World War I

I've been in AP European History all year and we started studying World War I recently. It dawned on me, "I really don't know that much about the war! It's always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to the media."

This then raised the question for OT;

Do you guys have a fairly good knowledge of WW1? As much as you have of WW2?

Why do you think WW1 is almost always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to story-telling and portrayals by the media?

I've been in AP European History all year and we started studying World War I recently. It dawned on me, "I really don't know that much about the war! It's always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to the media."

This then raised the question for OT;

Do you guys have a fairly good knowledge of WW1? As much as you have of WW2?

Why do you think WW1 is almost always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to story-telling and portrayals by the media?

Mousetaches

It probably gets eclipsed because more peopel died and the holocaust happened. Not to mention Pearl Harbor and Hitler There was just more pizazz to it.

It's because we live in America, and our involvement in the war was not as significant as world war II. Thats just most people though, I feel I know a good amount about WWI, but sadly, my HS never offered AP European History, so I don't know as much as I would like to. It was a very brutal war..

WWI is also kind of overshadowed these days, because all the veterans have pretty much died. You don't have veterans speaking about their experiences anymore. WWII was fought on a much grander scale as well. When it comes to WWI, I don't know much about it compared to WWII. I do know a good bit of it though, the history of it all still interests me.

All I know is that the treaty of Versailles (sp?) is what caused Hitler to RAGE! And try to take over eastern Europe.lol_haha_dead

Don't forget that cry baby also got rejected from art school.

It's because we live in America, and our involvement in the war was not as significant as world war II. Thats just most people though, I feel I know a good amount about WWI, but sadly, my HS never offered AP European History, so I don't know as much as I would like to. It was a very brutal war..

taj7575

Simply put, World War I was a cluster **** of foreign entanglements and obligations. As for being brutal, the common cause for that was using tactics which had long since been obsolete.

WW2 had better villians....

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

It's because we live in America, and our involvement in the war was not as significant as world war II. Thats just most people though, I feel I know a good amount about WWI, but sadly, my HS never offered AP European History, so I don't know as much as I would like to. It was a very brutal war..

DucksBrains

Simply put, World War I was a cluster **** of foreign entanglements and obligations. As for being brutal, the common cause for that was using tactics which had long since been obsolete.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

It's because we live in America, and our involvement in the war was not as significant as world war II. Thats just most people though, I feel I know a good amount about WWI, but sadly, my HS never offered AP European History, so I don't know as much as I would like to. It was a very brutal war..

DucksBrains

Simply put, World War I was a cluster **** of foreign entanglements and obligations. As for being brutal, the common cause for that was using tactics which had long since been obsolete.

Yeah, it was many past disagreements, tensions, and the rise of nationalism in many Counties that finally just led to an all out war.

I've been in AP European History all year and we started studying World War I recently. It dawned on me, "I really don't know that much about the war! It's always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to the media."

This then raised the question for OT;

Do you guys have a fairly good knowledge of WW1? As much as you have of WW2?

Why do you think WW1 is almost always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to story-telling and portrayals by the media?

Mousetaches

WWII was a much larger conflict. Plus I think that since there are no WWI veterans talking about there experiences it is also overlooked.

So it is just probably because of WWII being a much bloodier brutal war.

I do have a good degree on WWI but not as much as WWII. Its sad really, I would like to see more on WWI

I was forced to read "All Quiet on the Western Front" freshman year, and that was an awful book. That put me off of WW1.

There are probably a few reasons why the war is not as emphasized in the U.S., some of which have already been mentioned. For one, the Second World War was much more dynamic and fast-paced, as opposed to the trench warfare of the Great War. Also already stated is the fact that in the Great War, it is much harder to seperate the two sides into the "good guys" and "bad guys". The war is actually studied a lot by political scientists, though, because it arguably formed the beginnings of modern internationalism, with the League of Nations and whatnot.fidosim

Yes. WWI was a shade of gray compared to WWII.

WW2 reshaped the entire planet culturally, politically and technologically; it was also the closest thing to the end of the world. It directly led to the Cold War, computers, the space program, the Baby Boom, the United Nations, the end of the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons and women in the work force. WWI only led to Bolshevik Russia and WWII.

As someone up there said America had a far larger part in WW2.

As an Australian WW1, particularly the Battle of Galipolli, has much more meaning to us. It was really the point where Australia/Australians showed themselves to be different and seperate to Britian. In other words, on the world stage, it was Australia's big break. I know Americans are like "lol Australia even has an army," but Australias involvement in WW1 was pretty hefty in creating our national identity.

