What are similarities and differences between World War 1 and 2?

Answer

The two sides were almost the same in both wars. Russia/Britain and the US against Germany. The good guys won. Italy was on the German side at the beginning of both wars, and switched to the Allied side in both wars also.

Among the differences:

• Japan was on the Allied side in WW1 and the German side in WW2.
• WW1 was a war of attrition with both sides bogged down virtually immobile in trenches. WW2 was more of a war of movement.
• The holocaust. Nothing similar happened in WW1 unless you count the Turkish genocide of the Armenians.
• By WW2 technology was more advanced: real aeroplanes, heavy bombers, tanks, radios and so on.

Answer

Well if you look at it. WWI wasn't really a good guy vs bad guy war as was WWII with the holocaust. WWI represented a more of "Me and my friends are better then you and your friends" kind of war.

Answer

World Wars I and II didn't really have anything in common. WWI was mostly a trench fight while WWII contained more technology, therefore more movement. And after WWI the U.S didn't help European Nations rebuild or restore buildings and homes. But after WWII we sent money and food. WWI was also more rural than WWII. WWII was fought mostly with a Navy and an Air Force.

----

WW1 wasn't mostly fought with Navy and Air Force - this statement ignores the huge land battles that took place all over the world.

Answer

My goodness WWI and WWII had many differences.. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, WWI begins.... the British and French create an alliance after the Boer War against Germany. The French had already had a long standing alliance with the Russians. What you must understand is that there existed alliances with each of the strong european powers, each had their own.Basically, the french and english are worried that another power (the germans)will try and take over their trade arenas. They try to push gemans out so they can gain the upper hand. At the same time the Balkans fall under bad government(for lack of better words). European powers want to hurry and divide up the area to gain resources. This results in tensions between nations. Yes, Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, but that was no the reason for the war, it just set it off, more like straw that broke the camel's back. Anyway Franz was assassinated by a rebel movement, not by the Seberian government, who were ultimatley blamed for it. the end result is Germany does not find the apology suitable and uses it as a reason to declare war on Russian (the Siberian Govt.). Basically the assisination of Franz. even though was not supported by the govt. was blamed on the Siberian govt. the assassiation of Franz was used much like the attack of Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter war.....ask me about Pearl Harbor I will tell you the real story.....

Answer

Geez, who ever posted before me couldnt be more WRONG! There are many similarities which I will list but not detail too much.. First, they both involved colonial rivalries ie: franco prussian was and the germanzs lost territory divided up in the treaty of versailles. Second, nationalism including countries turkey and austria hungary fight4ng for independence VS hitlers belief in aryan superiority and mussolinis strive towards a new ancient rome like empire..look up these yourself: military buildup, militarism, alliances, mobilization, ultimatums, us isolationisn and entry, modernization of weapons, propaganda, domestic mobilization, command economy, total warfare, rationing..there is much more..this is just off the top of a 15 year old student.

Answer

World War One was fought more or less in Europe, on fixed fronts. WWII, in comparison, was more of a world war: wars in the Pacific, North Africa and Europe.

In WWI no country really managed to occupy another country or even penetrate very deeply into them (except perhaps Belgium and Luxembourg). In WWII the "blitzkrieg" strategy persued by the Germans made them able to launch devastating attacks that penetrated deep into enemy lands (like France and USSR).

I think the Germans used U-boats in both world war I and II to sink shipping bound for Britain. Both failed, and were also used as reasons for the American entry into the war.

I think the German plans for the beginning of the war were also the same: invade France from the north-east (the schlieffen plan in WWI, the blitzkrieg over the ardennes in WWII), then perhaps turn to England.

Answer

Both wars were based on German fears of Russian imperial expansion.

In WWI the overriding German position was to prevent Russian expansion. The attack on France in August 1914 was designed to quickly defeat the French army, then move swiftly east, for a more prolonged fight with the Russians. Austria/Hungary and the Ottomans recognized the Russian threat as well and joined Germany in their fight.

Of course, Germany also had ambitions to gain overseas empires comparable to those of the British/French and other matters, but all those were peripheral to the basic desire to hold back the Russian.

As it turned out, Russia was a paper tiger in WWI. Their military potential was never realized. Germany defeated them over three years using only a secondary effort. However, Germany being defeated by the western powers, prevented her from exploiting the collapse of Russian power. Under the leadership of the ruthless tyrants, Lenin and Stalin, Russia recovered and by the 1930's again presented a threat to western culture.

Thus, Hitler's Germany was faced, again, with a dreaded Russian expansion. The overriding German military goal of WWII was to defeat the Russians. All other issues were peripheral including D Day, battle of Britain, Egypt, etc. All those were peripheral battles that paled in comparison with the giant struggle to hold back the Russians. Most western historians are too bogged down in glorifying Churchill and and studying the Battle of the Bulge to understand the gist of WWII, ie, the struggle between Germany and Russia. That struggle would determine who would dominate Europe for the next fifty or more years, and reviews of Anzio and Patton do not address this fundamental issue.

Thus it comes down to this: both wars were a titantic struggle between the relatively western looking German peoples and the Asiatic rooted culture of the Russians. With the short sighted help of the British and their various allies, the Russian won. As a result their culture, not western, spread over eastern Europe, the middle east and most of east and southeast Asia.

Answer

In Europe, both world wars were above all attempts by Germany to dominate the whole of Europe and at least some areas further afield.

Comment

>>> "the Asiatic rooted culture of the Russians"<<< What on earth does this mean?

ANSWER

The Germans didnt really start either whoever posted 2 places above me is totally right the germans viewed themselves as the heroes for western democracy but there own western counterparts attacked them(G.B.,U.S.A,...)Italy just was a pathetic nation and theyre posers in a way when the germans (WHO BY THE WAY WERE MAKING ITALY'S DREAM OF A NEW ROMAN EMPIRE COME TRUE)were winning they supported the germans then when the germans lost stalingrad they betrayed them and they never fully recovered everyone still believes italy is no good oh and the germans actually won the greatest tank battle (Kursk) but they didnt use that to their advantage giving the russians valuable time the panther could bothe out run and out gun the sheman the 76.2-122mm guns couldnt pierce the armor of the panther/tiger...

First answer by ID0000000000. Last edit by Tiger001. Contributor trust: 1 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 317 [recommend question]