Why is WWII taught so extensively in most countries yet WWI is just glossed over?

[MrFluffy-X]

Yes WWI caused WWII but in comparison....WWI was boring.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I took History for GCSE.
Studied both WW1 and WW2 very briefly.
Then we focused on the Nazis and Germany around that time.

 

[___________________]

A lot of us see them as one and the same with a 21 year time period in between filled with instability...WWI never really ended. It was just one WW. It was like the calm before the storm/final act. Opening act - WWI, second act - instability and storm brewing, final act - nazi shitstorm.

 

[DoctorPhil]

Because it's more recent. It sucks, I always was very interested in WW1 as a kid because you never heard about. We never once had a class about it in my entire school career.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

As I understand, WW2 is simply mentioned more because it was more memorable, probably because of the death camps and Adolf Hitler, mainly.

 

[kobrian]

As I understand, WW2 is simply mentioned more because it was more memorable, probably because of the camps and the protagonist, mainly.

Also there still people alive from the event, so it makes sense I suppose.

 

[Ace of Spades]

It's because WWI is a much more traditional war, in which there were no good guys and bad guys, and ended with a lot of money getting wasted, a lot of people getting killed, and nothing being accomplished except for crippling Germany's ability to operate.

WWII, conversely, featured one of the most evil and easily antagonized leaders in history, and as such is much easier for the winners to spend massive amounts of time banging on about.

 

[Jimmybobjr]

In addition, WW1 shaped, and still is shaping, Australian society. Without WW1, Australia would be a much different place- we might have closer ties to britan, for example. World War 2 simply doesnt have that effect-

Er...alot of the move away from Britain was due to Curtin in WW2. With British forces far away dealing with their own issues, they couldn't devote much to the Pacific campagin, so attention shifted to the US.

WW1 had major Australian-Fought conflicts though, Such as defence of the middle east and The Dardanelles Campaign, in which Australia first truly actiualy did something that united the country.

Hey? Yes, those campaigns were the first fought by Australian infantry as Australians, but they were still part of a larger group of Allied forces, same as in WW2.

Though, the first battle fought by Australians as Australians didn't have any other Allied forces in it at all, that was the sinking of the German warship Emden by the HMAS Sydney (though it was almost a Japanese ship that did it instead), but everyone tends to forget that.

You are rather missing my point- and i understand why. i didnt make myself very clear.
What i mean by meaning that we might have had closer ties to Britan, is that it was a example. And Curtin certanly did remove most of the ties that were remaining, but i was just using it as an example- many other things may have not changed if things had happened differently.

What i was getting at when i mentioned that Australians fought major battles as a country is that we fought it AS A COUNTRY. Yes, there were american, canadian, french, New zelanders and whatever else, but AUSTRALIANS fought as AUSTRALIA. People from Perth, From Alice Springs, From Darwin, From Sydney, From Melbourne all came together to work towards a clear goal- Something that had no been accomplished ever before, simply due to the Geographical factors affecting it. Whether Americans were present or not isnt the point- the point is that Australia was present, and that is what i was getting at.

Although, i would like to point out, im not a Professor in History or anything. i am a 17 year old history student in high-school. We have just finished Australian history and are now starting the Russian Revolution. So, therefore, if im stating anything wrong, its due to my education. However, i would like to think that what im saying is mostly correct.

And in any case, thats not the point of this thread- this thread is about detailing why WW1 is not as studied as WW2, and i have chalanged that statement. Feel free to do whatever you wish with my opinion, but it is my opinion, and is no more wrong than yours or anybody elses.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What i was getting at when i mentioned that Australians fought major battles as a country is that we fought it AS A COUNTRY. Yes, there were american, canadian, french, New zelanders and whatever else, but AUSTRALIANS fought as AUSTRALIA. People from Perth, From Alice Springs, From Darwin, From Sydney, From Melbourne all came together to work towards a clear goal- Something that had no been accomplished ever before, simply due to the Geographical factors affecting it. Whether Americans were present or not isnt the point- the point is that Australia was present, and that is what i was getting at.

