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

[octafish]

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.

You weren't taught very well then, or you didn't pay attention. Sir John Monash ended WW1 by inventing the Blitzkrieg and smashing the German lines. He was given a Battlefield Knighthood for his efforts, the first in 200 years. All Australia did in WW2 is hold back the Japanese Imperial Army in Papua, and halt Rommel dead in his tracks in Africa. While no-nation can hold their heads high when it comes to the police action in Vietnam at least the Australian Forces have Long Tan.

Also the first shot fired after WW1 was declared was from an Australian coastal battery at a German merchantman. Reputedly the same battery fired the first shots of WW2 although I don't think this has been confirmed.

OT: Australians are taught extensively about WW1, mostly the Gallipoli offensive, but we used to be taught about the Western front. I don't know what is being taught to the kids these days.

 

[duchaked]

WWI was hugely consisted of stalled trench warfare...not particularly interesting
altho I took some classes recently that actually covered in depth, but as far as high school goes...WWII was just bigger with larger impacts I suppose

 

[Bridgeru]

WW1 is barely taught, I'll agree. In my history class, we only learned a) That it caused the Russians to dislike the Tsar, b) Caused massive debt and feelings of resentment in Germany/Austria, and c) It was really really bad.

But then again, what can truly be learned from WW1? The complete massacre of soldiers due to inept leadership? How one small event (assassination) can snowball? Bare in mind, when you think of this, you also have to think about what world war 2 teaches us: The dangers of intolerance, the hardships of the ordinary person (remember, civilians were not targeted in WW1 but were in WW2), how zealousness and patriotism can destroy lives (from German Prison-guards to Japanese Kamikaze). Of course, remember, the effects of WW1 brought on the 6 year conflict of WW2. The effects of WW2 brought on the 48 year "conflict" of the Cold War.

Yes, WW1 should always be taught, especially to those in/planning to be in leadership in militaries, but WW2 will always be more well known to the common public because, despite the plotting, back-handedness of the Allies (ie, Yalta, where they planned to divide up Europe between themselves), the Axis will almost always (save for some radicals) be considered the "most evil men of recent history". Perhaps truly, but as a character in M*A*S*H once said "Here's to Jimmy, who died in World War 1, the war to end all wars. Here's to Rob who died in the war after that, and here's to Mike who died in the war after that."

 

[EGtodd09]

WWI was hardly even mentioned at my school (New Zealand) although they did focus a lot on Gallipoli since so many ANZAC's died there. That being said, we didn't do THAT much on WWII either, most of my knowledge comes from video games.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

we were taught WWI pretty well, and on the side we had to do a weapons project ( got an A because I have a WWI 1911) and a project on a battle of our choosing ( battle of Tannenberg) then we talked about the repercussions of WWI then the Roaring 20's then we had to do the same thing with WWII, basicly a general overview, Two free choice project ( Battle of Midway and the M1 Garand also 2 A's on) but pretty much it was equaled out. Nobody knew anything about WWII in my grade so people were asking me for ideas an such. But the reason WWI is left out alot is basicly guy A will randomly shoot 1000 rounds at guy B for a week then who ever has the best artillery strike wins. ( 70% of WWI causalities were from artillery attacks, including Gas)

 

[Lzryde]

Which one is more interesting?

WW1 was about keeping the trenches warm.

WW2, on the other hand, completely changed warfare. Not to mention all the crazy experiments, ideals, and technological developments throughout the war.

I think I was taught quite thoroughly in both wars and I believe there was simply a lot more going on in WW2 as opposed to WW1, thus more time was spent teaching WW2.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

WWI was hardly even mentioned at my school (New Zealand) although they did focus a lot on Gallipoli since so many ANZAC's died there. That being said, we didn't do THAT much on WWII either, most of my knowledge comes from video games.

Dont get WWII info from video games... its just not a good idea.

