I think Trotsky's equivocation between WW1 and WW2 is just wrong. The first was not a genocidal war. It was not a war that leveled most of Europe. It was a meat grinder fought along lines that shifted a few dozen miles over 4 years. You could be a civilian 50 miles from the front lines and go out and watch the bombs exploding with not too much risk.
WW2 introduced industrial machinery and aviation to the battle field. Now if you were 50 miles from the front, that front could come to you in a few hours. Or the front could stay and bombers could level your home. The war was now fought everywhere. That kind of encirclement will naturally turn the perpetrators of such violence into animals to the victims.
The Armenian genocide was a component of WWI... Not to mention Jewish pogroms that occurred during the war. Also, several crushed revolutions during the War were genocidal.
I'm totally wrong. I still think there was a difference between the scale of violence or at least where that violence reached society between the wars, but yeah.
Why did Trotsky think that WW1 was a more "gentlemanly" war then? Was he too ignoring the pogroms and Armenian genocide?
"Where that violence reached" is the biggest factor in my opinion. We are taught the World Wars from the perspective of Britain, France, Germany, and the US.
The colonization of the Americas, Africa, and China were at least comparable to the World Wars, but we are not taught to see them as such.
The Eastern Front in both Wars were horribly bloody, but they are always overshadowed by the narrative of the Western Front.
Why did Trotsky think that WW1 was a more “gentlemanly” war then?
I don't know what Trotsky means by that lol. I guess the Western Front did not target civilians as much in WWI? I don't know. I don't like Trotsky lol
I think Trotsky's equivocation between WW1 and WW2 is just wrong. The first was not a genocidal war. It was not a war that leveled most of Europe. It was a meat grinder fought along lines that shifted a few dozen miles over 4 years. You could be a civilian 50 miles from the front lines and go out and watch the bombs exploding with not too much risk.
WW2 introduced industrial machinery and aviation to the battle field. Now if you were 50 miles from the front, that front could come to you in a few hours. Or the front could stay and bombers could level your home. The war was now fought everywhere. That kind of encirclement will naturally turn the perpetrators of such violence into animals to the victims.
The Armenian genocide was a component of WWI... Not to mention Jewish pogroms that occurred during the war. Also, several crushed revolutions during the War were genocidal.
I'm totally wrong. I still think there was a difference between the scale of violence or at least where that violence reached society between the wars, but yeah.
Why did Trotsky think that WW1 was a more "gentlemanly" war then? Was he too ignoring the pogroms and Armenian genocide?
"Where that violence reached" is the biggest factor in my opinion. We are taught the World Wars from the perspective of Britain, France, Germany, and the US.
The colonization of the Americas, Africa, and China were at least comparable to the World Wars, but we are not taught to see them as such.
The Eastern Front in both Wars were horribly bloody, but they are always overshadowed by the narrative of the Western Front.
I don't know what Trotsky means by that lol. I guess the Western Front did not target civilians as much in WWI? I don't know. I don't like Trotsky lol
It makes a lot of sense that the places hit hardest by the first war were driven to revolution.
And I agree, Trotsky is absolutely a "fascism whore". The more I read about and by him, the more I hate his guts.