Why is WWII taught so extensively in most countries yet WWI is just glossed over?
- Thread starter Sticky Squid
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Firstly: I was talking about WW1, because there is no sign of doubt that Germany started WW2. But I was saying that Germany/Austria also started WW1.Hero in a half shell said:
And regarding WW2: Hitler attacked Poland. GB and France just declared war, when he didn't leave Poland after they told him to. Check out "Anglo-Polish military alliance". It wasn't Hitler's goal to fight against France and GB, but he was fine with it.
Yea, and people say they didn't know about the holocaust. But everyone knew the jews "disappeared" and they got their "valuable stuff" so they were fine with it. They knew it for sure. They maybe didn't know the details, but the biggest parts of the population didn't really try to give a shit.
And "Nazi soldiers" had a lot to do with the holocaust. The KZ's were organized by the SS. Which wasn't the Wehrmacht, but still military.
Also learned this stuff in school. Going to school in Germany really is a loooooooooot of Nazi-shit. We did WW2/holocaust in about every subject. History, politics, German, religion etc. Even in math we talked about how immoral math tasks from that time were (like: A healthy German family costs 1 Mark per week, a family with (genetically) ill members costs 4 Mark per week. How much money could the German Reich save if everyone was healthy?).
To be ontopic: I feel like I also know a lot of details about WW1. If you live in a country that starts all World Wars, you really get to know a lot about them.
We actually got taught a lot more about WWI then WWII as it reflected greatly on our (Australian/NewZealand) involvement. There was/is a huge community/cultural aspect to the ANZACs and what they fought for.
Not to say the bombing's in Darwin/West Coast were of any lesser extent, less important.
It all really comes down to the countries involvment to reinforce a lot of pride and admiration for our heroes of war.
Not to say the bombing's in Darwin/West Coast were of any lesser extent, less important.
It all really comes down to the countries involvment to reinforce a lot of pride and admiration for our heroes of war.
I feel what you are experiencing isn't so much a lack of education on the matter, but the saturation of WW2 within the media of today. It is fairly easy for people to muddle up what they where taught in school and what they later where self-taught through movies, books and games. If you keep that in mind, WW2 is far more explored then WW1 due to the far greater amount of media on the subject. This could also bleed into the school curriculum, as the more information available does mean the more that can be taught on, but in my experience this is not the case.
Not because WW1 was taught more in school, neither wars where not focused greatly on in the public school systems I went through. They where trying to cram too much history into a few short years that they had to sacrifice a great deal of it. The methods used to teach where also so poor that I have a hard time remembering anything of it, making it even harder for me to remember which was taught in greater depths. From what I can recall I would say that WW1 was the most taught in our schools but I am Australian you see.
WW1 was romanticized for us in Australian media and our national holidays. It was the very first time we had a standing army of our own on the battle field so you can understand some national pride at the fact. It is just sad that our army was then brutally and disgustingly mistreated by the British commanders that the word meat grinder pales as a comparison. We where considered 'unclean scoundrels' by the lords that led wars during that time and it shows. They thought nothing of ordering our men to rush Maxim positions with bayonet chargers, in hopes that the Turks would run out of bullets before they had to send in and loose 'noble British troops.' Sure we where not the only ones used like that, Canada and Ireland took massive losses along side ours, but even generations later we Australians still feel that particular knife lodged in our spines.
On a positive note: we where so good at war, impressive for farmers and kids as young as 12, the Turks gave us the name 'diggers' which is still a honor our soldiers go by. Once we had dug into a position, it was hell for them to try and dislodge us and they hated going against our trenches the most out of any other nation in that war as they knew it would mostly lead to running away with their tails between their legs and many of their friends dead. If it wasn't for how poor the assaulting part of that campaign was carried out, never trust British "intelligence," we could probably have won that one.
I kid you not, they went through several generals during that campaign as they where all incompetent and most blatantly racist to non-Brits... and half the Brit forces that where too 'common' for them as well.