 

[Treefingers]

I'm guessing by 'most countries' you really mean 'my school'.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Rant warning

In Australia, WW1 is made a fuss over. Kinda, sorta. Here's a useful link, and if you scroll down, the comments include some ranting by a former Australian Prime Minister (or someone doing a convincing impression)

http://thingsboganslike.com/2009/11/25/33-the-australian-victory-at-gallipoli/

For those who aren't Australian, and don't get the joke, the Gallipoli campaign is the Australian, more cringe-worthy version of Vimy Ridge. At least at Vimy Ridge, the Allied force was (slightly) more than half Canadian, if led by a British commander, and while nobody except the Canadians seem to view it as a particularly important battle, and some not even as an Allied victory, it can be at least argued to have had some success. Like the Canadians with Vimy Ridge, Gallipoli is taken as proof by Australians at how much better their soldiers are.

Truly embarassing numbers of Australians don't know, or have chosen to forget all sorts of important details. That it wasn't just the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps on the Allied side, that the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps had New Zealanders in it[footnote]I recall an Australian sports commentator, who, upon an Australian victory, claimed it to be "a triumph of the ANZACS over the New Zealanders", which is wrong on many levels[/footnote], that the upper echelons of command were just as incompetent in regards to everyone else everywhere else, that there was anywhere else that fighting happened in WW1 etc. Some people manage to forget that it was a defeat, rather than a glorious victory.

Nowdays, ANZAC day (the anniversary of the first Gallipoli landings) is a very special holiday in which hordes of drunken morons converge on the battlefields to play rock music [footnote]Including "Staying Alive" by the Beegees one time[/footnote]and pass out between gravestones, out of respect for the thousands of young men that died in their country's name. Because that's what it is to be Australian.

You weren't taught very well then, or you didn't pay attention. Sir John Monash ended WW1 by inventing the Blitzkrieg and smashing the German lines. He was given a Battlefield Knighthood for his efforts, the first in 200 years. All Australia did in WW2 is hold back the Japanese Imperial Army in Papua, and halt Rommel dead in his tracks in Africa. While no-nation can hold their heads high when it comes to the police action in Vietnam at least the Australian Forces have Long Tan.

It's a curious thing that Australia seems only to take glory from losses.

The defeat at Gallipoli is remembered, the successes on the Western front, or the sinking of the Emden by the Sydney is not. Tobruk isn't discussed as much as the Kokoda Trail (and discussion of that ends before the eventual victory). Australia remembers Vietnam, but not Korea.

Hell, even Ned Kelly got to be a folk hero, nobody remembers the Victorian police force officers that got him.

 

[Codeman90]

because History classes in the U.S consist of only four basic areas of study. WWII (mostly just the Holocaust the actual war is only mentioned a few times), Greek Mythology (not the ancient City-States of Greece, just the mythology they believed in), Ancient Egypt, and the Civil War. That sums up all of the History I was taught before College.

-Sincerely, a jaded college History Major

 

[CleverCover]

My American school went into both Wars with extensive research. The idea was that you couldn't understand one without the other and therefore many of our reasons today pertaining to war or victory.

So I chalk it up to, whoever is teaching the subject.

 

[secondcircle]

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Australia and New Zealand WW1 gets a lot more coverage simply because that was when Gallipoli occurred.
If WW2 gets covered more in other countries I would say that's simply because WW2 is easier to explain to primary/early high school aged students.

 

[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.

You weren't taught very well then, or you didn't pay attention. Sir John Monash ended WW1 by inventing the Blitzkrieg and smashing the German lines. He was given a Battlefield Knighthood for his efforts, the first in 200 years. All Australia did in WW2 is hold back the Japanese Imperial Army in Papua, and halt Rommel dead in his tracks in Africa. While no-nation can hold their heads high when it comes to the police action in Vietnam at least the Australian Forces have Long Tan.

Also the first shot fired after WW1 was declared was from an Australian coastal battery at a German merchantman. Reputedly the same battery fired the first shots of WW2 although I don't think this has been confirmed.

OT: Australians are taught extensively about WW1, mostly the Gallipoli offensive, but we used to be taught about the Western front. I don't know what is being taught to the kids these days.

