan and/or Iraq wars. The Gulf War sort of leads to 9/11, so I guess its a toss up though. But still Vietnam and Korea(thought technically a police action) are parts of the Cold War. So yes in a sense they are all 1 huge global conflict spanning pver a century. But the peace in between is suffiecient enough to distinguish them as seperate. So I suppose most wars in the last century could be considered 1 gigantic war.

I've them called the same war before, I think in A Journey Through Economic Time. For the sake of pragmatism, I would not refer to them as the same "Great War," because they are about twenty years apart.
I tend to think of them like the original Star Wars trilogy. WWI was Star Wars (or A New Hope, depending on who you talk to.) WWII was The Empire Strikes Back. And WWIII will see The Return of the Jedi.

I assumed that the fairly self-evident reasons against them being the same war wouldn't need to be mentioned. The fact that were, actually different wars, is what composes the largest part of my 'no' vote. They are related, and tied in many ways that makes me want to say yes a little... but they were still different wars. They were punctuated by a span of time that was significant enough to seperate them, as well as being spawned for overall different motivations.

Your only argument is that there was a period of time in between. The Hundred Years War is several separate "wars" that have periods of time in between and it is still considered one war. Time doesn't mean a damn thing...especially when it's only 21 years. 30-50 and it might be enough that people forget, but I don't think the Germans forgot in those 21 years.

I've them called the same war before, I think in A Journey Through Economic Time. For the sake of pragmatism, I would not refer to them as the same "Great War," because they are about twenty years apart.
I tend to think of them like the original Star Wars trilogy. WWI was Star Wars (or A New Hope, depending on who you talk to.) WWII was The Empire Strikes Back. And WWIII will see The Return of the Jedi.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

Remember folks, history is still a science and can be rewritten as new facts are uncovered and things are seen in a different light. It might only be two separate wars because they were separated. Humans separate things in arbitrary and improper ways all the time.

No. This WWI and WWII as one war ignores the roles of Italy, Japan, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. This approach is too French, US, Germany, and UK centric to make sense.

Wow, this brings me back... I am remembering all of my college history essays dealing with the causes (primary and secondary) of WWI... AJP Taylor, Joachim Fest.... ahhh

No, the sheer change in the geographical and cultural world between the two wars is simply too great to see them as a continuous struggle. The ideals and causes of WWI are simply different from those of WWII.

Here's one of interest:


This of course assumes a victory in 1918, not in 1914.

Anyways, I don't consider them the same war. In Europe they were different kinds of nations fighting each other for different reasons and with a substantial (if often neglected) period of peace between them.

In Asia it was arguably more of a continuation, but of something that started a lot earlier than WWI.

Well that's why dividing history in terms of 'WWI' and 'WWII' ultimately fails, because people fail to think of history in terms of a continuous stream of events, so for that reason you tend to forget events in the 30's and related conflicts like in Manchuria or Finland, or even the German annexation of frontier states etc. In terms of events yes WWI and II were interconnected, but then again all history is like that.

WWI was a war of nations, WWII was a war of ideas.

Discuss.

WWI was a war of nations, WWII was a war of ideas.

Discuss.

Hardly, ideology can be a secondary course for war (as was German militarism and expansionism in both wars) but the primary courses and the short-term events which lead to the war.

For example, the war between the USSR and Nazi Germany could be because of a clash between bolshevism and nazism, but in the short term it happened between of Operation Barborossa. Although ideology can be important, wars usually make allies and enemies based on opportunistic reasons of circumstance etc, ie Stalin and the capitalist powers.

WWI was a war of nations, WWII was a war of ideas.

Discuss.

I think a better analogy is The First World War was a large war in Europe, The Second World War was a war all parts of the globe saw fighting and the Second World War had numerous testing grounds before it started (Spanish civil War, Abyssinian War, Invasion of Manchuria).

No, not at all. The Cold War was certainly a separate conflict. Two completely different sides and setups.

On the other end, no again. WW1 started with different alliances and problems than the conflicts of the 1800s. Just because the French wanted the land backk doesn't make it the same war.
That was exactly my point.

