Why do historians consider WWI and WWII two separate wars?

by coregmrconman

I have been doing a lot of reading and watching of documentaries about both wars and one thing I keep coming up with is that there were so many continuations of smaller battles across Europe, Asia and Africa after WWI that just kept causing domino effects until we get into WWII. So is it fair to consider both wars as one?

Superplaner

I mean sure, you can. There are two main theories that does, the Second Thirty Years War Theory and the Long War Theory. Either might help you understand the interconnected nature of the two conflicts but both do so without answering questions like "Why this specific geographic limitation" or "why this specific time frame". Of course the second world war is connected to the first world war but it was not the inevitable continuation of the first world war as the Second Thirty Years Wars Theory attempts to present it as. The first world war can in turn trace it's roots to, among other things, the Franco-Prussian War which in turn can trace its roots to the Napoleonic Wars etc etc.

All of history within a certain region is in a sense connected but the first and second world wars are very much two separate conflicts. Attempts to present them as a single long conflict generally raises more questions than it answers and creates more problems than it solves. Anyway, I've written about this pretty extensively in the past. See this and this post for additional information. If you have further questions, feel free to hit me up.