WWI vs WWII

by Euphemism 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Big Tex

  By the way New Sense, after perusing through a few more your posts you seem to have this feeling that there is selective editing going on and yet this hate-filled, vitriolic post I quoted above was not edited (although I wish to God I had seen it before now to spare your victim from having to be treated so badly), reading it made me ill.

  I have no respect or patience with hypocrites. I lived that life once already with a cultish religion. Next time solve your own problems first before bitching about others.
• 

  talesin

  Hi Euph

  This is a great question. As far as I understand, the issues are quite complex. Last nite, I did some searching around and found some really interesting reading on the net.

  From what I could gather, the socio-economic reasons leading up to the post-war 'prosperity' involve industrial changes, suburban migration, the changes in attitudes towards socialism along with the rise of the power of trade unions, the 'cold' war, and, in no small way, some changes that were instituted under the Truman administration.

  Fascinating, imho. I'm finding it so much so, that I'm gonna do more reading for personal interest. So, I can't offer an answer to your question (too complex for moi to tackle!), but if you do a google search under "post WWII prosperity" and "post WWII reconstruction", you will find many scholarly papers and websites that can get you started. Thanks for putting me onto an interesting subject.

  Perhaps someone with more knowledge of 20th Century history will refer you to some books on the subject.

  Good luck!

  talesin
• 

  Flash

  Blondie ( I learned more about "history" from my grandparents than from a book)

  Nothing beats 'first hand' information!
• 

  Euphemism

  Thanks for the responses, folks!

  Farkel... so are you saying that you believe that the psychological difference was because WWII was a just war?

  Realist... WWII seems to me to have been more a matter of political than of economic competition. How do you figure that economics was at the base of it?

  Anyway, whatever caused the war, I think it's clear that it was necessary as a defense of democracy. Hitler was killing millions of innocent people, and he had plans for taking over all of Europe. He had to be stopped.

  Blondie... interesting; I hadn't thought of the effect of the Spanish flu.

  Talesin... I was thinking of googling, but I wasn't sure what keywords to use. I'll try those, thanks!

  The thing is, WWI did lead to a period of prosperity also. Not in Europe, necessarily, but in the United States. It was also a period of social dislocation, however, whereas the post-WWII economic boom was a period of social stability. So I think that's the main difference I'm wondering about.

  Flash... If people adopted to the new era, then why did Vietnam produce so many broken soldiers, just like WWI?
• 

  Realist

  euphemism,

  well it was a conflict about influence...japan got too powerful in the eyes of the US which was afraid about their influence (=market influence) in the pacific region. primarily britain but also france were afraid of a rearming and economically strengthening germany. hitler wanted back what germany had lost in WWI and possibly more territories in the east (according to Mein Kampf at least). both scenarios frightened britain and france because of the possible long term economical consequences. defending democracy or the rights of the poles had nothing to do with it. you have to consider that britain and france had occupied half the planet at this point. also poland together with the other eastern european countries was sold to stalin - a man more dangerous than hitler.

  it is misleading to look at the current freedoms and civil rights in western countries and compare these standards with that of japan or germany 60 years ago. you have to compare the moral, ethical and racial standard of britain, france and the US back then to the actual standards of japan and germany back then. if you do that you will see that the moral outcry about german and japanese actions prior to 1940 was quite hypocritical.

  PS: specifically about hitler killing millions of people and wanting to take over europe...hitler never wanted a war with the west. that is absolutely clear. and the killing of the million people occured as a consequence of the war turning more and more brutal.
• 

  roybatty

  Farkel' s comment that the U.S. was following a pacifist track prior to WWII is truly ludicrous; the United States has never been a pacifist nation. Rather, prior to WWII, the U.S. was an *isolationist* nation, content with invading only Mexico - a much weaker nation that U.S. regarded as an easy target. Most historians agree that many lives would have been spared if the U.S. had entered the fray of WW II earlier. One reason the U.S. hesitated was due to the enormous amount of pro-German (and even pro-Nazi) sentiment in the U.S. at that time. Many Americans' ancestors were from Germany. Many Americans are of German heritage.

  True. I'm not sure about the pro-Nazi but for a while there, the U.S. could have sided with Germany. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, the US would have stayed out of the war and Europe wouldnow be much, MUCH differnt.

  On the other hand, don't sell short the "greatest generation" the US has ever produced.
• 

  Maverick

  I don't understand the harsh response to Farkels comments? Labeling WWI and WWII is just that, a label. They were both part of the same series of social and economic conditions. There was a repositioning between the full scale upheavals. The war in China, the Spanish civil war, the Russia revolution and a host of minor conflicts set up the conditions for a renewal of conflict between the Axis and Allied powers. Even after the end of the second part of the world war a cold war set in which we are still feeling the effects of now. I think the vilification of Farkel is way over the top and detracts from the original question. Maverick
• 

  Euphemism

  Realist wrote:
  it is misleading to look at the current freedoms and civil rights in western countries and compare these standards with that of japan or germany 60 years ago. you have to compare the moral, ethical and racial standard of britain, france and the US back then to the actual standards of japan and germany back then.

  Okay, fair enough.

  When WWII started, Britain and France were both full-scale democracies, with universal suffrage and full civil rights. They were also both colonial powers, albeit greatly reduced from fifty years earlier. Conditions in the colonies were definitely inferior to the mainland, but nowhere near totalitarianism, either. The United States was a full democracy in two thirds of the country, although with less social equality than we have now. A third of the country was a democracy for Caucasians only, with blacks deprived of political and economic rights. The US also held some colonies, such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

  Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship. The right of free speech was non-existent, torture and arbitrary execution were standard tools of the secret police, and millions of Jews died by genocide. I don't know enough to speak intelligently about the Japanese homeland, but in occupied territories, such as Korea, women were freely raped and taken as sex slaves by the occupying forces.

  hitler never wanted a war with the west. that is absolutely clear.

  Even if you're correct... all he wanted to do was take over Central Europe, exterminate the Jews, and turn the rest of the population to slave labor. Remarkably humane!

  for a while there, the U.S. could have sided with Germany. Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, the US would have stayed out of the war and Europe wouldnow be much, MUCH differnt.

  The US was providing weapons and aid to Britain almost from the beginning of the war. There certainly were some pro-German voices in the United States, but unlike in WWI, there was never a serious chance of the US actually supporting Germany in WWII.
• 

  Big Tex

  Realist please don't tell me you are going to subscribe to WWII revisionist history. It has long been accepted by credible historians that Nazi Germany was built for war from day one. Hitler outlined his plans in Mein Kampf. It was only through England and France's passivity that he was allowed to re-arm, occupy the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Hitler was never interested in peaceful coexistence (ala the U.S. and Soviet Union), he was bent on creating an empire in Europe with the vast lands of Russia as his "colony".

  As for the Holocaust, are you saying it did not happen? Are you saying Hitler was not the penultimate racist? His hatred of the Jewish people was more fanatical than his need need for conquest. In my opinion, this story is the epitome of hatred. Any other interpretation borders on racist ignorance.
• 

  roybatty

  The US was providing weapons and aid to Britain almost from the beginning of the war. There certainly were some pro-German voices in the United States, but unlike in WWI, there was never a serious chance of the US actually supporting Germany in WWII.

  True. Never would the US have sent troops to fight against the Brits but had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, it appears that the US wouldn't have entered WWII and there might even have been a withdrawl of arm shipments to Britain. Prior to Pearl Harbor, another war in Europe didn't appeal to most Americans.