Many of the same nations were involved, but not all were on the same side. And even in those who were, the governments and reasons for war had changed quite a lot.

Any war involving the same nations a few decades apart are going to be related, but they were not the same war. WWI was a petty war over a bit of yard, or at least started that way. It was the same kind of crap as had been the norm in Europe for years. When it started, everyone expected it to be a regular spat that would be concluded with a peace treaty wherein some land would be exchanged and that would be that, like many other European imperialist wars before then, such as the Franco-Prussian war for example. WWI was the end of the old era as governments that had reigned for centuries fell. It saw end of the Ottoman Empire, the end of Hapsburg Austria-Hungary, the end of the Czar's Russian Empire, and the end of the German Empire, which was the direct descendant of Royal Prussia.

WWII had its roots in the events of WWI, most notably the Versailles treaty, but also the Russian Revolution, and Japan's growing importance as a world power. However, it was an entirely different sort of affair. To call them the same war ignores the events of the 20's and 30's, where the systems of government in some of the nations that had fought WWI and would fight WWII changed drastically. The imperial monarchies of Germany and Russia were replaced by dictatorial regimes rooted in fanatical ideology rather than royal bloodlines, ideologies that happened to hate each other, of course. It also ignores events in the east in the 1930's, namely Japan's invasion of China.

The motives for fighting and conditions for victory were different, even from the outset. WWI, as I've said, when it started, was probably assumed to be the same sort of war for a bit of territory that had heretofore been commonplace. WWII, on the other hand, was partially about territory on the one hand, but also an ideological struggle. Germany was not only in it for territory, but victory was necessary to prove that its ideology was superior. On the other side, nothing less than a total defeat of the Axis Nations would be acceptable, elimination and/or largescale restructuring of their governments the only true victory.

If WWII was a continuation of WWI, than the Great War was a continuation of the Franco-Prussian war, which in turn was a continuation of the Napoleonic wars, which were a continuation of the 7 years war and so on. I'm not saying they weren't related, as they were, but aside from the territorial aspect, the motives for fighting the war were completely different, as were many of the governments involved. Calling them the same war is quite France/UK/US centric.

If WWII was a continuation of WWI, than the Great War was a continuation of the Franco-Prussian war, which in turn was a continuation of the Napoleonic wars, which were a continuation of the 7 years war and so on. I'm not saying they weren't related, as they were, but aside from the territorial aspect, the motives for fighting the war were completely different, as were many of the governments involved. Calling them the same war is quite France/UK/US centric.

Napoleonic War had France against Germany, UK, Austria, and Russia sort of.
7 years was just Britain vs. France.
Franco-Prussian was just France vs. Germany

So, no you're wrong.

No. Apart from anything else, in WWI Japan was a valued member of the Allies rather than one of their two main enemies as in WWII...

Napoleonic War had France against Germany, UK, Austria, and Russia sort of.
7 years was just Britain vs. France.
Franco-Prussian was just France vs. Germany

So, no you're wrong.

WWI had Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire against the UK, France, Russia (until the revolution), Italy, the USA, Japan and others.

WWII had Japan, Italy and Germany against the UK, France, Soviet Union, the US, China and others.

So no, you're wrong. It's about the same difference in terms of sides. The only member of the Axis that had also been a Central Power was Germany. I think calling them the same war because in both, one of the nations the UK and France fought was Germany is as silly as saying that WWI and the Franco-Prussian war were the same because in both, Germany fought France. It's just ridiculous.

WWI had Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire against the UK, France, Russia (until the revolution), Italy, the USA, Japan and others.

WWII had Japan, Italy and Germany against the UK, France, Soviet Union, the US, China and others.

So no, you're wrong. It's about the same difference in terms of sides. The only member of the Axis that had also been a Central Power was Germany. I think calling them the same war because in both, one of the nations the UK and France fought was Germany is as silly as saying that WWI and the Franco-Prussian war were the same because in both, Germany fought France. It's just ridiculous.

Italy, Japan, and the Ottomans had like no role in WW1. Sure, they did stuff. But it didn't affect it much. WW2, Germany was just propping up Italy, which wainly did stuff in Yugoslavia and Africa--non-issues. Japan vs. US was a separate war IMO.