Not only did Australian soldiers (under British orders) help defend France, but they also gave the Turkish (allied with the Germans) a run for their money. In Galipolli the Australians landed on a friggen' cliff face under heavy machinegun fire and then spent the next 8 months fighting on that same cliff face, barely making any ground.

Two "facts" I've heard that have stuck with me (and I put the word facts in " because I'm not sure just how true they are, lol) are that Australian soldiers, again under British orders, were forced to storm a bunker in France - which, iirc, unknown to anyone at the time, contained a young Adolf Hitler - again under heavy machine gun fire, across a field with literally no cover. To come so close to Hitler at that time I would say is a pretty big thing, aside from the fact that a lot of Australian soldiers at the time were underage (that is they were under 16, had gone to Europe to fight a war they new nothing about, to fight in countries they had never heard of). I think like 2000 soldiers died there.

The other is that Australian troops were instructing Americans, in WW1, how to operate tanks because the Americans were in experienced.

(The problem with my facts is that I hear this stuff in passing, maybe a scene in a documentery I'm not really watching, or a line in a book I'm flicking through)

Anyway, tl;dr in Australia the ANZAC spirit which defines Australia came about because of our involvement in WW1 which no one ever hears about.

The Korean war is even more overshadowed.

Its even called the forgotten war.

The Korean war is even more overshadowed.

Its even called the forgotten war.

dercoo

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

The Korean war is even more overshadowed.

Its even called the forgotten war.

DigitalExile

Yeah.

WW2 reshaped the entire planet culturally, politically and technologically; it was also the closest thing to the end of the world. It directly led to the Cold War, computers, the space program, the Baby Boom, the United Nations, the end of the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons and women in the work force. WWI only led to Bolshevik Russia and WWII.

wstfld

I've been in AP European History all year and we started studying World War I recently. It dawned on me, "I really don't know that much about the war! It's always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to the media."

This then raised the question for OT;

Do you guys have a fairly good knowledge of WW1? As much as you have of WW2?

Why do you think WW1 is almost always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to story-telling and portrayals by the media?

Mousetaches

My knowledge of WW1:

Trench Warfare is nasty stuff

All those countries so close to one another and having huge armies was building pressure. The assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand of.. Austria I think, was what caused the war to explode.

First time air planes were used in dogfights.

Germans thought the Keizer had some divine link to god and therefore had no fear of their enemies... Except when fighting Canadian soldiers.

The Commonwealth used Canadian soldiers as shock troops.

The Ottoman Empire fell towards the end of the war.

France had a respectable military

US military was craptastic but we still helped.

Thats about it. And you are right this war is always elcipsed by WW2.

As someone up there said America had a far larger part in WW2.

As an Australian WW1, particularly the Battle of Galipolli, has much more meaning to us. It was really the point where Australia/Australians showed themselves to be different and seperate to Britian. In other words, on the world stage, it was Australia's big break. I know Americans are like "lol Australia even has an army," but Australias involvement in WW1 was pretty hefty in creating our national identity.

Not only did Australian soldiers (under British orders) help defend France, but they also gave the Turkish (allied with the Germans) a run for their money. In Galipolli the Australians landed on a friggen' cliff face under heavy machinegun fire and then spent the next 8 months fighting on that same cliff face, barely making any ground.

Two "facts" I've heard that have stuck with me (and I put the word facts in " because I'm not sure just how true they are, lol) are that Australian soldiers, again under British orders, were forced to storm a bunker in France - which, iirc, unknown to anyone at the time, contained a young Adolf Hitler - again under heavy machine gun fire, across a field with literally no cover. To come so close to Hitler at that time I would say is a pretty big thing, aside from the fact that a lot of Australian soldiers at the time were underage (that is they were under 16, had gone to Europe to fight a war they new nothing about, to fight in countries they had never heard of). I think like 2000 soldiers died there.

The other is that Australian troops were instructing Americans, in WW1, how to operate tanks because the Americans were in experienced.

(The problem with my facts is that I hear this stuff in passing, maybe a scene in a documentary I'm not really watching, or a line in a book I'm flicking through)

Anyway, tl;dr in Australia the ANZAC spirit which defines Australia came about because of our involvement in WW1 which no one ever hears about.

