Lionization of WWI in a world without WWII.

[Gukpard]

I gonna tag @CalBear since he knows a lot about that.

When the last WWII veterans died in the early 2010s we did see some shock and some tributes being done by governments around the world, my country Brazil being one as our last WWI veteran Waldemar Levy Cardoso passed away in 2009. That being said this was not something in a bombastic level and we can be sure that it won't be in the same level as how sad and big things gonna be when the last WWII veterans die.

Assuming there was no WWII, however, how things would have evolved? Could WWI have been portrayed in media and in pop culture in a similar way to how WWII was? Could we see a huge commotion as the last great wars veterans died? What about games, like call of duty, would Gallipoli be shown in a way similar to how D Day was?

 

[Jellico]

I gonna tag @CalBear since he knows a lot about that.

When the last WWII veterans died in the early 2010s we did see some shock and some tributes being done by governments around the world, my country Brazil being one as our last WWI veteran Waldemar Levy Cardoso passed away in 2009. That being said this was not something in a bombastic level and we can be sure that it won't be in the same level as how sad and big things gonna be when the last WWII veterans die.

Assuming there was no WWII, however, how things would have evolved? Could WWI have been portrayed in media and in pop culture in a similar way to how WWII was? Could we see a huge commotion as the last great wars veterans died? What about games, like call of duty, would Gallipoli be shown in a way similar to how D Day was?

Needs more Americans. In the Commonwealth at least, the WWI experience produced more reflective commemorations of soldiers. The lack of a clear bad guy makes it more a case of "let's not do this again," than a celebration of the good guys winning. The passing of the WWI vets in the Commonwealth was more an end of an era thing.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Umm, no. For the US particularly, and also Britain, and even for the USSR, WW II was a triumphant narrative of heroic deeds. For pretty much everyone, it was a chronicle of defeats.

WW I was very different. The only culturally important winners were the US, Britain, France, and Italy. For the US, the war soon became an awkward misadventure in which the US was barely involved, which gained the US nothing, either in material or prestige. For Italy, the cost of the war was immense, its course humiliating (Italy nearly collapsed and had to be bailed out by France and Brit,ain), and its results very disappointing (a "mutilated victory"). For France, the cost was immense, the course frustrating, and the result mediocre. For Britain, the cost was high, the course frequently embarrassing (e.g. the fiascos of Gallipoli, Kut-el-Amara, and the Somme), and the result confusing.

Aside from the colorful drama of war in the air, there was nothing anybody could portray as "adventure".

When the last WWII veterans died in the early 2010s we did see some shock and some tributes being done by governments around the world...

A few years ago, I saw a presentation on The Last of the Doughboys by author Richard Rubin. Starting in 2003, he located and interviewed the last surviving US veterans of WW I. He was substantially assisted by the French government, which a few years earlier had decided to award the Legion d'Honneur to every surviving American who had served in France (so they had a list of them).

 

[Gukpard]

Umm, no. For the US particularly, and also Britain, and even for the USSR, WW II was a triumphant narrative of heroic deeds. For pretty much everyone, it was a chronicle of defeats.

WW I was very different. The only culturally important winners were the US, Britain, France, and Italy. For the US, the war soon became an awkward misadventure in which the US was barely involved, which gained the US nothing, either in material or prestige. For Italy, the cost of the war was immense, its course humiliating (Italy nearly collapsed and had to be bailed out by France and Brit,ain), and its results very disappointing (a "mutilated victory"). For France, the cost was immense, the course frustrating, and the result mediocre. For Britain, the cost was high, the course frequently embarrassing (e.g. the fiascos of Gallipoli, Kut-el-Amara, and the Somme), and the result confusing.

Aside from the colorful drama of war in the air, there was nothing anybody could portray as "adventure".

A few years ago, I saw a presentation on The Last of the Doughboys by author Richard Rubin. Starting in 2003, he located and interviewed the last surviving US veterans of WW I. He was substantially assisted by the French government, which a few years earlier had decided to award the Legion d'Honneur to every surviving American who had served in France (so they had a list of them).

But like, as mass media turns more common like movies and then video games, without a conflict like WWII the only period to lionise in that scale would be WWI, won't that make it be extremely well remembered?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

But like, as mass media turns more common like movies and then video games, without a conflict like WWII the only period to lionise in that scale would be WWI, won't that make it be extremely well remembered?

There was 20 years between WW I and WW II for Hollywood and its British and French equivalents to make WW I heroic-adventure movies. They didn't.

 

[Lalli]

I don't think that world without WW2 sees WW1 much if any more positive light. It would be handled as tragic chapter on history of 20th century. Yes, German imperialism and militarims was stopped but with huge price and screwing old system for years and even seeing fall of old empires and rise of communist state.

 

[Gukpard]

There was 20 years between WW I and WW II for Hollywood and its British and French equivalents to make WW I heroic-adventure movies. They didn't.

I mean, that is before the kind of media I mentioned, and still one of the main classics of war movies got done at this time, "All quiet in the western front".

