Historians have in recent years argued that WW1 and WW2 were essentially the same war, the battles of the latter merely a continuance of the former, and simply separated by an armistice of 20 years duration (much like the many gaps in fighting during the 100 years war). Biggest proponent of this argument seems to be Professor Niall Ferguson in his book "The War of the World", who actually goes so far as to say all the colonial wars and minor conflicts of the 20th century, as well as the two world wars, were in fact part of one huge, long running conflict that resulted ultimately in the decline in power - militarily and economically - of the west , and the rise to dominance of the east. But, focusing on the two world wars, it's not hard to see such a link between the two. The second was born out of the first, at least as far as Europe was concerned, and with hindsight it is all too easy to see how the reparation demands placed on Germany and the allied re-drawing of the map of Europe post November 1918 was bound to lead to a second European conflict, with all the potential therein to escalate into a global war once more. So, do you think it's right to conflate the two world wars from an academic, historical perspective? Or were they entirely separate, springing out of entirely different geo-politics?