Which War was More Influential?

[DoctorD]

WWI or WWII?

Assuming that we do not consider these as a single conflict with a big peace treaty in the middle, which was more important to subsequent world history?

I'd say WWI.
- first global conflict
- fall of three established powers
- end of the monarchy as a significant governmental system
- introduction of mechanized warfare
- introduction of airborne warfare/reconnaissance
- establishment of a Marxist government

WWII did introduce atomic weapons and showed significant conflict outside Europe, but the final domination of the US and Russia was merely accelerated by it and not such a radical change.

What do you think?

[CrewDust]

I think it is WW1 for a social and political reasons.

[Toon³]

I'll have to go with WW1 too because of the economic, social and political consequences of this conflict.

[MRod]

WWI mostly because it led to both the rise of Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh who would affect history in countless other ways.

[Gold is the Colour]

WWI mostly because it led to both the rise of Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh who would affect history in countless other ways.

Also led to the rise of the NAZI's and hence WWII - So yeh I'd say WWI

[MikeLastort2]

WWI.

I'm in agreement with the French general (can't recall his name) who at the time of its signing called the Treaty of Versailles "not a peace treaty, but a 20 year cease fire."

He was pretty prophetic. 20 years and 10 months after Versailles, German tanks rolled into Poland.

[Excape Goat]

WWI mostly because it led to both the rise of Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh who would affect history in countless other ways.

The WW I gave birth to the Chinese Communist Party, but the CCP would have been destroyed if there were no WW II. The CCP would not have grown even if they survived under Chiang Kai-shek. The were a brunch of well-educated college kids who did not understand the poor people of China. They were into labor movement and ignored the peasants when China was a peasant society. Anyway, Mao would have not taken over the CCP if WW II did not happen. He would be no more than a dumb peasant among a party of urban university-educated party members.

[quentinc]

Militarily or socially?

Because in the original post, you talk about both. I would say that it's an even split as far as military advances, but socially and politically, WW1 was much more influential.

[Caesar]

I'm in agreement with the French general (can't recall his name) who at the time of its signing called the Treaty of Versailles "not a peace treaty, but a 20 year cease fire." Ferdinand Foch.

[MikeLastort2]

Ferdinand Foch.


That's him. Thank you!

[Matt in the Hat]

We are feeling more of the efects of WWI now than WWII. It's no contest.

[needs]

Eh, just to be contrary, I'll say WWII. I can actually make a really good case.

-Atomic bomb
-Jet flight
-radar
-Rise of the US and USSR to global hegemony
-First step in really killing off the colonial system.
-UN
-Delegitimization of scientific racism
-Undermining of racism as legitimate belief
-Rise of mass civilian death as a military tactic/birth of strategic bombing
-Undermines "ideology" in US
-Creation of NATO
-Hannah Arendt, the Frankfurt School, new views of authoritarianism that continue to inform us today.
-As someone already mentioned, Red China
-Edit: Creation of Israel as Jewish state


Yep, WWII did far more to shape the modern world than WWI.

[Matt in the Hat]

Actually, let me revise and extend. As far as world politics, it WWI. As far as domestic politics, its WWII.

WWII brought civil rights, women's rights, the growth of the suburbs, etc.

[MikeLastort2]

Well if you adhere to Marshal Foch's view that the Treaty of Versailles was nothing but a 20 year cease fire, you could argue that WWII was just a continuation if WWI. That's how I look at it.

[YITBOS]

A couple rebuttals as to why WWI is better ;) .

-The bomb, jets, and radar predate WWII. Although, no one can argue that WWII didn't help speed their practical implementation up a decade.
- Without WWI, there would likely be no USSR. A puppet monarchy supported by France, Britain and America would have been the probable result.
- WWI was the first step in really killing off the colonial system. WWII was the death blow to the colonial system.

[jambon-beurre]

Europe suicided itself with WWI (that's what I've been told), so I'd go with number 1...

[Excape Goat]

- Without WWI, there would likely be no USSR. .

No Yugoslavia as well. The question of Yugoslavia did not resolve until our generation. I do not know enough about the region to know whether the question remains.

Let"s say WW II was an extension of WWI. It is hard to discuss the topic without linking each other. It is a chicken and egg topic. The two World Wars did niot really end until the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

[spejic]

No Yugoslavia as well. The question of Yugoslavia did not resolve until our generation. I do not know enough about the region to know whether the question remains.History never ends anywhere as long as there are people. Certainly not there.

[HerthaBerwyn]

I say WWI.

The conclusion of that war ended with borders in Africa and the Mid East being drawn not in regard to the Cultural and National identities of those living there but in regard to the resource demands of the victorious powers. Because of these priorities nationalist tensions result in dictatorship, civil violence, genocide and international conflict to this day. In many ways the wars currently aflame in Africa and the Mid East are still embers from those decisions.

[KevTheGooner]

From Europe's point of view...WWI...hands down. First mechanized warfare leading to mass slaughter of armed men. Overthrow of established monarchies, etc etc (as mentioned already)

But from the US' point of view, WWII, hands down. Were the US to have stayed engaged in world politics after WWI this would not be the case. But since the US did not accept its global leadership mantle until the closing stages of WWII, WWI seems like a warm-up.

From the rest of the world's point of view...I'd say WWII just because the Cold War became the new framework for how developing (post-colonial, post-WWI) nations allied themselves. This was a 40-year exercise, as opposed to the much briefer post-WWI break up of the colonies. The list of Cold War conflicts in these countries is as long as my arm..and they're still going on today (can you say Osama Bin Laden? I thought you could.)