If we get to the time we can make huge battles using CGI, massive artillery shelling and thousands of peoples in fields I can imagine WWI getting a level of fame closer to what WWII had.

 

[Gillan1220]

I think without World War II, World War I would simply be known as The Great War. It would still be seen as a turning point of history and modern warfare, especially for how this alternate 20th century would develop.

 

[Crazyduck156]

For the US, the war soon became an awkward misadventure in which the US was barely involved, which gained the US nothing, either in material or prestige.

I dont think the majority of the British Empire's piggy bank counts as nothing

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I dont think the majority of the British Empire's piggy bank counts as nothing

Which didn't make up for the amount of money the US spent on the war

If the US had stayed neutral then yes it would have gained something, and avoided having 80% of its loans defaulted on

 

[Garrison]

I gonna tag @CalBear since he knows a lot about that.

When the last WWII veterans died in the early 2010s we did see some shock and some tributes being done by governments around the world, my country Brazil being one as our last WWI veteran Waldemar Levy Cardoso passed away in 2009. That being said this was not something in a bombastic level and we can be sure that it won't be in the same level as how sad and big things gonna be when the last WWII veterans die.

Assuming there was no WWII, however, how things would have evolved? Could WWI have been portrayed in media and in pop culture in a similar way to how WWII was? Could we see a huge commotion as the last great wars veterans died? What about games, like call of duty, would Gallipoli be shown in a way similar to how D Day was?

WW2 reinforced the idea that WW1 was futile, but overall you would probably have to avoid the Great Depression and have the Versailles Treaty either be harsher, hammering home the idea that Germany lost, or make it milder to undermine the idea of it being something that Germany had to avenge to really undercut the futility narrative that certainly became embedded in the British psyche. Of course if WW2 is avoided I would assume something along those lines did happen.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I mean, that is before the kind of media I mentioned, and still one of the main classics of war movies got done at this time, "All quiet in the western front".

Which is an exploration, from the losers' side, of the horror and futility of the war. AFAICT, nearly all films about WW I made before WW II are similar. And there were very few. Nobody wanted to relive any aspect of WW I.

 

[dfl_90]

My initial reaction is to assume WWI's reputation remains somewhat similar to OTL, being seen as a sad, costly affair that no one walked away any better for. However, thinking it over, I do wonder if that feeling is amplified by the knowledge that WWII would follow and would usher in even more tragic events. Had WWI been it and no global conflicts followed, I wonder if we might view more as a historical inflection point that ushered in a more modern age. Perhaps a bit like the French Revolution.

 

[The Link]

WW I was very different. The only culturally important winners were the US, Britain, France, and Italy.

You're forgetting about the central european nations, most of whom see ww1 as a great victory and fulfillment of their national goals: Serbs, Romanians, Poles etc.

 

[The Link]

My initial reaction is to assume WWI's reputation remains somewhat similar to OTL, being seen as a sad, costly affair that no one walked away any better for. However, thinking it over, I do wonder if that feeling is amplified by the knowledge that WWII would follow and would usher in even more tragic events. Had WWI been it and no global conflicts followed, I wonder if we might view more as a historical inflection point that ushered in a more modern age. Perhaps a bit like the French Revolution.

No one walked away any better for? As much as I understand why the western nations might dislike ww1, the world doesn't resolve around them.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There was 20 years between WW I and WW II for Hollywood and its British and French equivalents to make WW I heroic-adventure movies. They didn't.

They did for the air war.

 

[dfl_90]

No one walked away any better for? As much as I understand why the western nations might dislike ww1, the world doesn't resolve around them.

What examples would you refer to? Even outside of Europe, most involved nations had grievances regarding the conflict. Africans fought on numerous fronts, but saw no real positive improvements as German colonies were scooped up by the British and imperialism lived on. The Middle East was saw the Ottoman Empire deconstructed and the various aspirant nations within it deceived and subjected to French and British intervention. Central Asia experienced political turmoil and famine as the Russian Revolution took hold of it. India saw a mixed bag, earning some political reform but being tempered by wartime crackdowns on dissent and having its independence quashed for several more decades. China tried to leverage its involvement to do away with treaty ports and other unfair arrangements that had been forced on them by Western powers and Japan, but were denied and refused to sign the peace treaty. Similarly Japan, despite making some minor territorial gains, failed to get its goal of racial equality worked into the League of Nations charter, thus isolating it further from the existing international order. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all experienced traumatic losses in service of the British. America performed relatively poorly in the last leg of the war, saw its peace plan tempered by the Europeans, and failed to join the League of Nations. Brazil might be the only reasonably decent outcome from the war, having seen its industry grow and achieved a degree of satisfaction in having revenge for German submarine attacks, but it too experienced some political upheaval and repression during the war itself, so not entirely a positive experience.

