Generally yes. But it's important to understand how extremely different the understanding of the Solar System, planetary science, molecular biology, and even geochemistry were a century ago.

It wasn't until the 1950s and '60s that major advances in molecular biology allowed us to understand the fundamental bits and pieces of the molecular machinery of life on Earth. That's when the structure and function of DNA was finally elucidated, when the ribosome was discovered, when the details of photosynthesis were worked out. It's also when the Miller-Urey experiment occurred which showed that a mixture of simple compounds similar to those present on the surface of the early Earth (water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) combined with naturally occurring sources of external energy ("lightning" (sparks) and UV light) could produce "complex" organic molecules (including amino acids and nucleic acid bases) through abiotic processes. That and similar experiments then led into the "RNA-world hypothesis" of the '60s which was the first theory of the abiotic origin of life that was on any sort of sound footing in terms of molecular biology and chemistry.

Meanwhile, the advent of radio astronomy and of good astronomical spectroscopy in the same time period gave us new understandings of the environmental conditions on the surfaces of Mars and Venus. It would still take space probes sent to those planets in the '60s and '70s to fully elucidate those conditions but by then the vision of either planet as similar to Earth or teaming with life had already faded.

In the 1920s the biochemical nature of life was not yet known, nor was the nature of conditions on other planets. That led toward the usual practice of falling back on biases and preconceptions built up from living on Earth. When we spend all our lives immersed within Earth's biosphere we tend to take it for granted, and that was very true a century ago, people thought that biospheres were practically ubiquitous. Moreover, even scientists thought that conditions on Mars and Venus were much more like Earth than they actually were.

Clouds had been observed on Mars from time to time through telescopes, and there had been detections of water vapor in the Martian atmosphere as well, these gave many people the impression of a Mars with rain clouds, some even thought they could see changes in plant cover seasonally. However, the early 20th century was a time of a lot of uncertainty in terms of observation and interpretation of the characteristics of conditions on the surface of Mars. Some correctly identified the "clouds" that had been observed as instead giant dust storms. Others had found Mars to be spectroscopically almost identical to the Moon, with almost no atmosphere and no detectable water vapor. In the mid 1920s observations had begun to show that the Martian surface was generally exceedingly cold, with only isolated areas ever above freezing. This was when astronomers started slowly coming around to the realization that Mars was likely a cold, dead planet that had too thin of an atmosphere to support liquid water and thus probably didn't support life. But this mid-20th century perception of Martian conditions wouldn't solidify until the Mariner 4 flyby in the mid 1960s. The discovery of the Martian surface as pock-marked with craters and more similar to the Moon than Earth sunk almost any remaining hopes about extant life on Mars in the present time (though the later discovery of vast canyons and other features by Mariner 9 would later buoy hopes of potential past life on the planet). However, in the 1920s the science was still up in the air and there wasn't a lot of strong pushback against the public perception of life on Mars being fairly likely.

The perception of conditions on the surface of Venus had a similar trajectory, though considerably delayed. Venus had long been observed to have a massive degree of heavily obscuring cloud cover. The natural bias was to imagine this as Earth-like rain clouds and to see Venus as undergoing something of a Carboniferous era, with planet-wide heavily forested swamps. It wasn't until radar and millimeter wave observations in the '50s and '60s before we knew the rotation rate of the planet as well as the surface temperature. Up until then the knowledge of the thick Venusian atmosphere had been the seed kernel for the idea, even among the scientific community, that under the clouds Venus was much like Earth, with oceans of water and a biosphere chock full of life. Somewhat coincidentally these discoveries occurred at the same time as robotic exploration of Venus began, first with flyby missions in the early '60s by Soviet and American spacecraft, then the first landings on another planet (Venera 7 in 1970) and later additional orbiter, lander, and atmospheric probe missions through the '70s and later. These cemented the findings of early remote sensing observations and in so doing chucked the "Carboniferous Venus" concept firmly in the trash, revealing the world to be even more hellish and inhospitable to life as we know it than Mars.

To quote from Carl Sagan's comprehensive roundup of the state of understanding of Venus at the dawn of the era of robotic exploration of the planet (The Planet Venus - Science, New Series, Vol. 133, No. 3456 (Mar. 24, 1961), pp. 849-858 (note: this is a direct pdf download):

The state of our knowledge of Venus is amply illustrated by the fact that the Carboniferous swamp, the wind-swept desert, the planetary oil field, and the global Seltzer ocean each have their serious proponents, and those planning eventual manned expeditions to Venus must be exceedingly perplexed over whether to send along a paleobotanist, a mineralogist, a petroleum geologist, or a deep-sea diver. But new information has recently become available which probably eliminates three of the four proposed surface environments; taken together with some of the earlier data, it points the way to a consistent picture of the atmosphere and surface of Venus.

The surviving possible scenario being that of a "wind-swept desert". But again, this is only in 1961 that the other options could be fairly conclusively eliminated even with the bleeding edge of the astrophysics community, let alone within public perception.

And on the prospect of life on Venus, Sagan had this to say (same article):

No known terrestrial microorganisms can survive more than a few minutes' exposure to 600 K; proteins are denatured, deoxyribonucleic acid is depolymerized, and even small organic molecules are dissociated in short periods of time. Temperatures at the poles of Venus are probably not more than 100 K cooler than the mean planetary temperature, and it appears quite certain that terrestrial organisms deposited on the surface of the planet would quickly be killed.

[...]

At such high temperatures, and in the absence of liquid water, it appears very unlikely that there are indigenous surface organisms at the present time.

But during the 1920s if you had asked an expert about the prospects of life on Mars or Venus you would probably get a variety of opinions on Mars especially, for Venus you'd probably get general agreement that the surface was teaming with life. And in the public imagination both surface environments would have been thought of as very likely being basically "Earth-like, but a little different". Partly because we didn't understand the true nature and limits of carbon based life as we know it but also partly because we didn't understand the extent of just how "alien" other planets could be.