The World Wars, of course, are the biggest conflicts in human history.
Both were highly brutal and destructive, in numerous ways.
Both also led to advances in technology, many of which last to today and will invariably impact the future.
It saw massive geo-political changes, such as the USA’s place as a superpower, the Cold War, decolonisation, and the spread of communism. Much of Africa and Asia now consists of sovereign states that were former colonies of European powers.
It further led to widespread peace in Europe, even amidst the Cold War and the later Bosnian and Ukraine conflicts.
Comparing either war, which stands out?
Both are fascinating to study in various ways.
Though WW2 gains my attention more.
This isn’t to denigrate all the sacrifices made in the First World War.
But there are several reasons why WW2 stands out in my imagination to a greater degree:
Greater scope
WW1 was fought primarily in Europe, with sea battles in the Atlantic, and also campaigns in what were then Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the German African colonies.
WW2 was fought largely in Europe, of course. Though there were major theatres in North Africa and other parts of the continent, East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans were also the scene of naval conflict. WW2 was more of a global war, in both scope and the resources obtained to fight it.
Foodstuffs, oil, base and precious metals, and troops, were sourced from around the world, which helped both the Allies and Axis fund critical facets of their war efforts.
Oil from the Caribbean helped Britain in Spitfire use in the Battle of Britain. The Uranium used to power the first atomic bomb came from the Congo, a then Belgian colony. And beef from Argentina helped feed Britain and other European countries during the war.
More advanced weapons
This may be an unfair label.
It can be strongly said that the technologies forming WW2 combat were first used and coalesced in WW1. Air dog fights and aerial bombing, tanks with associated infantry, mobile armoured warfare, etc. were used to outstanding effect in the latter part of WW1, especially in the Hundred Days Offensive.
However, we saw more advanced rifles, tanks, aeroplanes, and tactics, as well as groundbreaking arms such as the first jet fighters, and nuclear weapons.
The forms of arms we see in contemporary warfare, as well as modern tactics and units (such as commandos/special forces) had their origin in WW2.
More at stake
From a British standpoint at the least, the country wasn’t under serious threat of invasion in WW1. There were some German attacks via both Zeppelin air balloons and naval bombardment, but the Germans had no chance to ever invade successfully.
In WW2, this was different. After the Fall of France, Hitler had his sights on getting Britain out of the war. He made a speech offering peace terms, though with the rise of Churchill to Prime Minister, this was roundly rejected as he emphasised never surrendering.
The preparations for Operation Sealion - the proposed invasion of Britain by Germany - were specified by the Wehrmacht for execution in 1940. With Britain’s naval supremacy, the only chance of a successful invasion was to gain air supremacy over the United Kingdom. Hence, the Battle of Britain had commenced, as an intended prelude to a Nazi invasion.
Due to a mix of the British radar system, better tactics, the use of the iconic Spitfire, and also German tactical and strategic arrogance, the Royal Air Force (RAF) was able to inflict disproportionate losses on the Luftwaffe.
Despite attacking RAF bases, a loose bomber hit London, leading to Churchill ordering a bombing raid on Berlin. Enraged at the mere fact that the Allies had struck his capital, Hitler then demanded full vengeance, and the Blitz commenced. By early autumn of 1940, it was clear that the UK was not close to surrendering. The Luftwaffe had not come close to gaining air superiority, and accordingly, Hitler infinitely postponed Operation Sealion.
The Blitz itself, whilst causing much civilian damage, didn’t destroy British morale and this had the effect of emboldening morale in the country. By mid-1941, the Blitz had ended, and Hitler had set his sights on Operation Barbarossa - the invasion of the Soviet Union.
If looking at the other Allies, France fell in 1940. Whilst Germany had entered its lands in WW1, it never was under threat of invasion or collapse. This of course changed in WW2, as it surrendered to Germany and was replaced by a collaborationist regime based in Vichy.
The Holocaust is a naturally grave and barbaric German aim, and with control of much of Europe, it was able to execute this inhumanity accordingly.
