My answer on Quora.
There wasn’t as clear a case of good v evil as there was for WWII. Yes the Kaiser had his faults (German action in Belgium in particular was horrendous) but on a scale of depravity he didn’t even come close to the Nazi despot.
In the East the Japanese military during WWII clearly transgressed all accepted norms of conduct with with the Rape of Nanking, their treatment of prisoners and war and the barbarism shown to conquered people. Defeating Tojo and co. scaffolded well into the dichotomy of the force of Light overcoming the Sith.
Add to that the clash of personalities in WWII …Churchill/Stalin v Hitler and you have many sub-plots that make for great reading and subsequent pedestal elevating, despite the fact that abuses were committed by both the Allies and the Axis. Nobody’s hands were clean although one can with careful analysis differentiate by degree of action.
WWII also had a much more obvious resolution than did WWI. It was also a greater expression of the notion of Total War in the way that it impacted civilian populations. In addition it posted a greater global impact that fed into the narrative of the ideological struggle. In a sense it represented a playing out of the politicism that engulfed the Modern world in the 20th century.
On a practical level the Generals and Admirals and Air Marshals were all the more competent in WWII, the weaponry vastly more impressive and the scope of tactics of greater study worthiness.
Where WWI did dominate from a Romantic perspective is that the quality of poetry dwarfed the later conflict. WWII lacked its Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Waiting around in trenches for events to happen was conducive to such writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment