World War II being much more of a waste than World War I?

[WolfBear]

I found this thread on another forum interesting, so I'm reposting it here:

Does anyone else here feel that WWII was a huge waste while WWI wasn't?

I mean, I know that World War I was extremely atrocious and that I certainly wouldn't have been able to bear fighting in the trenches. However, the outcome of World War I did have a lot of positive aspects to it. For instance, Serbia and Romania were able to achieve their dreams of putting almost all ethnic Serbs/ethnic Romanians under their rule, Czechoslovakia was created, Poland was recreated, the Baltic countries were created, Finland was created, and the Arabs in the Middle East finally became free of Ottoman rule (albeit with them unfortunately being put under British and French rule instead of being given independence). (I'm certainly not forgetting the Armenian genocide here. That was a massive tragedy and atrocity and should never be forgotten. That said, though, as I stated above, World War I did have a lot of positive consequences.)

Now, compare World War I with World War II. I mean, Yes, it's great that Hitler and Mussolini were defeated, but it would have been much better for someone to put a bullet to Hitler's head back in 1923 or even in 1939 (ex. Georg Elser). Indeed, the only positive consequences of World War II was that Japan got kicked out of China and Korea (both of which might have very well eventually happened anyway even without World War II) and that almost all ethnic Ukrainians were put into one state--albeit with this state being the Ukrainian SSR inside of the extremely oppressive and brutal Soviet Union. However, these things in themselves simply weren't worth the war. Indeed, as the result of World War II, Eastern Europe suffered for half a century--first under Nazism, and then under Communism. Western Europe--with the exception of Germany--didn't suffer anywhere as near long-term damage from World War II but, like Eastern Europe, had a lot of its Jews murdered in the Holocaust. As for Germany, its fate would have been much, much better in a scenario where the Nazis never came to power. Indeed, it would have kept its Jewish population, the ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe (including eastern Germany and the Sudetenland) wouldn't have gotten expelled, and East Germany wouldn't have had to endure almost half a century of Communist rule.

Indeed, the one thing about World War I that I deeply regret is the Russian Revolution. Of course, this issue could have been dealt with had the Entente/Allies won World War I more quickly.

Anyway, though, does anyone here agree with my broad point here? Specifically, that World War I achieved many good things in spite of its brutality while World War II didn't achieve many good things and thus was much more of a waste than World War I was?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

I agree with @stevep's response that it would have been better for the Entente to win WWI earlier, before the Bolshevik Revolution actually occurred in Russia:

futurist

Well if WWI had ended differently then we would very likely never had WWII, or at least a conflict as bloody and savage as that. Most noticeably if a democractic or even mildly right wing Russia had emerged from the bloodshed then we have a markedly more stable Europe because there is a powerful check on German revanchism so some nutter like Hitler gaining control of Germany is less likely and once he starts attacking people he's likely to be stomped pretty damned quickly. Of course a Russia that goes right wing but avoids the devastation of the OTL civil war and waste and slaughter of communism might end up as a serious threat to the rest of Europe if it turned expansionist and you could have a major war as a result. Although its still likely to be less bloody and hopefully less savage than OTL.

Of course a Europe that doesn't suffer WWII and fascism is likely to be more bigoted than OTL and not just in a significant level if antisemitism. Also being stronger without the bloodshed the colonial powers might try to hang onto their colonies longer, especially those of economic importance and/or with levels of European settlement. As such you might have more Algeria's and Rhodesia's. Whether the total cost would be greater than OTL WWII would be doubtful but it could be pretty nasty.

The simplest solution would be if WWI ended a bit earlier, preferably with less bloodshed all around and resulted in a more stable peace. You might then avoid anything like OTL WWII. Of course even here there are nasty potential consequences. For instance nukes will be created sooner or later and whether its safer having several powers developing them in secrecy and possibly not realising other powers have them, or some dictatorship, willing to spend on long term military projects developing them 1st and seeking to use them to gain power or simply to maintain a monopoly you could end up with a very dark world.

