Why is WWII taught so extensively in most countries yet WWI is just glossed over?
- Thread starter Sticky Squid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My class glanced over World War I itself mainly because America barely fought in the war. However, we did spend quite a bit of time looking at causes of the war and the steps Wilson took in preparing us for war. We also spent some time looking through the direct results of World War I and how that would impact American society in the 1920's and World War II.
In Scotland WWI consists as a third of our exam (I think, that or it's a huge chunk), my school even took us on a WWI field trip to Ypres.
WWII was, for me, taught in primary school, even then not much. Although my history class did focus on appeasement and the rise of nazi Germany in the middle years.
So pretty much the opposite of what OP thinks. Personally I believe I got taught that way because WWII is more black and White in terms of who was good and bad, whereas in WWI, no one was 100% kosherand as such, there's more to learn about, so to speak.
WWII was, for me, taught in primary school, even then not much. Although my history class did focus on appeasement and the rise of nazi Germany in the middle years.
So pretty much the opposite of what OP thinks. Personally I believe I got taught that way because WWII is more black and White in terms of who was good and bad, whereas in WWI, no one was 100% kosherand as such, there's more to learn about, so to speak.
I'm very depressed at the fact I must agree. American movies have tainted and destroyed history. We watched saving private ryan and the entire class except me thought that only americans invaded on D-Day.Instant K4rma said:
But we had some vietnam vets come into our school and talk about vietnam and how stupid the americans acted most of the time
. I almost wet myself about the true fact that Australia had made 16 helicopters for vietnam and came back with 17. One was bought from an American for a slab of beer. Australians had barely any resources, so when they went to American bases and saw coke and chips they stole a whole lot of it, then sold it back to the yanks .Sorry, I got side-tracked. I don't want to hate on America but many movies are taken as fact, which they should never be. I loved schindler's list (not in an anti-Semitic way) but after reading American information about the holocaust, it strongly emphasised that the jews were the only one who were slaughtered, not communists, gays, retards. etc.
Anyway, yes, I notice WW1 is barely taught in America compared to WW2. But schools in Aus, UK, Canada, etc. Are taught WW1 much more as it is more a european war rather than a world war.
In Australia we are not taught much about the pacific theatre. Only Kokoda as it was Australia's best victory, the "under-dog" story and how we fought along side the Papua New Guineans. But then a lack of American pacific fighting which annoyed me.
It's taught pretty widely in the UK, but part of the reason is probably that WWI is less pleasant and the fact it was much less of a 'righteous' war in as much as there is such a thing. In WWI it, like 90% of wars, was a fight over territory and land, whereas WWII was a bonafide battle against evil.
The aftermath of WWII had social, economic, and political ramifications that still affect modern civilization. The formation of Communist China, the independence of India, the rise of the American middle class - all of these are a direct or indirect result of WWII.jck4332 said:
So yeah, mostly because it's far more recent.
Both wars are taught in my school but i think that WW2 is talked about a lot more and that is why it seems to be more topical. I think it has a lot to do with our generation and a lot to do with video games. look at how many WW2 games are out there and still being made. EA has dug up that grave so many times its become a gaming cliche. I was expecting some WW1 games to come out eventually but then i thought to my self, what would a WW1 game entail? almost the entire war was fought in the trenches and depictions of WW1 seem to be simply horrifying and lack the "American Hero" that depictions of WW2 seem to want to include. I believe both wars were horrific conflicts and deserve equal respect, but if you think about it, WW2 had distinctive sides with well established good and evil that you can see in most games today, primarily KILLZONE, its almost a direct reference to Nazis and the Third Reich. With WW1 you just have a bunch of countries fighting with no absolute evil to combat.
1) Germany invaded Russia in "Operation Barbarossa". Russia was not a big softy as it single-handedly crushed the German army. If you're talking of WW1: The triple entendre was a pact between France, Britain, Russia. Russia was obligated to help, also, helping their slavic allies was very important to Russia.Korolev said:
2) Not true. It was as devastating and world changing as WW2. Maybe a little less.
3) The war was started after Arch Duke Ferdinand was shot and killed by Slavic revolutionaries. Which caused an ultimatum, which sparked a war, which caused further German\Austrian invasions of Belgium. The Americans were not needed. I find it extremely offensive as an Australian to read "some battles". Those "some battles" created Israel in which America loves to protect their evil for Jewish votes. No-one has a reason to fight each other. Consult every American invasion and you'll see that there is "no-reason".
4)I am inclined to agree with you. Stupid Generals did cost the lives of many soldiers. But please read up on "hill 60" that was tactical brilliance.
5) The Tsar fell after/during WW1 not WW2. There is no nobility in war. People like Oppenheimer showed there is not nobility in war.
