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

[Alade]

In my History class we did things a little differently, we learned a lot about the time between the two wars, a decent deal about the first one, but all we learned about WW2 was the local stuff (balkan affairs). Our professor did this because he rightfully assumed that we already knew everything about the international stuff, it is common knowledge after all.

 

[ninja51]

World War II had more clearly defined good guys and bad guys. Evil mass murdering Nazis vs the freedom loving good countries. World War I was fought between multiple imperialist countries very much stuck in the Nationalistic zenophobic mindset of the time. Whatever makes your country look better is what is taught more extensively.


Of course different countries will teach different things to an extent. Im sure Germany doesnt spend ages on World War II like my Jr. High School did.

 

[Orpheus III]

WWI was convoluted as hell, whereas WWII was a pretty binary affair.

 

[Blue_vision]

When I learned Canadian history, we mostly focused on the Pre-WWII formative years of the country. And it makes sense: in the era before WWII, we saw the trans-continental railway, all the rebellions, the definition of the economic activities in Canada's regions, and its temperance as a nation through WWI (where we did a bunch of important things like capture a hill, get slaughtered by foreign generals, and survive a gas attack.)

I didn't take them, but I've been told that the other history courses, American History and Modern History, go into much more detail about WWII, because it's really had far more of an impact on the world than WWI did. WWI was just a supersized European squabble for territory. WWII was a war of ideologies, which involved the depression, the failure of the League of Nations, and the result of extremism. As a result of the war, we have the modern world political system of the UN, the establishment of the third world, the hugely powerful atomic bomb, the establishment of America as a world power, now the only world power, and the establishment of the state of Israel.

I can see the issue with being taught WWII so extensively (I'd imagine all the "the allies took x point on x day") when it's really the fallout and the lessons we can learn from the war which are far more important. But I think that's more generally an issue with education. WWII really was far more important, it's the point at which we can say "this is what caused it, this is what came from it, this is what we can learn from it."

 

[Vault Citizen]

The first 2 responses surprise me, other people I had talked to just said that they got taught the bare bones of it then skipped to WWII.

At my school I don't think we even got to the second world war, most of it was spent on either WWI or the interwar period.

 

[Dexiro]

I understand how WWII is more recent, however, WWI was the lead up to WWII as without it Germany wouldn't have been crippled.
Is it due to the grey and gray morality surrounding the events with no country truly being in the right?
Is it simply because most of the western front was bogged down in trenches?

From my experience of schools in England we seem to learn mostly about WW1, and touch on the subject of Nazi Germany. But very rarely go beyond that into WW2.

 

[Treblaine]

I understand how WWII is more recent, however, WWI was the lead up to WWII as without it Germany wouldn't have been crippled.
Is it due to the grey and gray morality surrounding the events with no country truly being in the right?
Is it simply because most of the western front was bogged down in trenches?

Several immediately come to mind:

-It was a more recent war reflecting more "modern" political values
-It involved more countries for longer durations
-it cost far more lives, especially the lives of civilians
-it completely changed the power balance of the world
-it completely redrew the bordrs of eastern europe
-it set the stage for the Cold War that would dominate politics for the next 45 years
-it left Britain bankrupt and ultimately the British empire dissolved
-America rose to extraordinary economic prominence and political importance
-USSR spread to its largest control and an extraordinary military power in Eur-asia
-it set precedents for international law at the Nuremberg Trials
-Communism may have take hold in WWI Russia but it spread further than ever after WWII

 

[Alexnader]

In the standard NSW year 10 Australian syllabus 2008 I remember being taught a lot about World War 1 and the Vietnam war and not much about WW2. Partly because Australia had its "defining" moments in those wars even though we didn't do a whole lot in all 3 of them.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

Mainly because we still see the repercussions of WWII, that being the current super powers we have. Not saying WWI wasn't important as the end of WWI caused WWII.

