I think there are some very basic differences. First. WWII was the result of Hitler's intention to conquer the Soviet Union. However to do this he had to invade Poland. Poland had guarantors - France and the UK- whereas Syria does not have guarantors, and neither is it simply "in someone's way" on the way to somewhere else as Poland was. However once France and the UK actually honoured their guarantee to Poland, Hitler had to invade Denmark and Norway, to prevent the UK and France landing forces in Norway, then had to invade Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg to get to France, then was dragged by the idiot Mussolini into further basically separate wars in Greece, Yugoslavia and North Africa. Only then could he undertake his real intention - to invade Russia, but soon afterwards the Japanese and Americans started what could have been a totally separate war. Syria on the other hand is horribly complicated but limited situation, in which three sides (Kurds, ISIS and non-jihadist rebel groups oppose the government, but ISIS, seeing themselves as jihadist, also attack the territory of the other two anti-government groups. Russia is helping Assad, Turkey is attacking the Kurds while pretending to attack ISIS, and the British and French are using up stocks of old armaments to try to convince us they're doing something meaningful. However this not like Libya and Iraq - it's like Yugoslavia. You see there's a simple formula:- Oil x O = Interest x O.
Thanks, do you have any other reasons? I need some people's opinions on the comparisons of the 2 wars for an English assignment. They can be similar in ways of the length and damage they have both caused. If you have opposing views or even views that say they are alike in ways it'll be very helpful!
Actually the differences are far more striking than the similarities. The Syrian War is so limited that it could drag on for decades, largely because there's no real reason for outside forces to join in. Thus the casualties and the damage caused will be way, way less than WWII. Before WWI the German Empire (created following the Franco-Prussian war) became a very dangerous force in Europe. This was partly because of the easy victory handed to them in the Franco-Prussian War. This had two reasons - first the development of much longer range guns, due to the superiority of Krupp steel, and second the dynamically evolving command system of German armies, which meant that any officer or NCO would be replaced instantly in the field when killed. This led the Germans in turn to build up a theory that they were the country destined to rule the world. As they saw it this distinction had passed from Phoenicia to Greece to Rome to Spain to France to the British Empire, and each in turn had become effete and gone under. (Hitler didn't even think about such far-off places as China, the Mongol Empire or Japan). When WWI started it was already a trial of strength between the Russian Empire on one side, and the Turkish, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires on the other, with the British and French Empires (plus a host of smaller nations) being dragged in much more reluctantly. The defeat came as a shock to the Germans, but they swiftly set about rebuilding national confidence. Hitler took the old ideas, and reworked them, adding in the idea of racial superiority and the "stab in the back" by Jews and left-wingers that supposedly caused them to lose WWI. So you see by the time WWII started it was already a return bout between Germany/Austria and Russia, although this had to be postponed until he could subdue Western Europe. However in Syria there are very few ground forces from anywhere outside Syria itself, and all significant command and combat is done by Syrians themselves. Furthermore the whole idea of military trials of strength are anathema in Western Europe, which is more interested in building co-operation, so opportunities for war that in the past might have been seized on, such a Yugoslavia and the Ukraine, are now ignored.