6)Very true, but I you don't know what it was like to be down one of those trenches either so don't get on your high-horse. Yes, I do agree with you. Many of the generals are incredibly stupid and too proud for their own good but I ask you to read up on history before making an aggravated opinion about it. Okay?
I'm Finnish, and both wars were taught, although what happened during the second world war (Finland kinda beating Russia. Or losing so well it was almost like a victory) is usually remembered more fondly by the Finns than the war-stuff that happened in 1918 (Civil war).
But from a more global perspective, both wars were given equal time.
But from a more global perspective, both wars were given equal time.
In my schooling both were taught equally, however, a separate subject was also often brought up: Nazism and Hitler.
Outside of the context of WWII Hitler and the Nazis teach important lessons about the centralization of power, the ability of good, and normal people to stand by and watch, or even commit atrocities, and the danger of discrimination. The Holocaust and the racist undertones of the Second World War simply have more content, in the case of World War One, aside from the battles, the politics and reasoning for the war is pretty fuzzy. Basically for over a decade, everyone had been gearing up for a fight, and the conflict between Austro-Hungary and Serbia was simply the spark that set it all ablaze.
Outside of the context of WWII Hitler and the Nazis teach important lessons about the centralization of power, the ability of good, and normal people to stand by and watch, or even commit atrocities, and the danger of discrimination. The Holocaust and the racist undertones of the Second World War simply have more content, in the case of World War One, aside from the battles, the politics and reasoning for the war is pretty fuzzy. Basically for over a decade, everyone had been gearing up for a fight, and the conflict between Austro-Hungary and Serbia was simply the spark that set it all ablaze.
both wars are taught extensively in the UK and the time in between. Causality is a big part of history.
allot more atroceties where committed in WWII
Human experimentation (by both the Nazi,s and Japanese)
the use of Nuclear weapons
genocide
etc.
also nearly the entire world was involved.
Human experimentation (by both the Nazi,s and Japanese)
the use of Nuclear weapons
genocide
etc.
also nearly the entire world was involved.
That only applies to the land war, and then not so much by the end.Korolev said:
Naval battles took place all over the world, and there were competent naval commanders.
As the land war dragged on, things had improved (in places). New technologies were developed in an attempt to break the stalemate, along with new tactics and strategies. The stereotype of incompetent leaders refusing to lead is strongly based in fact, but not a constant feature of the fighting.
In England we studied WW1 a lot in year 9, but we studied WW2 more and we did WW2 for GCSE (well, we did the subject of Nazi Germany, not so much about the war itself although we have studied that).
I think it may be because WW2 is more heroic. In WW1, the only reason there was a war was because of alliances - if we hadn't have created alliances the only war would have been an almost civil war between two countries next to each other in a different part of Europe. It wouldn't have been good, but it would have been better than getting other countries involved to fight each other. Then they made the what I consider unfair treaty, which led to WW2. Now, to me, the soldiers of WW2 are more relatable. Not that I don't think WW1 soldiers were brave men, but their cause wasn't one I agreed with - they were fighting for their country because their country told them to, fair enough, but it wasn't like they were stopping some evil force taking over like they were with the Nazi's. I believe our fighting the Nazi's was an understandable and just war, as not only were they taking over half of Europe AND(remember this is from a British point of view) us with regular bombings, but they were persecuting millions of jews and POW's and whoever else they felt the need to. Again, in history classes in England/Britain (I'm not sure if it's really any different in Scotland or Wales or even Ireland, I doubt it's taught much differently) will teach us that not only did we help defend other countries, but most importantly The Battle Of Britain stopped a force that had taken over so many places in Europe take over our tiny little island. We pwned them. So basically yeah, we're taught WW2 more because not only is it a more understandable war but our soldiers were a lot more heroic.
I think it may be because WW2 is more heroic. In WW1, the only reason there was a war was because of alliances - if we hadn't have created alliances the only war would have been an almost civil war between two countries next to each other in a different part of Europe. It wouldn't have been good, but it would have been better than getting other countries involved to fight each other. Then they made the what I consider unfair treaty, which led to WW2. Now, to me, the soldiers of WW2 are more relatable. Not that I don't think WW1 soldiers were brave men, but their cause wasn't one I agreed with - they were fighting for their country because their country told them to, fair enough, but it wasn't like they were stopping some evil force taking over like they were with the Nazi's. I believe our fighting the Nazi's was an understandable and just war, as not only were they taking over half of Europe AND(remember this is from a British point of view) us with regular bombings, but they were persecuting millions of jews and POW's and whoever else they felt the need to. Again, in history classes in England/Britain (I'm not sure if it's really any different in Scotland or Wales or even Ireland, I doubt it's taught much differently) will teach us that not only did we help defend other countries, but most importantly The Battle Of Britain stopped a force that had taken over so many places in Europe take over our tiny little island. We pwned them. So basically yeah, we're taught WW2 more because not only is it a more understandable war but our soldiers were a lot more heroic.