I'm aware of the achievements of Monash although I learned about those through a documentary and not through the history syllabus which focused almost exclusively on the Gallipoli campaign and the effects it had on the Australian psyche. A major focus of the syllabus is on Australia's "Trial by fire", our first major test as a nation. The syllabus proceeds to skim WW2 and get straight to the Vietnam war and the further social impacts that had.

I still stand by my statement that we didn't really do much during the wars relative to other nations.

The Gallipoli campaign which is held up as our nation's finest moment of gallantry was a disastrous failure strategically. The most successful part of the campaign was the ridiculously well-executed retreat.

Furthermore while Monash led Australian and American forces on the Western front and was part of a series of victories that led to the German surrender he was simply the spearhead of a much larger force and the gains he made would not have been consolidated without the support of much larger forces from the other Allied nations.

In World War 2 we did hold back the Japanese army in Papua however the outcome of that campaign had no effect on anyone except Australia. If we had lost Port Moresby Japan may well have cut supply lines between America and Australia and our security may have been directly threatened however America would have still rolled through eventually and we'd have been back to wearing shoes in doors and cooking our fish before we eat them.

As far as I can see Australia's participation in the major wars is filled with examples of courage and the Australian "battler" spirit in the face of overwhelming odds, stubborn British officers and general military and logistical failures. I personally believe Australian soldiers have punched well above their weight in past and present conflicts however the stark and naked fact is that we've always been a small nation in a conflict between giants and I feel no less patriotic or justified in saying that our contribution overall has been small.

 

[SpAc3man]

In New Zealand schools its all about WWI. More specifically Gallipoli seeing as our national day to recognise victims and veterans of war (ANZAC Day) is mainly about remembering the New Zealanders and Australians who fought and died at Gallipoli. To a slightly lesser extent we also learn a lot about the Battle of the Somme as the ANZACs (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) played an important role in that battle.

WWII is generally only covered later on in school when discussing the social impact on New Zealand from the large numbers of US troops who were stationed here before they were sent to fight in the Pacific. Before WWII NZ was very British, after WWII we became more Americanised. Many US troops were hosted by local families here during their stay and often gave them things that weren't available locally, like chewing gum.

 

[Atticus89]

As an American, I didn't learn much about WWI even in AP History classes. The long and short of what I recall (and please be kind since it's been a few years) is that it was a predominately European war that ended when America finally got more involved with it militarily in its final years to give the Germans a crushing blow to morale despite the fact that the Americans fought like the Europeans did back when the war initially started. For a majority of the war, it was basically us supporting Britain and France while defaming everything German despite our alleged neutrality. The end result was America and Britain gaining closer political relations, the US getting a massive ego boost and an economic prosperity that resulted in the Roaring 20's, and basically the rise of America to become a more substantial player on the world stage rather than a regional power that tried to play with the European big wigs.

It's basically like the Napoleonic Wars: you're not gonna learn in-depth European military history unless you take a class specifically for that or do the research and learn it yourself here in America.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

*snip*

More than one continent, smart alec. Africa saw a lot of action, then there was the whole Russian revolution going on at the same time. And of course, the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the independance of the middle east. Finally, some less bloody but still significant action in the Pacific and China. Countries from every continent had some stake in this war.

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.

I already said I stand corrected, shut up!

 

[theultimateend]

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.

A very unpopular thing to mention in public schools.

Similarly the lead up to Japan attacking the US is glossed over.

You don't want the villains looking like they had any justifications, better they just be random barbarians.

It's because WWII was the only war in the last 300 years where there was a clear right and wrong. Most other wars are simply disagreements between two equally reasonable parties, but World War II had a clear evil villian that had to be defeated.

Was that clear evil the guys carpet bombing and nuking civilians cities?

Or was it the one that was massacring civilians in death camps?

Or the one that was decapitating civilians in China in a contest to see who could launch a head the farthest?

Was that evil the oppressive nations that dragged a nation into a poverty so deep that only there would it even end up following a crazed genocidal dictator?

What about the major ally who killed more people than that clear evil guy?

I get so confused with WWII when people mention the clear evil villain. Cause I seem to recall basically every major party butchering thousands if not millions of civilians (and of course soldiers).