 

[lolmynamewastaken]

i had nearly a year on each in secondary school. i think the fact that it was more of a stalemate for pretty much the entire time means there's not much you can teach some one thats not that interested past the start and end conditions...

 

[LITE992]

I guess the coverage of WWI depends on the country that was involved. America probably only brushes over it since they were in it for a year, while here in Canada it is covered quite extensively because of Canada's contributions to the war (like Vimy Ridge, the first battle to use actual tactics instead of the standard charge head-on at the enemy). Canadians are quite proud of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

 

[FinalHeart95]

In America it's because we had a far larger part in WWII than WWI. We were in the first for all of a year or so, we were in the latter for about four years. I think America had like one or two major battle where they played a major part in World War I. Basically, we were only needed because of the whole Russian coup business taking them out of the war.

I don't know about how other countries teach it though. I'd imagine the Europeans focus on World War I just as much as World War II, maybe even more so in certain countries.

 

[Dasrufken]

You're obviously not an International baccalaureate student...

 

[The Lugz]

I understand how WWII is more recent, however, WWI was the lead up to WWII as without it Germany wouldn't have been crippled.
Is it due to the grey and gray morality surrounding the events with no country truly being in the right?
Is it simply because most of the western front was bogged down in trenches?

i imagine because ww1 is out of human memory, and there are no super-weapons involved or video documentaries

Just to note "no super-weapons" is quite false here. WWI saw the introduction of large scale chemical warfare (despite being banned by treaty, but there was a loophole). The German versions being designed by Haber (who you might know for the Haber cycle. He made modern mass-produced fertiliser, he's also considered a war-criminal by a lot of people.)

We were always taught both fairly evenly in Ireland, though there was a slight emphasis on WWI in my education since so many Irish served in the English army and we were neutral in WWII.

fine, there were no atomic bombs, or other weapons with the power to devastate the earth into a boiling radioactive cinder if you would like me to phrase it better.

my point was people like spectacle and you don't get much more spectacular than a shroom cloud
it just makes a good story

 

[coolkirb]

In Canada far more emphesiss is put on WW1 in the mandatory course, of course I live in Ontario and every province can teach history however it wants leading to descrepincies. But as for your question about why it seems more focus is put on WWII I would say people see it as more relevent and shaped the world as it presently is, the Napoleonic Wars are arguably just as important as both world wars if Not more but unless you live in Europe you probably wont be taught them in required courses I would think. Countries simply just want to teach what is most relevent to them, after all you cant cover much in a high school course.

 

[DracoSuave]

In terms of modern impact, World War I has less of an effect on us compared to World War II

World War I essentially led to... well, World War II

WWII on the other hand has many geopolitical effects that still matter today. The entire situation with Isreal and the Middle East is a direct result of WWII, as well as the current three superpowers of US, China, and Russia being at a continuous detente.

On top of this, the holocaust taught us what happens when bigotry goes too far, thus leading to an explosion of civil rights movements across the world.

And that's not even counting the effects that the draft had on women's inclusion in the work force, leading to the modern sensibilities of feminism.

Oh... and that nuclear scare thing....

WWII is essential for understanding the world today. WWI is... not so much.

 

[coolkirb]

I guess the coverage of WWI depends on the country that was involved. America probably only brushes over it since they were in it for a year, while here in Canada it is covered quite extensively because of Canada's contributions to the war (like Vimy Ridge, the first battle to use actual tactics instead of the standard charge head-on at the enemy). Canadians are quite proud of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

Not to mention thhe fact our country had 8 million people at the time and Prime Minister Borden said he would raise an army of 1,000,000 troops, though most of them never saw action. Also Canada was a world military power at the end of WW1 but we were still part of Britain so meh.

 

[Tennou486]

What was told to me in my college history class was that in America, WWII had a much bigger cultural impact than WWI. In Europe it is the opposite case. Not that WWII wasn't culturally significant in Europe, but most of the causes of WWII can be traced to WWI.

At least that's what I was told.