Question to Brits: which world war was a bigger trauma?

[Martinus]

Unlike most of Europe/the US, it seems to me the World War I was a bigger national trauma for the Brits than the World War II - is this a fair statement?

[Strix]

Why would it be?

WWII ended their Empire, involved extensive bombing of the home islands, and the outcome was in doubt for quite some time.

[mongers]

Why would it be?

WWII ended their Empire, involved extensive bombing of the home islands, and the outcome was in doubt for quite some time.

No, just look at any war memorial and compare the list of dead from the two wars. 

[Josquius]

WW1 played far more of a part of ending the empire than WW2. Not that the empire ever really affected the lives of most Brits.

WW1 definitely wrought the most social change. Its deaths also tended to be a lot less fairly distributed which definitely made it the bigger disaster for some towns.

[CountDeMoney]

WW1 definitely wrought the most social change. Its deaths also tended to be a lot less fairly distributed which definitely made it the bigger disaster for some towns.

Yes, and Kitchener's invention of localized recruiting efforts of "Pals'" Battalions and Home Battalions did a nice job of decimating entire communities.  Another wonderful concept to attribute to that cocksucker.

[The Brain]

WW1.

[grumbler]

WW1 led to the radicalization of British politics and the displacement of the Liberals with Labor as the main alternative to the Conservatives.  WW1 Chapter 2 simply reinforced that trend.

[Zanza]

I wonder how it is seen in France. Their losses in WW1 were much worse than in WW2, however in WW2 they were occupied and had the Vichy regime.

[The Brain]

I wonder how it is seen in France. Their losses in WW1 were much worse than in WW2, however in WW2 they were occupied and had the Vichy regime.

And got to kill their Jews.

[PDH]

Americans misunderstand World War I generally.  For this side of the Atlantic the first war was not bad at all, and the aftermath made the USA the dominant power in finance and manufacturing.  That is the dichotomy: for this country the First World War was a springboard to global power, for Europe the Great War was the end of greatness.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, I would agree that WW1 was a bigger trauma than WW2 for Britain.

Firstly the matter of casualties, about one million dead in WW1 compared to 350,000 in WW2. There was probably a qualitative difference here too, at least at the emotional level it was felt that the "best" had died in the 1914-18 conflict.

Secondly WW1 impoverished the UK. Prior to that war Britain had huge net investments overseas and ran a large balance of payments surplus on "invisibles". That position of financial dominance was lost to the USA as huge loans were taken for the war effort. There had been problems for British industry in the years leading up to 1914, but the war meant that modernisation had to be done under unfavourable financial conditions.........the UK actually defaulted on some loans c.1930.

As regards the Empire it was already starting to unravel before WW2 even started. The white Dominions were independent anyway, though good and close friends. The Government of India Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935 ) was a prelude to eventual independence for India. The rest of the Empire was sundry rubbish that cost more than it made plus some good naval bases (of use to a world power) and links in the communication chain to India.

I think it is fair to say that most people knew this in the 1930s. They also knew that they were not up to the job of being global policeman anymore. I remember the old folk talking about this when I was a kid back in the 1960s, there was some resentment towards the USA for abdicating its responsibilities when Britain was clearly no longer capable of fulfilling that role.

Then the war came and the Germans couldn't beat us, for a year we fought them alone ( "all 400 million of us" as Churchill remarked  ). London was full to the brim of exiled governments and other refugees from the appalling despotism on the Continent.........Britain and her Empire were definitely the good guys.

For the purposes of national myth-making it turned out that appeasement was just that silly old bugger Chamberlain's idea (rather false, appeasement was popular whilst it was taking place). Britain was still a land of heroes and of goodness and tolerance that defeated the Nazis 

[Admiral Yi]

Everything that Tricky said, plus no big one day death tolls in WWII.  Just the steady drip of bomber crews and merchant sailors.  And WWI was a squalid little balance of power war, with no bigger stakes than prevention of German domination of the mouth of the Rhine and the creation of a central European customs union.  WWII was a war of national survival.

[Warspite]

The Great War, by far.

A quick litmus test is the folk memory.

The second war is seen as a Good Thing: Nazi Germany was plainly evil, we did our bit standing alone in 1940, and we pulled off victories like D-Day and El Alamein.

On the other hand, the first war is seen as a slaughter pretty much from start to finish for no discernable gain or cause.

[Martinus]

Americans misunderstand World War I generally.  For this side of the Atlantic the first war was not bad at all, and the aftermath made the USA the dominant power in finance and manufacturing.  That is the dichotomy: for this country the First World War was a springboard to global power, for Europe the Great War was the end of greatness.

I think it depends on a country, really. In Poland for example WWI is remembered through Hashek's satirical books about Austria-Hungary and generally something that got us independence. There is hardly any trauma, it is all viewed as being rather quaint.

WW2 is, obviously, apocalyptic.

[Warspite]

I suspect it would be the same for France. The fall of France was a disaster: but three times more Frenchmen died at the Battle of Verdun alone.