You're just seeing it as separate and thinking that it is because it is that awy now. It's like how we're so used to Pluto as a planet even though it's just an ice cube...or sphere. It seems weird to blend it back in with the rest of space.

I'm not saying they weren't related, as they were, but aside from the territorial aspect, the motives for fighting the war were completely different, as were many of the governments involved.
Motives can change, its participants shift, and yet the same war continue. The US didn't enter the 2nd world war until 1941; did their entry make it a new war? Russia got involved initially to help take Poland, but when Germany turned on them, did they make it a new war by trying to repel the invaders? Did Italy cause a war to end by surrendering in '43?

Italy, Japan, and the Ottomans had like no role in WW1. Sure, they did stuff. But it didn't affect it much.
You need to read up a bit. The Battles of the Isonzo had a huge influence on the strength and timing of various offensives on both the western and eastern fronts, and the need to get a land connection between Germany and Turkey led to a war being fought on the Balkans (where there were yet more countries that were on different sides during the different wars).

There is a well supported theory that this is actually the case: especially, since the conditions outlined in the Treaty of Versailles were directly responsible for the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. In the meantime, there were brushwars almost everywhere, not the least of which was the Spanish Civil War, where Fascist and Communist troops got a lot of their ojt.

I believe it's true for the European theater of war.

Were the American Revolution and the War of 1812 the same war?

You need to read up a bit. The Battles of the Isonzo had a huge influence on the strength and timing of various offensives on both the western and eastern fronts, and the need to get a land connection between Germany and Turkey led to a war being fought on the Balkans (where there were yet more countries that were on different sides during the different wars).

Ottoman Empire didn't exist after WW1 and Turkey couldn't even get really involved, so it's a non-issue regardless. But you can blame American education on focusing on Europe.

Were the American Revolution and the War of 1812 the same war?

Arguably. I did think about that when making this thread. There was a 29 year span as opposed to 21 though. If that means anything.


Honestly, several wars could be really one even though they ranged 50 years. History is being rewritten all the time. It's the debate like this that causes historians to look back and see if they have it right.

Could World War I and II be seen as the same war, just with a small hiatus in between? And the Pacific theatre was just a related, but separate war. I've been thinking about this recently and although the map changed a bit, some sides switched, technology got better, isn't it really just the second part of WW2? WW2 was certainly caused by WW1 or the results of it. So, what do we think?

Not really. They're certainly deeply intertwined with each other, but each war had different sides, different leaders, different technologies, different methods of fighting wars, different outcomes... there is a definite divide between the two wars.

Not really. They're certainly deeply intertwined with each other, but each war had different sides, different leaders, different technologies, different methods of fighting wars, different outcomes... there is a definite divide between the two wars.

Powers come and go in a war. The US didn't come until 1917/1941. Russia left in 1917. And so on. Sides were basically the same. Leaders doesn't matter for shit. Technology changed a lot during WW2. Methods were a lot the same--especially with the end of WW1, outcomes is irrelevant--that assumes they're separate.

Ottoman Empire didn't exist after WW1 and Turkey couldn't even get really involved, so it's a non-issue regardless. But you can blame American education on focusing on Europe.



Arguably. I did think about that when making this thread. There was a 29 year span as opposed to 21 though. If that means anything.


Honestly, several wars could be really one even though they ranged 50 years. History is being rewritten all the time. It's the debate like this that causes historians to look back and see if they have it right.

8 years more doesn't matter. If WWI and WWII were the same war, the revolution and the War of 1812 most definitely were.

I wouldn't consider them the same war, though, in either case. A rematch? Perhaps, but not the same war. And I think motives for war matter in determining whether they are the same war or not.

8 years more doesn't matter. If WWI and WWII were the same war, the revolution and the War of 1812 most definitely were.

I wouldn't consider them the same war, though, in either case. A rematch? Perhaps, but not the same war. And I think motives for war matter in determining whether they are the same war or not.

I didn't say it definitely mattered. I didn't say they were definitely separate wars.

1812 though did start over distinctly different problems not that related to the Revolution. While WW2 was basically 100% because of WW1 did not finish correctly.