Is WWI similar to WWII?

Question

You know I don't get it. WWI is definatley similar to WWII but the deaths were totally different. I just saw some guy answer a question saying that Iraq is nothing like Vietname because of the loss of soldiers. The difference was around 55,000 people. But that is besides the point. Over 10 million people died in WWII. That is a huge difference than WWI were only 100,000 or so troops died, i am not too sure about that number. The american deaths in WWI are totally different than WWII so does that mean the wars are not similar? of course not I just want to hear some of your guys feedback. One more thing, WWI and WWII have the same name except one added number that implies that they have to be similar in some way so how can the death difference make the two wars totally different?

Let me rephrase my question. Just because the deaths in vietnam are different from Iraq does it make the two wars different?
No of course not there is a similar tactic of guerilla warfare and the technology has only differed a little.

I am comparing the two to WWI and WWII. Just because the technology has changed and the style of warfare has differed a little does that mean that the two wars are different?
They, after all, are fighting for the same cause...
So how does that make the two pairs of wars that i have shown different from eachother?
How is Vietname different then Iraq? Why?
How is WWI different then WWII? Why?

Answer 1

On the surface the two wars *seem* similar, but they were vastly different in a lot of ways. I'm sure an expert can explain better than I can.

WWI was the first true mechanized war and strategies had not yet adapted to the new machinery. As a result, there were not battlefields but trenches dug along the "fronts" of battle. This made it difficult for either side to invade the other and caused the war to drag on several years until the US forces tipped the balance of power.


By WWII the airplane became a very important strategic weapon. Bombs dropped from the air could weaken an opponent before the armies would march in. Indeed, that is the strategy both Germany and Japan used to start the war, and how the Allies eventually became victorious.

I know this explanation is far too simplistic. There were many political and sociological differences as well. But the question seemed to focus on the differences in the deaths and other casualties of the two wars.

Answer 2

WW1 was different from WW2 in their reasons for going to war although the combattants were for the most part the same. In WW1 they fought to uphold the obligations of the various treaties thus the skirmish between Austria and Serbia turned into WW1. In WW2 the reason was greed and power Germany and Japan were trying to build Empires and that forces all the other countries in. Casualties are irrelevant when trying to say whether or not a country should fight a war. The question should be can you win the war in question and is it worth it in the long and short runs. These are the true measures of determining whether a war was worth the cost or not. WW1 and WW2 are named the same as the whole world was involved in both wars though fought for totally different reasons. I believe you missed the point of those making the agruement of casualties is they are peeved that the country seems scared to accept casualties like previous wars I don't accept their arguement but basically they wonder what happened to Americas stomach for sacrifice in short they are saying the people are cowards for being concerned about the relatively low casualties suffered. This is their concern not mine! I am willing to accept high casualties if the end results are truly awesome.

Answer 3

Your figures are quite wrong. The First world war or the 'great war' as it was originally known, far more than 100, 000 soldiers (not including civilians died). This war was more technologically advanced than any seen before, heavy relience on planes, battleships, artillery and so on.
WWII about 60 million people died, it was unique because it created new boundries for wars and how they were fought, with attention to war crimes, the advent of nuclear weaponary etc.

Again WWII was a name the media merely picked up on. For instance, when you think about it there were essentially two wars in WWII being fought at the same time: the European war (Germans, Italians Vs Allies) and the Pacific War (Japanese Vs Allies), although the war did 'spill' into north Africa it was mainly Germans fighting the allies.

Answer 4

This is a big topic for discussion here, I note also that the two answers were directed to how we (I am an american) get involved late in the war.

Often the British had large presence in places where these wars started and their involvment was because of this presence.

I had relatives in all the afore mentioned wars including the one going on now.

WWI the british lost huge numbers of men, there were battles of several days where they lost 20,000 men the first day and over 100,000 during the battle. The French also suffered huge losses. We suffered losses but not like them The Brits lost almost a million men, the US lost 126,000, but overall 8 million military were killed and another 8 million civilians. The Free world will always be indebted.

WWI I Again the Brits suffered huge losses and this time it was brought home to them with huge numbers of civilian casulities. The Brits lost 400,000 military and the US 300,000,France 250,000 The Chinese 1.3 million, all these pale in comparison to Russia who lost 9 million. These were the winners, the loosers lost 6 million. These were military, on the civilian side the winners lost. 33 million with 19 million of these in Russia and 9 million in china and 2.5 million in poland. The loosers 3 million .

So you see the cost of War is very high and you also see a great price is paid before any of the Winners Win.

We lost another 50,000 in Korea, 50,000 in Vietnam and over 2500 so far in Iraq.

Of course we could get into the financial cost in these wars. We were fortunate enough that this country could supply the necessary arms in most of these conflicts, that this country could bear the majority of the funds necessary to rebuild after these wars.
We shall forever be indebted to the brave men and women who kept freedom alive be they brits, americans, french chinese, russian, of from any of the brave armies from around the world.
Be they military or civilian.

I as an american citizen have been taught of the value of our allies, I bet you didn't know that the British finished paying its WWII war debt to the US in the last 30 days. Did you know that Churchil said England would declare war on Japan the day we had too and England Did. Americans will not forget who stands with them. And will try to teach this to my heirs.

When I hear of the death of an allied soldier in Iraq, be he Birtish, spanish, whatever, I grieve for his or her family and am constantly reminded of their brave sacrefice.

So you are correct "How can the death difference make the two wars totally different"
So you see the wars are no different, it is and will forever be good vs evil. but it is all of us who pay the price

Answer 5

Actually, it is very likely that down the road, History will view these two wars as one war with a very long intermission. This holds true for the European theatre. The Japanese part is on its own.