 

[The Link]

What examples would you refer to? Even outside of Europe, most involved nations had grievances regarding the conflict. Africans fought on numerous fronts, but saw no real positive improvements as German colonies were scooped up by the British and imperialism lived on. The Middle East was saw the Ottoman Empire deconstructed and the various aspirant nations within it deceived and subjected to French and British intervention. Central Asia experienced political turmoil and famine as the Russian Revolution took hold of it. India saw a mixed bag, earning some political reform but being tempered by wartime crackdowns on dissent and having its independence quashed for several more decades. China tried to leverage its involvement to do away with treaty ports and other unfair arrangements that had been forced on them by Western powers and Japan, but were denied and refused to sign the peace treaty. Similarly Japan, despite making some minor territorial gains, failed to get its goal of racial equality worked into the League of Nations charter, thus isolating it further from the existing international order. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all experienced traumatic losses in service of the British. America performed relatively poorly in the last leg of the war, saw its peace plan tempered by the Europeans, and failed to join the League of Nations. Brazil might be the only reasonably decent outcome from the war, having seen its industry grow and achieved a degree of satisfaction in having revenge for German submarine attacks, but it too experienced some political upheaval and repression during the war itself, so not entirely a positive experience.

I'm talking about the minor nations of Central Europe, and how they benefited from the collapse of the bigger players in the region. Czechs and Slovaks no longer faced germanisation/magyarization, Poles regained their homeland, the Baltic States were formed, Finland was formed, Serbia and Romania were united with what they saw as "their missing pieces". I understand why the people outside of Central Europe dislike ww1, but it's kinda tiring to hear over and over again how it was supposedly a tragedy for everyone. For those I listed, 1918 was a beginning of the long awaited times.

When it comes to colonies, I don't see how their fate without ww1 would be any different. As for Japan, Japan's "lack of being appreciated" is overrated. The japanese military involvement was merely about taking some tiny german colonies.

 

[Lalli]

I'm talking about the minor nations of Central Europe, and how they benefited from the collapse of the bigger players in the region. Czechs and Slovaks no longer faced germanisation/magyarization, Poles regained their homeland, the Baltic States were formed, Finland was formed, Serbia and Romania were united with what they saw as "their missing pieces". I understand why the people outside of Central Europe dislike ww1, but it's kinda tiring to hear over and over again how it was supposedly a tragedy for everyone. For those I listed, 1918 was a beginning of the long awaited times.

When it comes to colonies, I don't see how their fate without ww1 would be any different. As for Japan, Japan's "lack of being appreciated" is overrated. The japanese military involvement was merely about taking some tiny german colonies.

Finland had bloody civil war almost immediately after it had declared its independence and was deeply divided until Winter War and politically instable and there was even one coup d'etat by far-right wing. Yes, russification and opression of the tsar was over but things didn't really changed much better.

Baltics were too incredibly instable and fell to dictatorships. Ok, they too were liberated from Russia and didn't become part of German imperialist sphere.

Poland finally got its freedom back but was pretty instable and became authotarian. Furthermore it had too bad relationships with Lithuania and Germany.

Ok, Czechoslovakia might had been bit better.

Yes, Serbs got their Yugoslavia but was all that instability worth of that? Well, Serbia just could had blamed itself when it took parts which didn't want to be part of Greater Serbia and didn't give them much if any rights.

Romania got Transylvania and Bessarabia but ended to be ruled by fascist Iron Guard.

But still for majority of world's population still would see whole World War as pointless war which killed millions people and casue lot of damage without giving lot of benefit.

 

[dfl_90]

I'm talking about the minor nations of Central Europe, and how they benefited from the collapse of the bigger players in the region. Czechs and Slovaks no longer faced germanisation/magyarization, Poles regained their homeland, the Baltic States were formed, Finland was formed, Serbia and Romania were united with what they saw as "their missing pieces". I understand why the people outside of Central Europe dislike ww1, but it's kinda tiring to hear over and over again how it was supposedly a tragedy for everyone. For those I listed, 1918 was a beginning of the long awaited times.

When it comes to colonies, I don't see how their fate without ww1 would be any different. As for Japan, Japan's "lack of being appreciated" is overrated. The japanese military involvement was merely about taking some tiny german colonies.

I'm not going to dissect all your examples, but I think you're taking an overly rosy, 30,000 foot view of what those nations actually experienced. Poland, just to be my primary counterpoint, saw somewhere around 5% of its population killed in the war, was subjected to scorched earth policies by retreating armies, suffered massive population transfers, wasn't in control of its own independence process, was denied the borders it fought for, faced a postwar famine, and was quickly forced into wars with its neighbors, fighting Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, and the Soviet Union with just a few years of independence.

As for Japan, frankly you're dismissing a very important moment in history. One of their primary motivators was to be present at the peace talks, where it could leverage its participation in the war in order to secure more equal footing with the Western Powers. The failure of the "racial equality" clause was a true embarrassment for Japan and reduced its faith that the League of Nations would act as an impartial mediating body. That heavily contributed to its decision to abandon the organization a little more than a decade later. Additionally, the war overheated Japan's economy, causing inflation and riots. Those problems, combined with Japan's perceived diplomatic failures, helped make a persuasive argument for militarists that Japan needed to pursue a more unilateral foreign policy to achieve its goals and maintain economic self-sufficiency.