Was World War 1 and World War 2 the same war with a long armistice/cease-fire in between?

Question

A history teacher I had once in college made this statement once as a "talking point". This statement can be valid in the fact that the devastation caused in Germany and other Germanic nations after WWI was a reason that Hitler rose to power in the manner he did. Also, it seems invalid due to the fact that many nation-states involved in WWII were not involved (at least in the same way) in WWI. I am not a history buff, so I hope that someone will have better insight in this matter.

Answer 1

I respect your teacher, and his "talking point". But you should recognize (as I am sure he did) that it is a gross oversimplification of a terribly complex subject.
We would like to treat that thirty years (1915 to 1945) as one unit, since it involved most of the same major powers of Europe in both instances. However, while the Second World War had its roots in the First, (and the antagonism and bitterness it left in its wake) it was immensely more complex.
It is no more true than to say that the First World War was some kind of a continuation of the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, or that that war was in turn a mere continuation of the age of Napoleonic conquest, and so forth.
All of human history is the search for the answers to "what if"--what if there had not been the confrontations of Imperial nations leading up to 1914? What if the end of the first world war did not result in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia? What if a more enlightened and conciliatory tone was taken with the defeated Germans at the end of the first war? What if a terrible depression had not destabilized Germany in the 1930's, and the Nazis did not rise to power? What if Hitler did not sign a compact with Stalin, and divided up Poland between them in 1939? What if the US did not pursue neutrality after the first war, and the League of Nations was given more power? What if England had been better prepared militarily and politically in the 1903's?

Today, we are making the same mistake by trying to combine the post-World War Two Cold War between the US and NATO and the Soviet Union as a continuation of the end of the war, and the political instability caused by the nuclear age. It was an age of conflict and war that left most of Europe in ruins for most of a century, and we are left to try and understand the great question "WHY?"
There were more than enough instances of blame to go around.

Answer 2

It depends on perspective, and what you consider to be the start and end of a war.

World War I was ended by a peace treaty, the Treaty of Versailles. It clearly held the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Turkey) at fault for the war, and required them to pay restitution, dismantle their overseas empires, and, in the case of Germany, abide by restrictions on their military strength.

As of 1919, the Allied Powers were victors. During the subsequent two decades, the victors chose to ignore violations of the Treaty, and allowed Germany to regain much of its strength. It annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia with the permission of France and Great Britain, and rebuilt its army.

With the invasion of Poland in 1939, war started again.

The peace cannot be called an armistice. Germany surrendered, and it was occupied. It was not a truce. Allied forces were stationed on German soil with the acquiescence of the German government until reparations were paid. Germany changed its government and entire social structure during the years between the wars.

World War I caused World War II in Europe. But the period between the wars was not a truce.

The same question can be asked of American History. Was the War of 1812 merely the final part of the American War for Independence? The answer again is no; Britain lost, and it admitted it had in the Treaty of Paris.

Just because two (or more) nations end up fighting over and over again does not mean that they are at war continuously. They just don't like each other very much.

Answer 3

I've heard that theory too but I don't believe it. First of all WW2 would have been completely avoidable if the allies in the first one would have been more lienient on the Germans (who didn't even start that war if you remember.) It was a lull of peace, not a GOOD peace since many people in the countries that lost the war were struggling and falling deeper into debt and Hitler steps up and says "hey look I can reinstate us into world power" which he did manage to do along with all the horid things....

Answer 4

Everybody sometimes gets confused between WWI and WWII, especially because it included the same main powers [Germany, Italy, France, England, US, Russia], but you really have to look at the differences.

First, the powers were a little bit different, during WWI,
the "bad guys" were Germany, And Austria-Hungary, Bulgar, Turkey

the "good guys" [France, England, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro]

During the WWII the the

"bad guys" were Germany, Italy, Japan. Its important to understand the change of roles in some old allies, who changed to axis power.

"good guys" England. France, US.

Now that we understand the different positions during the war lets see the reasons for starting the war !

WWI: Serbian students kills Ferdinand of Austria. Austria asks for stuffs that Serbia can't give and Austria declares war!. Germany, which objective in this war was to unified all German-speaking countries declared war against Russia and France.
The main objective was to UNIFY!!, and take revenge also.

WWII: Reason was the harsh payments and the situation in which the war had leaded them to. Germany wanted to recover lost territories, and also take a "revenge". They made an agreement with Italy to divide poland, and started attacking different countries until they gained all what they had lost, and even more. Also!!!...they had HIGH anti-semmitism feelings, not present during WWI.

During WWI
Russia had fought against Germany, in the side of the allies. But during WWII they stayed by themselves, and even devided parts of conquered territory with Germany.

France didn't fight back when counter attacked. Afraid of a new war decided to ask for help, but didn't get any. Besides, France was taken over by the Germans and Italy. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEND DURING WWI.

England was attacked, and its envolment during WWII was scarse.

Italy took Germany's side this time, and under the Facist leader: Mussolini. Took some parts of France, etc.

Spain!!!!: Spain had an important role during the WWII, which didn't happend during WWI. Spain was suffering a civil war, and Russia, Italy and Germany helped them. They also refused to let Germany enter Spain and destroy one of England's ports.

Japan: During WWI japan had little, or no importance at all, but during WWII Japan suffered from economical problems, because of the "Great depression", and realized that they depended too much on forangein comerce, they stated that to survive, Japan had to have an empire that could fulfill its economical necessities.

___

So the powers were different. The war was won differently. France fell under German control during WWII. A new power arrised [Japan] [WWII]. Russia didn't fight with the allies, and took parts of other countries, and even cooperated with Germany. The reasons to enter WWI and WWII were totally different. They only thing that i see in common is that France, England, US fought against Germany.

Hope this has helped you!, enjoy class! :)

Answer 5

I agree with the points the other posters make. It is more accurate to say that one war often lays the foundations for the next: this was certainly true in the case of WW1 and WW2.

Answer 6

so some distance as i visit bear in mind women individuals couldn't truly pretend to be adult males to get into the militia like in Blackadder. there have been too many cases for the duration of inspection and hygiene that their anatomical adjustments could were quite glaring! women individuals in uniform were in contact interior the ATS or Auxiliary Territorial facilities. This became usually the logistical area of the military, in WWII fantastically, as drivers and couriers. also they could were a common sight in protection stress bases as technicians and radio operators. women individuals were in truth favoured as radio ops because their larger pitched voices carried a lot more suitable positive on the frequencies. some women individuals were even stationed on anti-plane batters and stuck gun positions, regardless of the truth that it became usually frowned on women individuals being positioned able of direct belligerence. there have been also necessary jobs in civil existence that usually relied on women individuals alongside with air raid wardens and firefighters. It became more suitable again living house that females individuals truly did placed on the trousers to manage to talk. From metal operating to bus undertaking they blew away each and each of the Victorian attitudes of girls individuals as in reality functional for being instructors and nurses. As somebody else on the following had stated, there have been lady intelligence operatives, and that i visit imagine there have been quite some James Bond type activities they could have were given as a lot as! it does no longer were no longer accessible for a lady to finally end up at the front line, yet when she did get all in favour of heavy struggling with, it does no longer were on objective. She may were a courier who were given stuck in a fray, or a nurse in a ahead field medical institution, yet i visit't imagine of the different examples.

Answer 7

Interesting question but the issues that started both war's were a bit different.