For the USSR, which modern Russia and other former USSR states continue to commemorate, the toll was enormous. Many millions of troops and civilians died in the fighting, in effort to stop Hitler from achieving his Lebensraum.
In the Far East, Japan committed crimes arguably to a worse scale than Germany. The Rape of Nanjing saw its troops enact inhumanities of epic scope. The use of comfort women, medical experimentation, and biological and chemical weapons further represented this angle. When taking Allied prisoners, they were often sent on death marches, and used as forced labour to construct bridges and related infrastructure.
More was at stake than mere battlefield successes. The Axis’s designs were based on a lot more than conquest.
Deeper figures/characters
WW2’s major figures had more intrigue.
WW1 of course has its powerhouses. Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, British PMs Asquith and Lloyd George, etc. were all noted as leading their countries’ war efforts.
Though in WW2, it was the personas that had their mark, as much as their emphasis on policy and strategy.
Churchill was a noted orator, who was charismatic and seldom without a cigar in hand, or a bow tie and bowler hat displayed.
Hitler and his regime were no doubt evil. But he himself was a great speaker, and his position as Fuhrer of Germany was enhanced by his ability to win the crowd with his words. Despite his views on Jews, Slavs, etc., he had a love of animals, and was a vegetarian. His love for animals didn’t obviously translate to fellow humans.
US President Roosevelt, spent much of the war confined to a wheelchair due to polio. Though as the only US President ever to have served three terms in office, as well as realise the might of US industrial and financial power, he too like Churchill used his charisma to rouse up the American people.
Stalin was in many ways as cruel as Hitler. Despite the brutal nature of his regime, he oversaw Soviet participation on the Eastern Front, leading to the capture of Berlin and the fall of the Third Reich.
And the Japanese were led by Emperor Hirohito, who whilst showing some remorse for his actions in his later reign, presided over the brutal acts committed in China, Korea, and much of southeast Asia.
Mussolini was pronounced Il Duce of Italy long before the war, though his force of personality was a major influence on the Third Reich and Hitler’s characterisation as its Fuhrer.
As we can see, the figures of the major combatants all had some degree of intrigue, for good or for bad.
More complex ideologies
In WW1, there was a difference in political ideologies and outlooks amongst the combatants. The Entente comprised two capitalist imperialists, in Britain and France, as well as an autocratic monarchy in Russia. They were later joined by a capitalist republic, in the USA.
The Central Powers were all absolute monarchies, comprising Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
WW2 saw a tussle between a more benevolent order, and that of the Axis.
Russia in WW1 was an autocratic monarchy, though the USSR was an autocratic communist state.
Whilst Italian fascism differed from Nazism in core principles, Mussolini increasingly became more anti-Semitic in consequence as a result of the Axis alliance.
Japan was an autocratic monarchy, though with strong elements of longstanding Bushido social mores in force. Like Germany, it viewed other ethnicities as inferior, including the Chinese, leading to numerous animalistic acts in its conflicts there.
WW2 was a fight to determine how the world should be, away from old-school concepts of power, land and glory.
Caveats
Both world wars were highly destructive.
Many cases of brutality, savagery and inhumanity occurred accordingly.
This piece is rooted in a personal perspective, and not to say that WW1 was any less bad or inhumane than WW2.
No war, no matter the scale, should be celebrated.
I do genuinely find the figures, stakes, technologies, and leaders of WW2 more fascinating. Kaiser Wilhelm II was an old-style autocratic monarch. His ideology wasn’t as virulent and brutish as Hitler’s. Whilst Asquith and Lloyd George were both noted British Prime Ministers, it is true that few UK PMs have had the charisma, oratory and persona of Churchill. Tsar Nicholas II, like Stalin, was an autocrat of Russia. However, Stalin took this autocracy to a different level, espousing a Marxist “utopia” mixed with an extreme cult of personality.
War is perhaps inevitable - given the darker and more aggressive facets of human nature.
Though Gen. Sherman was right. The esteemed US Civil War Union general’s words above might ring true for all time, given the savagery of war.
War should never be celebrated. Ever.