Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two separate wars or one war with an interlude?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two separate wars or one war with an interlude?

    Had an interesting discussion today about Operation Desert Storm/Operation Iraqi Freedom and WWI/WWII. The topic was whether these both were examples of separate wars or the same war with an interlude. I'm curious about everyone else's thoughts.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    I think WWI and WWII are separate: a new generation of people born and raised between them, new governments for many of the participants, and new sides drawn up.

    ODS and OIF as the same one... I think that's an easier argument to make, but I still see them as separate in both time, goal, and participants.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      I think that WWI directly prepared for WWII in such a way that the link is too strong between them. However, I would go as far as to say that this pertains only to the European conflict. Japan really didn't share any goals with the Axis besides a common enemy. The way I see it, WWI and the European front of WWII were the same war (to be renamed The Great War?) with the Pacific Front of WWII (to be renamed The War of Japanese Aggression?) being a truly separate conflict that happened to occur at the same time.

      Assuming that the events in the Pacific were a separate war, the lines drawn during the conflicts were very similiar. Italy was an opportunistic nation which was supposed to be in the Central Powers but jumped ship to the Allies. They decided to actually fulfill their alliance with Germany after WWI was rough on the Italians. Germany assumed control of of the lands previously occupied by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If you ignore the Turks, the lines look very similar following Hitler's pre-war maneuvering.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M..._Alliances.jpg
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...ymapeurope.gif

      Some of the causes given for WWI include intense nationalism, militarism, alliance systems and unresolved previous disputes. Doesn't this look awfully like the reasons for WWII? WWII was spawned by many of the same premises, namely that WWI hadn't reached any conclusions for its causes. The Treaty of Versailles stood as an opportunity for Europe to heal, but England and France wanted to humiliate Germany. This made sure that The War to End All Wars would be reduced to Round 1.

      Regarding the difference in leadership between the two wars, the rising of fascism in Germany and Italy or communism in Russia was related to how badly these countries faired following Round 1. The desperation and hopelessness allowed for tyrants to create personality cults and revamp their countries to go back to war and win some respect.

      The way I see it is the mishandling of WWI's end was a direct cause of WWII. There is a reason that the interlude was just enough to refill the countries' ranks with a new generation. This means that WWI and the European Front of WWII were the same war with a brief intermission. As I sad before, the Pacific Front of WWII was the War of Japanese Aggression which just happened to coincide (and somewhat precede) the war in Europe. The "Axis" linking Tokyo and Europe was only a polite nod between aggressive states at a time when friends were scarce.

      Comment


      • #4
        Rename WWI and WWII? Whatever for?

        I hate historical revisionism. In daletopia all Historical Revisionists will be ground into hamburger, mixed with poison, and fed to political lobbyists.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Hahaha... the renaming thing was tongue-in-cheek and meant to stir up the ire of those who read it.

          While revising history can be seen as pointless, I feel that reviewing the European events of 1918-1945 together rather than separately gives you a better understanding of the conflicts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BanliochFear
            While revising history can be seen as pointless, I feel that reviewing the European events of 1918-1945 together rather than separately gives you a better understanding of the conflicts.
            Viewing any two related events together gives you a better understanding. You can't fully understand WWI without knowing about the Metternich System and its inevitable collapse. To understand that, you need to know about the Congress of Vienna and the Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution, and so on. But WWII was not the same war as WWI. Neither are Operation Iraqi Freedom and the 1st Gulf War. Without WWI there probably would not have been WWII--but there were a myriad of factors contributing to both events.

            Comment


            • #7
              with the Pacific Front of WWII (to be renamed The War of Japanese Aggression?) being a truly separate conflict that happened to occur at the same time.
              Disagree strongly here.
              The Japanese would never have started the Pacific War (as opposed to the ongoing Sino-Japanese War) if there was no war in Europe. The Colonial masters of SE Asia were either conqered themselves (France, Holland) or busy fighting Germany (Britain). Would the militarists in Japan have ever contemplated going to war knowing they were going to face the RN and The French Navy?

              The attack on Pearl led to Germany declaring war on the US. Shows how the two theaters were interlinked.
              "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it is more of a stretch to try and argue that WWI and WWII are one and the same. While not the sole contributor, without the punitive peace of Versailles, I find it hard to believe that Hitler would have risen to power.

                I'd have to look more at the primary source documents for ODS, but I think you can make a very strong case for ODS/OIF being one and the same.

                1. The legal argument behind OIF stems directly from violations of the cease-fire agreement for ODS.
                2. The perceived "failure" of ODS to remove Saddam left a lingering threat to the region and a thorn in the side of US foreign policy in the Middle East and worldwide (due to having to dedicate forces and develop infrastructure to the containment of Saddam).

                Of course, the counter-arguments are strong as well.

                1. Without 9/11, the threat that Saddam posed probably wouldn't have been re-evaluated and found to be a higher risk.
                2. The coalitions during ODS and OIF were/are quite different.
                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                Comment

                Working...
                X