Many historians believe the outcome, and restrictions, placed on Germany at the end of WWI allowed for the changes that took place in Germany. This in turn led Germany to do what it did, and basically got the ball rolling towards WWII.

Answer 6

The deaths were different also because of the type of warfare that was engaged in. By WWII the British had discovered radar; and that combined with ferocious and brave fighting got them over the Luftwaffe in the famous Battle of Britain, a turning point in the war. Also, as the previous posters pointed out, America did not get involved for two years in the early part of the war. Great Britain stood alone with no help save the free soldiers and sailors of occupied countries; some of whom came to England to help.

The style of fighting was different; there were different types of war machines (weapons), and a larger number of people were involved as well.

I must add that the north Africa bit; in response to the following person; was still allies v. Nazi Germany: I had an English uncle in north Africa against Rommel.

And as for smilingdave; You need to learn some history and some manners. Your arrogance is typically American. You make me ashamed. It was an ALLIED EFFORT that WON WORLD WAR II.

Answer 7

WWI andWWII are both similar Germany had started both wars one because of a murder and other reasons and the other because of hitler who wanted germany to own more land, the death toll in WWI was very high much higher that 100,000 there was more deaths in the battle for vimy ridge which france had lost over 75,000 and britian I believe lost over 60,000 and Canada which eventually gain controll of the ridge lost over 25,000 and i dont think WWI was just fought on the one ridge, the weapons that were developed and techniques used were new to military use and were not tested in actual battle, the area between the two enemies trenches was called no mans land because when you climbed the trench wall it was most likely you were going to get shot and die, also the germans had used mustard gas on the allies which was new to war fare and when the United States entered the war the tipped the balance and they helped the allies win the war they didnt single handedly win the war like some americans believe(not all but some)

In WWII the weapons have been tested in WWI like artillery and trench war fare had been looked at and advanced with certian techniques and advances in the weapons itself i.e aircraft used in WWI for fighting the air and survalince and small attacks on naval ships in WWII the were used for fighting the air attacks agiants tanks, naval ships and bombing enemy stongpoints and factories.WWI and WWII were the same just fought over for differentd reasons and the same weapons just more advanced

The Vietnam war and iraq war i think are again the same war is war but the only thing that makes them different was that the United States in the Vietnam war is that they were fearful of communisim which yeah is a bad way of running a county and i agree with them and the wanted to stop the communist north vietnam from invading south vietnam the americans could have and should have won that war but they were too advanced for their own good they had great rifles and jetfighters and amour but the north vietnamese had the advance not in the technology way but having living in that area with the jungle knowing the landscape better that the americans which without adoubt had the advantage with better pilots seamen and infantry and i know in WWII the allies had the short end of the stick in some weaponry like the tanks and rifles, it was in my opinion that hitlers belief that the D-day invasion was to take place at a different location and many other things he had believed had lead to the allies winning the war and it wasnt for him believing in the different location the germans would have and many have to this present day have total controll of europe, but in saying that many other events could have occured that may have lead the Nazi Germanys defeat, but back to the Vietnam war were that the Vietnamese had the knowledge of the land and many older ways of fighting that the americans may have thought were obsolete, and in the Iraqi war Geogre bush wanted a war for him self and to my own belief finsh what his dad started sure Saddam Hussien was a bad guy but he had no infamous Weapons of Mass Distruction and wanted to show america his efforts to take a tyrant would make him a good if not great Presidant of the so called greatest country in the world, with America the worlds one super power from WWII still in exsitance flexing its military muslce on a third world country with the 4th largest army in the world and land some 500,000 troops and etc, with superior weapons and knowledge and techniques, and of course i think he didnt want to Quote"stay the course" alone convinced Britian and spain to join himto have some one else to take the fall with him if hes citizens found out what I'm sure he already knew that the were no WMD, in my opinion Geogre Bush should stand trial for war crimes, for false information that lead to the needless deaths of many civilians and american soldiers for what to make the world worse than it already was and the only way to get ride of war and make peace to to get ride of man, no man, no war

Answer 8

You don't understand the two. Both had millions of deaths. Our casualties were comparably light in both. Our contribution to both was primarily material and fresh troops. But both were of unestiable value. In WWI we contributed primarily raw material and small arms. In WWII whole weapon systems. In both our troops were very good. The Russians claim they won WWII. If they did it was by extreme bravery and stupidity as well. Their extreme casualties were largely because they substituted human waves for tactical sense. They overwhelmed the Germans by sheer numbers more than military ability. We tended to out fight them. They say no in both wars. They were better they say. They lost. In WWI our troops had inferior weapons and still won. In WWII they had better armor, comparable aircraft, we had better infantry small arms, mostly because of the incomparable M-1 Garand rifle. We still won. The finest SS divisions broke their back on our finest divisions in the west. The same happened in the East. Only we did it with a lot more efficiency and less casualties.

Answer 9

Other than the basic fact that Germany started both WWI and WWII... both wars were very different in the way they were fought and won.

Answer 10

The only similarities in those two wars were in who was fighting who and the French got their *sses kicked.
As for the Brits that keep whining about how we show up late and let them do all the fighting.... We may have been slow to start but you guys would not have stood a chance of being on the winning side if we hadn't come to your aid. You would have folded early if we hadn't been sending you material & supplies for years before we sent troops. We weren't prepared for war and spent the early years building up a TRAINED military instead of sending cannon fodder. Also, there were many here who were against getting into those wars. They didn't think it was our fight. It's darn lucky for you we did show up or the Germans would have invaded Great Britain and you guys would be eating Knockwurst instead of fish & chips. If this is how you show thanks then maybe we won't be so ready to help next time.