DigitalExile

WW2 reshaped the entire planet culturally, politically and technologically; it was also the closest thing to the end of the world. It directly led to the Cold War, computers, the space program, the Baby Boom, the United Nations, the end of the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons and women in the work force. WWI only led to Bolshevik Russia and WWII.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I have a fairly good general knowledge of it.[QUOTE="wstfld"]

WW2 reshaped the entire planet culturally, politically and technologically; it was also the closest thing to the end of the world. It directly led to the Cold War, computers, the space program, the Baby Boom, the United Nations, the end of the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons and women in the work force. WWI only led to Bolshevik Russia and WWII.

fidosim

I was forced to read "All Quiet on the Western Front" freshman year, and that was an awful book. That put me off of WW1.

FalcoLX

Yeah. I'm a WW2 history buff, and you can't understand WW2 without a thorough knowledge of WW1.

WW2 reshaped the entire planet culturally, politically and technologically; it was also the closest thing to the end of the world. It directly led to the Cold War, computers, the space program, the Baby Boom, the United Nations, the end of the Great Depression, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons and women in the work force. WWI only led to Bolshevik Russia and WWII.

wstfld

Not to mention tanks, planes, chemical warfare, submarines, torpedoes, machine guns, modern grenades, flamethrowers, blitzkrieg etc.

Yea most tech from WW1 was military based.

I've been in AP European History all year and we started studying World War I recently. It dawned on me, "I really don't know that much about the war! It's always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to the media."

This then raised the question for OT;

Do you guys have a fairly good knowledge of WW1? As much as you have of WW2?

Why do you think WW1 is almost always eclipsed by WW2 when it comes to story-telling and portrayals by the media?

Mousetaches

As someone up there said America had a far larger part in WW2.

As an Australian WW1, particularly the Battle of Galipolli, has much more meaning to us. It was really the point where Australia/Australians showed themselves to be different and seperate to Britian. In other words, on the world stage, it was Australia's big break. I know Americans are like "lol Australia even has an army," but Australias involvement in WW1 was pretty hefty in creating our national identity.

Not only did Australian soldiers (under British orders) help defend France, but they also gave the Turkish (allied with the Germans) a run for their money. In Galipolli the Australians landed on a friggen' cliff face under heavy machinegun fire and then spent the next 8 months fighting on that same cliff face, barely making any ground.

Two "facts" I've heard that have stuck with me (and I put the word facts in " because I'm not sure just how true they are, lol) are that Australian soldiers, again under British orders, were forced to storm a bunker in France - which, iirc, unknown to anyone at the time, contained a young Adolf Hitler - again under heavy machine gun fire, across a field with literally no cover. To come so close to Hitler at that time I would say is a pretty big thing, aside from the fact that a lot of Australian soldiers at the time were underage (that is they were under 16, had gone to Europe to fight a war they new nothing about, to fight in countries they had never heard of). I think like 2000 soldiers died there.

The other is that Australian troops were instructing Americans, in WW1, how to operate tanks because the Americans were in experienced.

(The problem with my facts is that I hear this stuff in passing, maybe a scene in a documentery I'm not really watching, or a line in a book I'm flicking through)

Anyway, tl;dr in Australia the ANZAC spirit which defines Australia came about because of our involvement in WW1 which no one ever hears about.

DigitalExile

Back in WW1 it was more like :
Australians:
Lol america has an army? Wtf lol :D

As practicaly anyone with any knowledge of history knows, America had a very tiny army before WW1 and WW2. After both wars they just laid evreyone off and sold all of their equipment. Thats why at the start of WW2 the Americans were having so much trouble, their army was badly trained, they were badly equiped (UK was the first army to utilise many US combat vehicles in WW2, I think that the Sherman was first used by the British at El-Alamein, the Americans didnt use it until after Kaserine pass etc.

Same with Korea, the US army got its butts handed to them for the first few months because they were under equiped and outnumbered.

So before the Korea war it was more like: LOL US has a army?...

WW2 had more of a moral concept, it had an easy "good guy, bad guy" deal.. so the media have a story to work of from the beginning. WW1 however was a very silly, but complicated war. There was no real winner or loser, and no good guys-bad guys. Plus it shines quite a bad light on some of the allies after the Treaty of Versailles.

WW2 had more of a moral concept, it had an easy "good guy, bad guy" deal.. so the media have a story to work of from the beginning. WW1 however was a very silly, but complicated war. There was no real winner or loser, and no good guys-bad guys. Plus it shines quite a bad light on some of the allies after the Treaty of Versailles.

RiseAgainst12

I suspect it was because WW 2 was on a larger scale, involved more people, and was more recent. I'm sure that prior to WW2, people probably did focus on WW1.

Yep i've studied it, i've studies ww1 history and poetry.

I agree, there needs to be more video games based on it.CRS98