That being said it is the actions of the Turks which still brings a tear to my eyes. I feel it was the last war where we truly gave each other honors and respect as enemies should. Just read some of the words written about our troops, by our enemies none the less, and try not to cry. We where so respected that our fallen soldiers are still treated as if they where the sons of the Turkish nation and not enemies trying to invade it.
Not because WW1 was taught more in school, neither wars where not focused greatly on in the public school systems I went through. They where trying to cram too much history into a few short years that they had to sacrifice a great deal of it. The methods used to teach where also so poor that I have a hard time remembering anything of it, making it even harder for me to remember which was taught in greater depths. From what I can recall I would say that WW1 was the most taught in our schools but I am Australian you see.
WW1 was romanticized for us in Australian media and our national holidays. It was the very first time we had a standing army of our own on the battle field so you can understand some national pride at the fact. It is just sad that our army was then brutally and disgustingly mistreated by the British commanders that the word meat grinder pales as a comparison. We where considered 'unclean scoundrels' by the lords that led wars during that time and it shows. They thought nothing of ordering our men to rush Maxim positions with bayonet chargers, in hopes that the Turks would run out of bullets before they had to send in and loose 'noble British troops.' Sure we where not the only ones used like that, Canada and Ireland took massive losses along side ours, but even generations later we Australians still feel that particular knife lodged in our spines.
On a positive note: we where so good at war, impressive for farmers and kids as young as 12, the Turks gave us the name 'diggers' which is still a honor our soldiers go by. Once we had dug into a position, it was hell for them to try and dislodge us and they hated going against our trenches the most out of any other nation in that war as they knew it would mostly lead to running away with their tails between their legs and many of their friends dead. If it wasn't for how poor the assaulting part of that campaign was carried out, never trust British "intelligence," we could probably have won that one.
I kid you not, they went through several generals during that campaign as they where all incompetent and most blatantly racist to non-Brits... and half the Brit forces that where too 'common' for them as well.
That being said it is the actions of the Turks which still brings a tear to my eyes. I feel it was the last war where we truly gave each other honors and respect as enemies should. Just read some of the words written about our troops, by our enemies none the less, and try not to cry. We where so respected that our fallen soldiers are still treated as if they where the sons of the Turkish nation and not enemies trying to invade it.
I can recall more detail about WWII, but I can't say WWI was just glossed over. Then again, I can't speak for the majority of U.S students. I take Euro history class(we did power points the thing), but it was covered in middle school.
United States by the way.
United States by the way.
I can only speak for the US, but I know that most students here would probably learn way more about WWII than WWI because we learn more about US history than we do about European history, and WWI was almost entirely a European conflict. The US got involved at the end, but we had nothing to do with the long, complicated build up, nor did we have that much at stake. When I took US history in school we only really discussed the aftermath of WWI, and how it eventually led to WWII, which was a far more significant event in the history of the United States. I only actually learned about WWI when I took a European History class.
Basically, although WWI had enormous ramifications for the entire world, the war itself was not that significant outside of Europe, so it makes sense that people would learn less about it outside of Europe.
Basically, although WWI had enormous ramifications for the entire world, the war itself was not that significant outside of Europe, so it makes sense that people would learn less about it outside of Europe.
WWI was kinda briefly taught, and then we always had to speed up the curriculum to the Great Depression and shiz. It was also kind of boring, from the American perspective. There were lines drawn. We came in. The lines changed a bit. We blame Germany, and that's about it. Trench warfare is boring compared to Operation Overlord.
Nonetheless, I learned about it through the magic of Wikipedia, the game Warfare 1918, the History Channel, and reading up on the section while my class struggled with, and I quote "Wait, Japan is an island?"
Nonetheless, I learned about it through the magic of Wikipedia, the game Warfare 1918, the History Channel, and reading up on the section while my class struggled with, and I quote "Wait, Japan is an island?"