What do you all think?

 

[ATP]

I found this thread on another forum interesting, so I'm reposting it here:



I agree with @stevep's response that it would have been better for the Entente to win WWI earlier, before the Bolshevik Revolution actually occurred in Russia:



What do you all think?

Everytching which kill communism early is better.Even for Poland.One of our poets,Cyprian Norwid,even wrote that he prefer Poland under tsar yoke to free socialist/communist Poland.
And he was right.

 

[stevep]

I don't know if WWII was a bigger waste that WWI. It was more destructive materially but did get rid of a number of dictatorships, including two truly evil ones in Germany and Japan. It also created a degree of immunity, at least in much of the western world, to some of the ideas those systems supported such as racism, religious bigotry and mass murder pretty much for the sake of it.

On the down side it boosted the strength of a similar dictatorship in the USSR and lay some of the foundations for another such dictatorship in China but as your said the blame for that partly lies in WWI as well.

Both wars were massively costly in human and other terms and could have been avoided or greatly curtailed with some different actions either before or shortly after they started. They also brought/accelerated social changes which generally were for the better - although I know some will disagree with that.

 

[Skallagrim]

I find that World War II stands out as being a result of World War I. In that sense, it can be viewed as one extended conflict, which evolved over time, and which had a long, troubled armistice in the middle. This means that you can trace back all the shit of World War II right back to the (resolution of) World War II. Moreover, the mess of the Yuguslav wars later in the century can also be traced back to "Versailles".

So World War II indeed feels like a "waste" to me, in that sense, because it's a result of earlier events (namely World War I and its resolution), which could also have gone differently, leading to a much less troubled remainder of the century. (Although certainly not without troubles!)

 

[Ricardolindo]

I found this thread on another forum interesting, so I'm reposting it here:



I agree with @stevep's response that it would have been better for the Entente to win WWI earlier, before the Bolshevik Revolution actually occurred in Russia:



What do you all think?

I think the opposite. World War II was a war for good, World War I wasn't. I think World War I should never have been fought at all. Yes, if I had to choose a side, I would choose the Allies. However, I do not believe the Central Powers were evil enough for the war to have been worth it.

 

[WolfBear]

I think the opposite. World War II was a war for good, World War I wasn't. I think World War I should never have been fought at all. Yes, if I had to choose a side, I would choose the Allies. However, I do not believe the Central Powers were evil enough for the war to have been worth it.

Yeah, I mean, the sacrifices in WWI probably didn't make the war worth fighting for. Still, if the Armenian Genocide could have been avoided along with the Bolshevik coup in Russia, then WWI would have genuinely had a lot of good outcomes. So did WWII in real life, but at a very high cost to European Jewry and the peoples of the USSR.

 

[WolfBear]

I find that World War II stands out as being a result of World War I. In that sense, it can be viewed as one extended conflict, which evolved over time, and which had a long, troubled armistice in the middle. This means that you can trace back all the shit of World War II right back to the (resolution of) World War II. Moreover, the mess of the Yuguslav wars later in the century can also be traced back to "Versailles".

So World War II indeed feels like a "waste" to me, in that sense, because it's a result of earlier events (namely World War I and its resolution), which could also have gone differently, leading to a much less troubled remainder of the century. (Although certainly not without troubles!)

Certainly, WWII and Communism and the Cold War and the Yugoslav Wars were all the result of WWI. However, they did not have to be.

I don't know if WWII was a bigger waste that WWI. It was more destructive materially but did get rid of a number of dictatorships, including two truly evil ones in Germany and Japan. It also created a degree of immunity, at least in much of the western world, to some of the ideas those systems supported such as racism, religious bigotry and mass murder pretty much for the sake of it.

