July 14th, 2009  

Topic: help

Hello everyone,
i am a student and i need help on my essay. I need to write on ww1 and ww2. the question on this is, were ww1and ww2both part essentilly the same conflict, or were they fundamentally separate wars? please help
July 14th, 2009  
Team Infidel
welcome.. it actually had to do with the transition period between ww1 and ww2. the inter-war period had significant technological advances based off of the lessons learned from WW1... take a look at that.
July 14th, 2009  
July 14th, 2009  
Originally Posted by Spain Marine
Damn, boy, the World War l and the World War ll are different wars!.

- World War l: 1914 - 1918.
- World War ll: 1939 - 1945.

I think your History teacher should be condemned to death penalty, GRRR...
And I agree with the Major on this one..You should check out the years in between.
I reckon the argument were if the conflict were essentially the same.
Not if it was the same war..
July 14th, 2009  
Originally Posted by lenoreholden
Hello everyone,
the question on this is, were ww1and ww2both part essentilly the same conflict, or were they fundamentally separate wars? please help
I think what's the true question is- were they linked. Certainly ww1 lay the basis for ww2, Germany got to bear the sole war guilt and got to pay huge reparation sums to the victors, an aspect that led to crisis in Germany and provoked developments in certain directions. Every nation went into crisis, at least with the financial crisis, Germanys payments made the whole situation worse because bad German market led to a worsening european market. That's why Britain tried to loosen the payments (bothering the french who still wanted/needed a weak Germany). All in all every other nation needed peace to strengthen their economy and make there Military ready again- economical crisis led to a drop of military spendings (forced by demands of the suffering public). Every nation but Germany with his new radical right wing tried to avoid a new war but the treatment of allied nations after ww1 did already lie the basis for a even bigger war.
So yes- they certainly are connected. And the allied nations learned from the mistakes they made after ww1- that's why America invested in Germany (though I know there were other plans ready...).
I lately wrote a paper on the inter war years (specialized on British- French relations during this period). But even there you see the links at every corner.
About me: I'm currently having my final exams on my master in historical science at the Helmut Schmidt University/ University of the German federal armed forces in Hamburg. 'New history' isn't my primary field of study (ancient history is).

Literature for inter war period in europe:

Adams, R.J.Q.: British Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of Appeasement, 1935-39, Stanford 1993.
Adamthwaite, Anthony: The Lost Peace; International Relations in Europe 1918-1939, London 1980.
Niedhart, Gottfried: Ein Hort der Stabilitšt: Grobritannien, in: Die Zeit; Welt- und Kulturgeschichte; Erster Weltkrieg und Zwischenkriegszeit, Bd. 13(2006) Hamburg.
Pereboom, M.L.: Democracies at the Turning Point; Britain, France and the End of the Postwar Order, 1928- 1933, New York 1995.
Young, Robert J.: In Command of France; French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933-1940, London 1978.
(for more literatur pm me )
July 15th, 2009  
Cne C
Welcome lenoreholden,

the causualty are not the same but the result is not different.
July 15th, 2009  
obj is right, or so i was tought in my college history class
July 17th, 2009  

Topic: Welcome!

Welcome aboard, lenoreholden.