You know, i always felt that we covered Vietnam in much more detail than either world war. But as far as the world wars go, i think it was about even. More time on WW2 because there was more to cover. But the basics were there, and concentrating heavily on Gallipoli at the expense of everything else of course.
Just reading that hurt me so hard I think I lost some of the knowledge I had about WW1 and WW2.... thanks.Alssadar said:
I might be willing to ***** about the lack of knowledge coming our of Australian schools but damn... really... damn. Just... just DAMN!
They taught nearly nothing about WWI in Wales, though WWII was obviously taught.
I found WWI more interesting, as a lead up to WWII due to the idiocy of the 'winners' bashing Germany so hard.
I found WWI more interesting, as a lead up to WWII due to the idiocy of the 'winners' bashing Germany so hard.
Not exactly, WWII just the European theatre, at most 3 at one time, WWI, the Middle Eastern one with Turkey vs. Russia, the Middle Eastern with Britain and France vs. Turkey, there's the Western and Eastern fronts, that's about 4 fronts. Of course not counting the Pacific in WWII, that's an entirely different story, and Japan had been at war with China already, and it's not really nearly as extensively taught. You may argue that the Middle East is also another continent, but it was so close it could've actually made a difference, on the other hand the Pacific front did not really effect the European one all too much.Kukulski said:
Not really, Turkey was in place of Japan and Austria in place of Italy.Kukulski said:
What? WWI was the end to the hundreds of years of European Imperialism around the world, the days of putting down protests was numbered and gone were the days of conquering offshore territories, of wars like the Napoleonic wars, sure it was still around by WWII, and it didn't truly end until the 60's, but WWI signaled the fall of those empires. On top of this there's the nationalism which gave rise to Tolatarianism, nationalism was abig deal there and in many ways there was ALOT more important ideaology's in WWI then WWII considering it was built around them.Kukulski said:
No not really.Kukulski said:
Personally it didn't really even take place all over the world, just North Africa, Asia and Europe, other wars like the Seven Years War actually did take place on all continents aside from Antarctica, and it was the WWI to the Napoleonic wars, the main reason though it isn't remembered as well is because the Industrial revolution hadn't started yet so armies at their largest numbered a couple hundred thoasand for the biggest of nations, while in the Napoleonic wars they numbered in the millions due to the Industrial Revolution and being able to produce more arms, with this even small states were able to muster an army to rival the hundreds of thoasands of the Seven Years war. So pretty much the effects of it weren't too great, the only notable effect was the massive amount of debt the countries went into which caused the American and French revolutions.
i learned about it. actually, i was told breifly that it set the stage for WW2 and sparked hitler's revenge for the crimes committed against germany. most of it i researched myself, i even connected the creation of the current situation in the middle east with the taliban to WW1.jck4332 said:
WW1 wasn't even an accident caused by that serbian nationalist who assassinated the arch duke firdinand which set off a chain reaction of countries getting pulled into the war. it was actually all devised by krupt arms, go read about it. he said "what we need is a good war to try out these new weapons i've made" he also wanted to create a large profit from it to. eventually, war profiteers from america got in on the war to, but it was until after the great war that the american people realized it, which created the isolationist policy america went by until december 7th, 1941, the day that lives in infamy.
from there, ww2 starts, after that the cold war, and from the cold war came the afghani-soviet war. as we all know from Rambo 3, afghanistan was attacked by the soviets and they didn't stand a chance, and the U.S. couldn't get involved or else ww3 would start. so the U.S. secretly supplied the afghanis with weapons to fight off the soviets. luckily, they won. however, it was a great cost and the majority of the afghani population were impresionable 15 year old boys. because the U.S. could establish any good old american democratic influence over them without making it clear to the soviets who helped them (and because we didn't want to) this population was left to be brainwashed by the taliban.
and it's all down hill from there.