On the down side it boosted the strength of a similar dictatorship in the USSR and lay some of the foundations for another such dictatorship in China but as your said the blame for that partly lies in WWI as well.

Both wars were massively costly in human and other terms and could have been avoided or greatly curtailed with some different actions either before or shortly after they started. They also brought/accelerated social changes which generally were for the better - although I know some will disagree with that.

Oh, certainly engaging in regime change in Germany, Italy, and Japan was a good thing. Would have been much better had these regimes never come to power in the first place, though, especially in Germany and Japan. Damn Hindenburg!

And Yes, the West did become more resistant to racism, etc as a result of WWII, but I'm just wondering if perhaps there could have been a less bloody way to achieve this goal. And it's also worth noting that it took white Southerners here in the US a while after WWII to fully accept racial equality; it had to be forced down on them by the US federal government 'coz they generally weren't eager to reform and change their ways voluntarily even after WWII. I think that what also helped was the fact that constant television coverage allowed Americans everywhere to see the brutality in the Jim Crow South and to refuse to tolerate it for any longer.

Yeah, the rise of Communism was a true tragedy. If we could have an Entente (Allied) victory in WWI but without the rise of Communism, that would be absolutely wonderful! Even better if we could also do this while avoiding or at least reducing the scope of the Armenian Genocide.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I'd argue that the big thing about WWI is that unlike WWII, there was absolutely no clear "good guy" or "bad guy", it was simply a European territorial spat that had been brewing for a long time and was arguably inevitable. As far as the initial July Crisis went, it was very clear that Austria-Hungary actively wanted a war; the terms they demanded from Serbia were intentionally impossible, and they literally declared war even though Serbia accepted most of the terms demanded. Even so, this was ultimately a petty spat between two minor countries, which just sucked the rest of Europe in because of the network of alliances and the prospect of "finally" getting it over with.

As far as I'm concerned, the United States should have stayed out of it and then simply extracted maximum profit from "helping" whoever won rebuild, without giving a shit which side it was.

 

[WolfBear]

I'd argue that the big thing about WWI is that unlike WWII, there was absolutely no clear "good guy" or "bad guy", it was simply a European territorial spat that had been brewing for a long time and was arguably inevitable. As far as the initial July Crisis went, it was very clear that Austria-Hungary actively wanted a war; the terms they demanded from Serbia were intentionally impossible, and they literally declared war even though Serbia accepted most of the terms demanded. Even so, this was ultimately a petty spat between two minor countries, which just sucked the rest of Europe in because of the network of alliances and the prospect of "finally" getting it over with.

As far as I'm concerned, the United States should have stayed out of it and then simply extracted maximum profit from "helping" whoever won rebuild, without giving a shit which side it was.

I don't think that A-H's terms to Serbia were that unreasonable, especially if you compare them to the US's post-9/11 terms to the Taliban, but you are correct that AFAIK that A-H designed these terms with the intent that these terms be rejected by Serbia.

I think that the US joined the right side in WWI since it got to promote national self-determination to a greater degree/extent, but I think that what was really regrettable was not having the US subsequently send a lot of its own forces to Russia to help the Whites win the civil war there.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I don't think that A-H's terms to Serbia were that unreasonable, especially if you compare them to the US's post-9/11 terms to the Taliban, but you are correct that AFAIK that A-H designed these terms with the intent that these terms be rejected by Serbia.

I disagree; all of the terms were absolutely unreasonable, given that they essentially dictated that Serbia was required to terminate the free speech rights of its own citizens and impose criminal sanctions on any speech that A-H deemed "unfavorable" to itself and its interests, plus suspend due process rights and allow the A-H secret police to participate in the prosecution of any Serbians even loosely suspected of participation in the Archduke's assassination.

 

[WolfBear]

and allow the A-H secret police to participate in the prosecution of any Serbians even loosely suspected of participation in the Archduke's assassination.

I thought that they only wanted the A-H police to play a role in investigating this murder on Serbian territory?