Ah, right, I see what you mean.

Actually, it's not technically true, though. Federation happened during the Boer War, Australian forces fighting there before Federation were raised from the various individual parts of Australia individually, but after Federation, more forces were raised representing the Commonwealth as a whole.

On the other hand, nobody remembers the Boer war except to quote from Breaker Morant, so WW1 is generally taken to be the first conflict the Commonwealth was involved in, yes.

[small]And a bit more negotiation might have seen New Zealand joining the Commonwealth...oh well...[/small]

 

[Toriver]

Here's what I'm gathering from all this: each country tends to focus on the conflict between the two that tended to affect their own country's history more. So in the case of the US, that's obviously WW2, and in the case of Australia that's obviously WW1. The UK seems more split between the two, from what I understand depending on your school and education, but I'm seeing a bit more of a slant towards WW1, as the UK and France were effectively the countries that "won" WW1 for the Triple Entente, whereas in WW2 the UK was more one integral part of a force of many countries banding together to stop fascism (and it was ultimately the Soviets who both "won" the European theater and paid the highest military price for it). It's just whichever conflict was more "important" to each particular country. The effects (though not necessarily the causes, at least of WW1,) of both were of world-shaking importance that still endure to this day, and we should never forget either conflict.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I was at primary school and being taught about WW1 before the National Curriculum was introduced, so perhaps the teachers at my school felt that WW1 and an awareness of why we remember it was particularly important.

Which is odd, because I'm 10 years prior to you, Middle England and we got jack all about WW1.

HUGE amounts on why Hitler was a bad man...but even then there wasn't explanations of Göring, Goeballs etc. Just deathcamps. Russia wasn't even mentioned.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Yeah, here in the Netherlands WW1 didn't affect us at all so we barely know about it.

 

[TimeLord]

I learned about WW1 quite extensively in school, spend nearly a whole year on the subject in 3rd year. Everything from the causes, the war itself and the aftermath leading to WW2.

 

[alucards1hell]

In my old school WWII was given the same time frame to be taught in as WWI, our teacher got fairly bored with the political aspects and instead told us all about the Doctor's trials...bit weird and not really examinable!

 

[faceless chick]

because america can pretend they actually did somethign good for once and it wasn't a total coincidence.
also, since america only had 3 wars in it's entire history (they will pretend everything post 1945 never happened), they will promote the best war they had with every occasion they have.

also, jews+ hollywood+ big production money...you do the math.

seriously, this is what happens when you mess with the jews.

napoleon did everything that hitler did, minus the jews. result?

napoleon= quirky hero
hitler= worse than satan

 

[faceless chick]

It's because WWI is a much more traditional war, in which there were no good guys and bad guys, and ended with a lot of money getting wasted, a lot of people getting killed, and nothing being accomplished except for crippling Germany's ability to operate.

WWII, conversely, featured one of the most evil and easily antagonized leaders in history, and as such is much easier for the winners to spend massive amounts of time banging on about.

stalin?
oh wait no, he won.

actually, it was evil vs evil.
whichever side won, the world lost (unless you were america and some of western europe, obviously) btw, that's not nearly as much of the world as it sounds to you guys.

everything else is propaganda.

 

[Ace of Spades]

It's because WWI is a much more traditional war, in which there were no good guys and bad guys, and ended with a lot of money getting wasted, a lot of people getting killed, and nothing being accomplished except for crippling Germany's ability to operate.

WWII, conversely, featured one of the most evil and easily antagonized leaders in history, and as such is much easier for the winners to spend massive amounts of time banging on about.

stalin?
oh wait no, he won.

actually, it was evil vs evil.
whichever side won, the world lost (unless you were america and some of western europe, obviously) btw, that's not nearly as much of the world as it sounds to you guys.

everything else is propaganda.

You're totally right. Stalin had to wait until Hitler was out of the way before he could become the new big bad.

 

[Baldry]

In my history class we learnt about neither and rather about the nazis and what lead up to their rise and how the held their power and that sort of stuff.