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

[Valmy]

Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country.  The ones they had were a pain the ass.  I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says.  I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.

In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy.  But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war.  And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.

[The Brain]

In the modern world you have the right to fuck a country right up if it engages in terrorism against you. Russia starting WW1 over the Afghanistan of their day was 1) stupid but not 2) wholly unexpected (see 1).

[Agelastus]

60 000 dead on the first day of the Somme, over 400 000 in total for about 7 miles - or, roughly, a death per centimetre - isn't romantic.

Casualties, not dead; although given the number crippled by long term injuries, or who died later as a result of their wounds (unremovable bullets finally shifting to lethal positions etc.) it's not really that much better.

And 19000 dead on the first day is bad enough...

Although, just to show why the first day has overshadowed the whole battle in British perception, that's 1 in 5 of the total British dead for the whole several month long battle.

[Tamas]

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.

but you are the exception.

And I'd guess its not very much pressed in public speech how basically all 3 local Great Powers had Polacks fighting in their ranks. The whole affair ended with Polish folks stopping to be just totally bitchslapped around by everyone they met, so it is understandable they didn't mind the total collapse of world order and the start of a dark age.

[Tamas]

Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country.  The ones they had were a pain the ass.  I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says.  I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.

In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy.  But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war.  And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.

Raz is wrong. Austria WAS crumbly, and the leading class (both Austrian and Hungarian) knew that all too well. Hungarian leaders figured they needed to seriously humble Serbia to shut up the southern slavs within the border, as well as gaining "street cred". The only opposition PM Tisza had after the assassination was the vulnerability of Transylvania. Once he was convinced that A-H wouldn't give up the Magyars there, he was happy to greenlight the war.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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

It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war.  It's a complicated little war.

biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.

[Zanza]

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.

but you are the exception.

I can see how Hungary might see WW1 as more traumatic because you lost so much territory.

But I would expect it to be pretty much the exception in Central and Eastern Europe in that aspect. The Second World War was much worse for Germany/Austria, Poland, the Soviet Union, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Greece, probably also for Czechoslovakia. Not sure about Romania or Bulgaria. All of East Asia also suffered much more from WW2 than from WW1. No idea about Italy. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were not even involved in WW1.

[Neil]

Yeah, I got the impression that Austria didn't want more Serbs in their country.  The ones they had were a pain the ass.  I don't think that Austria was crumbly as everyone says.  I mean, they managed to keep their country together until the end, unlike say the British which lost one of it's key possessions right after the war.

In fact the Hungarians all but wanted a guarantee that no more Slavs would be in the Empire...which just shows the difficulties and contradictions Austrian policy.  But Konrad and the Foreign Office wanted Serbia destroyed, and a big part of Konrad's thinking was that the army and the state needed a victorious war.  And since the military and the foriegn office had almost total control of policy in the crisis it was their views that dominated.

Raz is wrong. Austria WAS crumbly, and the leading class (both Austrian and Hungarian) knew that all too well. Hungarian leaders figured they needed to seriously humble Serbia to shut up the southern slavs within the border, as well as gaining "street cred". The only opposition PM Tisza had after the assassination was the vulnerability of Transylvania. Once he was convinced that A-H wouldn't give up the Magyars there, he was happy to greenlight the war.

Yeah, but unfortunately a half-century of Hungarian nonsense had weakened Austria to the point where they weren't able to win.  That's why Hungary's fate was poetic justice, even if it retarded the forces of civilization in Eastern Europe by taking the Slavs and Hungarians out from under the guidance of Austria.

[Neil]

No idea about Italy.

Hard to say.  Both of them were quite traumatic for Italy, but I think WWII might have been just a bit worse.  Sure, there were massive social disruptions that allowed for the birth of fascism, but the slaughter on the Isonzo didn't result in the complete breakdown of social order and government in Italy the way that WWII did.  WWI didn't create modern Italy, that was WWII and the occupation.

[Neil]

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

It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war.  It's a complicated little war.

biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time it was hard to realize that the Russians would be rather bad at modern war.

[The Brain]

No idea about Italy.

Hard to say.  Both of them were quite traumatic for Italy, but I think WWII might have been just a bit worse.  Sure, there were massive social disruptions that allowed for the birth of fascism, but the slaughter on the Isonzo didn't result in the complete breakdown of social order and government in Italy the way that WWII did.  WWI didn't create modern Italy, that was WWII and the occupation.

For much of WW2 they were living la duce vita.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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

It's hard, because while the war started as being about the French and the Russians supporting the right of Serbins to murder whoever they like, it changed once the Germans invaded Belgium and the British joined the war.  It's a complicated little war.

biggest blunder the germans ever made.
Assuming this scenario was even possble they should have just kept the french bottled up in the alsace while dealing with the Russians. Once the russians were out some way to deal with france surely could be divised. Once the war was then over Belgium would fall into the german lap by default.

That's easy to say in retrospect, but at the time it was hard to realize that the Russians would be rather bad at modern war.

indeed. Though someone must have seen that trying to follow their plan on the west front must have been rather stupid if it drew the British into the war.

[Neil]

By the time they realized that the British took the Treaty of London seriously, it was too late.  I can sort of see how they fooled themselves there, since Britain's strategic goal there was to maintain supremacy on the Channel by ensuring that Belgium's excellent ports wouldn't fall into French hands, but they didn't take into account that it was Germany, not France that was now Britain's rival.

[Tonitrus]

I wonder though...if the Germans contained a French attack, and defeat Russia (assuming the Eastern front ends much like with Brest-Litovsk)...would Britain have been content to sit and let the German-led Axis become the overwhelmingly dominant force on the Continent?

[Neil]

I wonder though...if the Germans contained a French attack, and defeat Russia (assuming the Eastern front ends much like with Brest-Litovsk)...would Britain have been content to sit and let the German-led Axis become the overwhelmingly dominant force on the Continent?

No.  But they also wouldn't be able to do much about it.  Unless they got into the war right off the bat (which was very possible, even without the invasion of Belgium), they would be unlikely to go to war against a combinations of Germany, Austria, Italy and the Ottoman Empire with only France for an ally.