The First World War was between roughly equivalent Nations.
A bit, locally, like the Boer War - like siblings scrapping.
The results were (in my opinion) a throwback to savagery, Stalinism
(not Communism) and the NSDAP (note: not Fascism - that is a
jingoistic term borrowed from the Romans - that preceded, but had
nothing to do with Hitler).
The reversion to primitive tribal outlooks, coupled with rather
advanced weopons, capable of attacking remote civilians (far better
than the odd Zeppelin) resulted in 'Total War' rather than defined
fronts and victims.
In the past, conflict was relatively confined to a defined area,
unpleasant for the people in the wrong place at the wrong time, but in
essence gladiatorial.
In the more distant past, warfare was 'invasion' or 'migration',
(excluding a spot of mugging).
The Cold War has little to do with WWII
- ditto women - they cracked the yoke in WWI
The social (if you mean Class) thing was pretty fragmented by WWI
(shortage of officers), and had possibly been already sorted out by
Britain's new Empire and the expansion of grammar schools.
However, WWII did retain one vital characteristic of earlier warfare,
as the USA was involved, and could act as a supplier of food,
munitions and corpses.
I suggest that you build up your essay using total warfare as the
theme, and then demolish it in the penultimate paragraph. |