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

[Mad1Cow]

World War 2 is simpler, it was summed up as "Big bad man want conquer world, get's quite far, fails when America roles in" that's pretty much how most people sum it up (for some reason) (oh and when I say 'summed up' I mean by films/tv/books etc).

World War 1 didn't have a common enemy. It was more that everyone was at war with someone. I think, I wasn't taught too well on these areas (history bored me, deal with it). I know Germany was pretty much the bad guy because of the Treaty of Versailes but they had so many allies with them that time. In WW2 they didn't have too many allies and pretty much rised out of the dumps. Things are remembered and commercialised a lot easier if there's just one guy that the masses focus on. WW1 didn't have that. WW2 did. Heck, even the Cold War did (Stalin) and that has more of a focus than WW2. So that's what I think to the reasoning behind it...

well, WWI, Germany was kinda an up-and-comer, and the allies basically crippled their country, allowing nationalists and extremism in Germany to flourish (creating WW2), but in the same way, Germany thought pretty well of itself, and wanted a bigger piece of the allies' pie (like asking the school bully for his lunch money) and basically were reamed. There were events in other parts of Europe too (Serbs vs. Austrians) which forced the war into starting.

Yeah something like that...it's definately sparking a memory there.

There wasn't any main leader that got focussed on though in WW1 as the bad guy though. You look at the propaganda it was always more "WE NEED YOU" as appossed to America's way of "HERE'S THE BAD GUY, GO KILL HIM!".

See that's the main fault I think we're having here. It's not what is necessarily taught more, it's what's remembered more and because WW2 was just simpler and more classic than WW1 it's remembered easier...or at least plastered everywhere. Though that's just my opinion before I get flamed...

 

[Gaiseric]

My school went into it with a decent amount of detail. I even brought in the Lost Battalion for us to watch.

I have heard people(a few) say that the biggest thing about WW1 is that it lead to WW2.

 

[A.A.K]

hmm...I only learnt a rough outline of WW1, and then we spent a term doing WW2.
I suppose it's because during WW1 everyone in my class was asking about hitler and the teachers got sick of pointing out the young german in a crowd of germans on the dvd.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But even if you take into account every country that was involved, that still leaves 2 entire massive continents that weren't involved in anyway whatsoever,

Er, which two inhabited continents weren't involved in any way in either world war?

 

[ThisIsSnake]

What I want to know is why we persist in calling them "World Wars" when they pretty much just revolved around Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia. Oh sure, we over here in North America joined in too, and Japan got involved in the second one, but the vast majority of the conflict in both wars was centered around the afor mentioned 4 countries. But even if you take into account every country that was involved, that still leaves 2 entire massive continents that weren't involved in anyway whatsoever, 3 if you count Antarctica.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1914wrld.gif

Remember that at this point Britain includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and a large chunk of Africa. The battleground was continental Europe mostly but soldiers from all over the world were dragged into it (Japan was involved in WWI as well). WWII also had naval battles in either one or both poles, some people refer to WWI as 'The Great War' because of the unprecedented casualties.

 

[MorsePacific]

This year I was taught the Great War far more extensively than WWII. You have to understand the causes, practices, and effects it had to truly understand WWII.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Well in the UK WW1 is far from 'glossed over'. Different approaches to it were a large part of 4 different years of my history classes from yr 7 to yr 13. That's actually quite a bit more than what we've done on WW2.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

WWII has a much more readily indentifiable influence on modern Western society. It's probably a better tool for teaching how history influenced present society than WWI.

Then again, when I was in high school we talked extensively about WWI, probably more than WWII. I don't think European history classes are quite so common in other American high schools though.

 

[mkg]

Because WWII set the stage for the American age of imperialism which is what most of us are accustomed to nowadays. When the chinese are number one, there will be another great conflict to establish the chinese age. Just the cycle of things. Just hope it is another cold war.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It's less fun.

As I like to say, WWI was less a war and more a line of organized massacres. Always happens when old tactics meet new technology.

WWII is really the first example of a modern war and I think that's why many places have a greater focus on it.

 

[Rems]

In Australia at least WW1 also tought extensively. In fact we also cover the American Civil War and the Vietnam war (with sometimes the Indochinese war- Vietnamese rebellion against French rule, thrown in too)in depth. This is all through middle and secondary (high) school, particulary in years 11, 12 for the HSC (final exams conducted on a state wide basis with elective subjects).

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What I want to know is why we persist in calling them "World Wars" when they pretty much just revolved around Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia. Oh sure, we over here in North America joined in too, and Japan got involved in the second one, but the vast majority of the conflict in both wars was centered around the afor mentioned 4 countries. But even if you take into account every country that was involved, that still leaves 2 entire massive continents that weren't involved in anyway whatsoever, 3 if you count Antarctica.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1914wrld.gif

Remember that at this point Britain includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and a large chunk of Africa. The battleground was continental Europe mostly but soldiers from all over the world were dragged into it (Japan was involved in WWI as well). WWII also had naval battles in either one or both poles, some people refer to WWI as 'The Great War' because of the unprecedented casualties.

Ok, 1 entire continent then. _> Alright alright, I stand corrected.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Because America wasnt there in WW1 to kick some ass, duh.

Oka, all kidding aside, I would say cause WW2 arguably had more influence (yes, I know, without WW1 we wouldnt have had WW2, shut up) and can still be seen today. But i learned about both equally, so I wouldnt know what you're talking bout.

 

[martin's a madman]

We learned WW1 pretty equally if not more in my country, Canada.


Vimy Ridge, The Somme, Passchendaele, etc.

 

[The Great Purtabo]

was asking about hitler and the teachers got sick of pointing out the young german in a crowd of germans on the dvd.

What? brain esploded without logix supplement >.<

 

[DJ_Bunce]

yeah they taught us all about it the UK. else we wouldnt know where bands like franz ferdinand got their names would we

that being said, world war is a bit of a misnomer... its more like the great war of europe...

 

[martin's a madman]

What I want to know is why we persist in calling them "World Wars" when they pretty much just revolved around Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia. Oh sure, we over here in North America joined in too, and Japan got involved in the second one, but the vast majority of the conflict in both wars was centered around the afor mentioned 4 countries. But even if you take into account every country that was involved, that still leaves 2 entire massive continents that weren't involved in anyway whatsoever, 3 if you count Antarctica.

North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America (Germany had to buy nitrates from South American countries before the development of the Haber process to make bombs). So... only Antarctica wasn't involved.

yeah they taught us all about it the UK. else we wouldnt know where bands like franz ferdinand got their names would we

that being said, world war is a bit of a misnomer... its more like the great war of europe...

Every continent was involved sans Antarctica.

 

[Spaghetti]

I never really learnt much about WW2 in school. Infact, I'm 3/4 away through my History MA and WW2 has specifically only come up a once (although it was touched on indirectly through looking at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the Cold War and "The Home Front"). Even then, it was one essay that I chose to write. As for WW1, I spent an entire year on it in Secondary school (High School) going into great detail of every little bit of the war. This wasn't even a specialist class, this was something EVERYONE was taught.

 

[mad825]

In the UK, usually, in GSCE History you are taught about WW1 and Nazi Germany which describes how WW1 lead-on to WW2.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

WWII was always overlooked compared to WWI, which I find far less interesting as well.

However, that might be because I got to fight throughout the whole of WWII. I was only a young'un when I joined WWI.