Both the first as well as the second world wars are landmark events in modern world history. Both wars are marked by involvement of the prevailing world powers of the day. In the case of World War 1 (WW1), the principal actors were the European powers of Britain, Germany, Austria, etc with nominal participation from the United States. The World War 2 (WW2) saw a more meaningful participation from the United States of America, which was then set to become the leading superpower in the post war years. The rest of the essay will delve into similarities and differences between these two wars.
The two wars are distinguished in the development and application of military technology. While the state of military warfare was rudimentary and simple during the years of WW1, WW2 saw significant advancements in military technology. For example, the advent of Tanks by the Third Reich is perceived by experts to be a crucial factor in the dynamics of combat during World War 2. This was in sharp contrast to such innovations as the Zeppelin that was employed by the German command during WW1.
The reasons that led to these two brutal wars were very different in nature. In the case of World War 1, the assassination of the monarch of the Austro-Hungarian Empire acted as a trigger in destabilizing what was then a delicate state of European political balance. A combination of unfortunate timing of the assassination alongside the growing internal tension within the European powers gave vent in the form of a war on a massive scale. World War 2 though cannot be attributed to any event or act of an accidental nature. The blatant and brazen ambition of Adolf Hitler and his Third Reich made the subsequent confrontation almost inevitable.
WW1 was characterized by the long periods spent by the armed forces in “trenches”, so much so that the war is often described as trench warfare. This not only indicates the lack of sophistication in the art of war at the time but also the “stagnant” nature of this type of warfare. While the recorded duration of WW1 was close to five years, ranging from 1914 to 1919, most of this time was spent in combats that have reached a state of “stalemate”. But contrastingly, WW2 was predominantly an aerial one, in that, most of the strategic advantage was gained by the country that possessed a superior air force. The most brutal demonstrations of the mighty German air power happened during the “blitz” that nearly decimated many towns and cities in Britain out of recognition.
Another area that offers a contrasting perspective on the nature of societies during the two wars is the role played by women. During World War 1 women remained in the background, making very little contribution to the final outcome of the war. But the gaining momentum of the women suffrage movement during the 1930’s had widened the horizons of the erstwhile conservative societies. This led to greater participation by women during World War 2. For example, a whole class of women workers was employed in ammunition factories as well as in rehabilitation centers as nurses.
But, in terms of the existing economic conditions of Europe and America, there is not much difference between the periods leading up to the two great wars. For instance, the most prosperous phase of the 1920’s in America was preceded by times of uncertainty and social unrest in the years following the turn of the century. The years of prosperity was followed by the Great Depression and the associated poverty and suffering of the American citizenry. While America was not a leading player in either of the two wars, its economic conditions acted as an indirect factor in the way things panned out. After recovering from the economic Depression, American policy makers saw a great strategic opportunity in consolidating their position as a global power during the late thirties and early forties. This motive was quite significant in the eventual outcome of the war and the establishment of a new world order.
As mentioned before, WW1 was essentially a European conflict. But with the renewed imperialist ambitions of Japan, the whole complexion of world affairs changed during the late 1930’s. Following a period of economic stability and industrial advancement, Japan set out to dominate the far eastern section of the globe. Although Japan’s official reasons for interfering with South East Asian politics was given as “liberation from western colonialists”, the real motive is well understood by the subjects as well as other contending powers. This imperialist goal of Japan was no insignificant factor in instigating the allied forces in general and the United States in particular to act in defense of their strategic and economic interests. This is a crucial difference in the dynamics of the two wars.
Where the two wars are similar is in the all-encompassing nature of these conflicts. In both cases, the impact of the war on the civil societies is very profound. The nations involved in the conflict had no option but to assume a state of emergency. The economic policies were consistent with that of a war economy, with all manufactured goods and services tuned to the needs of the soldiers in the frontlines. The scale of destruction was also massive in both the wars. But World War 2 proved to be all the more bloody and catastrophic for all participant nations in general and the Jewish community in particular. Nearly six million innocent Jews were massacred by the brutal German war machinery. A similar tragedy was suffered by the Japanese people, when the United States of America, under the leadership of President Truman, unleashed two atomic bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The scale of the wars was such that regular military personnel were insufficient to meet the needs of required manpower. Hence, the army sought to enlist civilian population into its war efforts. While there were many willing patriots who readily enrolled, there were some significant corners of dissent and opposition to the war effort. This was more pronounced during World War 1 than World War 2. During the former, the concept of “conscientious objectors” took shape, led by such influential figures as Bertrand Russell in Britain and Eugene Debs in the United States. There were many who believed that war was not the only course of action to mitigate the underlying state of political tension. But, contrastingly, such movements of dissent and opposition to war was relatively less during World War 2, probably because many saw a case of real violation and offense on part of Hitler’s Third Reich. To this extent, World War 2 saw more comprehensive public participation and support when compared to the previous Great War.
In 1919, at the end of the WW1, leaders from the coalition of England, France, Italy and the United States decided that they need a treaty to set right the damages caused by Germany and its allies. The treaty would be based on Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Point plan that was proposed in order to bring lasting peace to Europe. The culmination of these discussions and negotiations was the treaty signed by all participant countries in the French city of Versailles. While closing a curtain over the most brutal war till then, the Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds for a bloodier war two decades later. This is a crucial difference between the root causes of the two wars. While WW1 was perceived by many as a direct consequence of unstable European political relations and the mistiming of the death of the Austrian monarch, WW2 is in no less measure attributable to the harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. In this sense, the Second Great War can be seen as the second episode of the earlier European confrontation.