This is all true. However, in WWII - and especially since then, which is what matters when you decide where to set a story - there were clearly defined villains to be fought against, and however horrific the particulars may have been, fighting Imperial Japan and especially the Nazis was a Good Thing. Hitler was a terrifying monster, the monster to end all monsters in the decades since, and the crimes of Japan are well known. "The Axis of ____" continues to be a shorthand phrase for power. That's what made WWII "The Good War" ever since, because however terrible it was and especially the effect it had on various civilian populations, it had to be fought because Hitler had to be taken down.
Well, that's the comfortable myth, sure, but there were evils on both sides. We allied with Stalin, remember, not to mention imprisoning our own Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps. Not to mention that both sides bombed each other's civilian populations into oblivion with equal brutality. The American wartime propaganda against the Japanese was as horrifically racist as any Nazi propaganda. Yes, Hitler had to be fought, but neither side's hands were clean.
WWI is... much much less cleanly defined. Yeah there were clearly sides, but what made the goals of the German Empire and France really all that different? The whole thing grew into a monster of its own making because of the interlocking forces of nationalism and alliance-building and the simmering rivalry between the UK and Germany. The War itself is poorly understood today because it can't be summed up in simple emotional phrases and its the more likely to be seen as a pointless waste of human life.
I think it's easy for us to see WWII as "good" in retrospect than it was for the people who lived through the horror of it all. The attitude I've heard in period fiction produced shortly after the war's end was not "Wow, that all-out war against evil really worked, let's use the same tactics next time!" It was "This war was necessary, but it was awful and it took a horrific physical and moral toll on all of us, and if we ever let this happen again, it will doom the world. So we must make sure there is never another war like this, period." And they kinda succeeded. They didn't banish war altogether, as they hoped to do, but every war since then has been on a much smaller, less globally cataclysmic scale.
You're underestimating the effect that the Great War had on the collective psyche of the world. Nobody in the aftermath of WWII tried to write a Kellog-Briand Pact - perhaps because nobody thought it would work after the first failed, but it's still notable that after WWI, much of the world collectively decided to outlaw war itself.
And they did so after WWII as well, as I've been saying. Sure, WWI was the start of it, but it was the dress rehearsal for WWII. They're both really just one long, continuous process with a lull in the middle.