Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
While much of what was said above is true there is also that it was a much more static and depressing war. We see the introduction of chemical weapons and machine guns on the battlefield that just completely destroyed the ideals of an "honorable war". Throw in these new things called tanks and aeroplanes and you end up with men in positions like Mad Doc Grotskik said. It was such a bloody, draining, and plodding conflict that people at the time couldn't imagine humans ever wanting to go to war again thus the "War to end all Wars" moniker.

Of course that didn't work out.

It is obliviously more complicated but it is remembered and studied but it is more of a shadow hanging over the period than being seen as a more binary story that is often told of WWII with good vs. evil.

And let us not forget the submarine -

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson wrote:"Submarines are underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English" and that personnel should be hanged as pirates.

With the result that British submarines still carry Jolly Rogers.

The Auld Grump - I learned that from Tom Lewis, British submariner and folk musician.

 Easy E wrote:
In my AP American History we covered World War I in a single day.

we skipped it.
but we also only gave WW2 a day, teacher figured we knew enough about that war since its so popular to learn about

WW1 gave us trenches, poison gas, no man's land, and a feckless League of Nations. I think the Wonder Woman movie was the most significant WW1 related (sort of) movie I've seen in nearly 40 years. WW1 was simply pushed from public consciousness by far more significant events that happened 20 years later.

WW2 lead to a deep and significant shift in American culture that WW1 did not. In WW2, America was involved heavily in two theaters of war and a massive homeland propaganda campaign to maintain public support for the war effort. It didn't hurt that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany provided the most iconic villains a propagandist could ever hope for. Stop for a moment and think about how many movies/comics/whatever have villains based on the Nazis. Atomic weapons captured the imagination of the country (for better or worse) and, of course, we had a definitive and resounding victory.

The aftermath was strong hero worship for those who fought (The Greatest Generation) and American values in general. A shift in American culture toward nationalism and patriotism was the most fundamental element of this. Decades of American technology leaps made us the undisputed super power in the world. The cold war with the Soviet Union colored pretty much everything from the 50s to the mid 80s.

But, one thing I've noticed is that WW2 is slowly fading from public consciousness. Iraq and Afghanistan are front and center in the public consciousness with Putin ever present as the quintessential Bond villain. I often wonder what it was like in the early 20th century as the Civil War began to fade from public consciousness. Was it slow like WW2? Or did it take WW1 to get the nation to move forward?

Aaaaand now I'm rambling, so time to end this post.

I think it isn't as well remember for a number of reasons especially in the US.


Firstly, it is still seen as a relatively European War. Despite the fact that conflicts took place over the world, and it looks a lot like Colonial Empires doing Empire things. There doesn't really seem to be a right and wrong party. At least not one that's as easily identifiable as world war 2. I mean, was the Ottoman Empire really that 'evil'? (Provided you ignore the pre-WW1 genocides they committed, which many people do.

Secondly, it's over 100 years old at this point. That's like having people in WW1 talking about the Napoleonic Wars. We've had a good few more wars in the meantime. And these are far more reverent in the present day than World War 1 is.

Thirdly, it's not a very 'talked about' war. It was gruesome and nasty and horrible. Go have a think. Can you name 5 films about WW1 without looking it up? You could probably do it with WW2 and probably Vietnam.

How about video games? How many WW1 Video games can you name? Compared to how many are made about WW2. I bet that by the time many people come to properly learn about WW2. They've already defeated the Nazi Regime at that point.

Can you name 5 films about WW1 without looking it up?

Yes.

You're forgetting that my generation was raised on a diet of old school British war films, and others.

5 films from the top of my head: All quiet on the western front. The Blue Max, Aces High, Zeppelin (Michael York classic) Paths of Glory, and recently, War Horse.

In response to the rest of your point, WW1 needs and should be learned by everyone. It destroyed 4 Empires, gave birth to war on an industrial scale gave us the tank, combined arms tactics, advances in medicine, plastic surgery, women's rights in the work place and voting, helped to contribute to Irish independence, gave us the birth of modern Israel, re-drew the borders of Iraq and Syria (and all the problems that came from that) gave us Communism, and sadly, laid the conditions for a more terrible war...

and a million other things...

Even the Napoleonic Wars, resulting from the French revolution, changed Europe forever. It raised Prussia to great power status, assured British hegemony for a century, gave Louisiana to the USA, and most fundamentally of all - the occupation of Spain opened a window to South American nations that seized their chance and got their freedom, thus changing the continent forevermore.

Old these things may be, but they were game changers.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
WW1 gave us trenches, poison gas, no man's land, and a feckless League of Nations. I think the Wonder Woman movie was the most significant WW1 related (sort of) movie I've seen in nearly 40 years. WW1 was simply pushed from public consciousness by far more significant events that happened 20 years later.

WW2 lead to a deep and significant shift in American culture that WW1 did not. In WW2, America was involved heavily in two theaters of war and a massive homeland propaganda campaign to maintain public support for the war effort. It didn't hurt that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany provided the most iconic villains a propagandist could ever hope for. Stop for a moment and think about how many movies/comics/whatever have villains based on the Nazis. Atomic weapons captured the imagination of the country (for better or worse) and, of course, we had a definitive and resounding victory.

The aftermath was strong hero worship for those who fought (The Greatest Generation) and American values in general. A shift in American culture toward nationalism and patriotism was the most fundamental element of this. Decades of American technology leaps made us the undisputed super power in the world. The cold war with the Soviet Union colored pretty much everything from the 50s to the mid 80s.

But, one thing I've noticed is that WW2 is slowly fading from public consciousness. Iraq and Afghanistan are front and center in the public consciousness with Putin ever present as the quintessential Bond villain. I often wonder what it was like in the early 20th century as the Civil War began to fade from public consciousness. Was it slow like WW2? Or did it take WW1 to get the nation to move forward?

Aaaaand now I'm rambling, so time to end this post.

But WW1 did change the USA quite a bit, and not just because the USA adopted isolationism, but there was an attitude change as well.

Based on my reading, the USA at the time saw Europe as corrupt and decadent, with WW1 being the evidence that getting away from Europe was a smart move.

It's a holdover from Manifest Destiny, but Americans started looking west to Asia, China in particular. American missionaries had been in China for decades, but post-WW1, the numbers started to increase, as they saw China as virgin soil, ripe for American ideals and visions. Some of them really believed they were on a crusade to 'save; China.

Right up until the 1950s, this China lobby had an influence on US politics and thinking, but brought problems. When Japan started expanding in China, especially during the 1930s, the China lobby pressed FDR for action = embargo = Japanese fleet sailing for Pearl Harbour.

I'm not going to the China lobby was the only reason for Pearly Harbour

But the China lobby and American opinions towards China, intensified as a result of WW1.

Alright Mr Imsooldthatihavefirsthandexperienceofworldwarone.


How many of those movies put anything a positive spin on WW1?

 welshhoppo wrote:
Alright Mr Imsooldthatihavefirsthandexperienceofworldwarone.


How many of those movies put anything a positive spin on WW1?

In Zeppelin, Michael York spends most of his time drinking whisky and hanging around with beautiful women, so that's something

But yeah, I take your point.

Agreed. You can blame Dickie Attenborough for Its a Wonderful War! (Which I'm amazed you didn't actually mention) which started this whole lions led by lambs idea that's so common with WW1.

I mean some generals did come up with such morale boosting phrases like I'd rather shoot my own men before the Germans do. But that's not the point!

our grandfathers fought in WW2 so it was living memory, noone alive fought in WW1 for us to talk to.

 thekingofkings wrote:
our grandfathers fought in WW2 so it was living memory, noone alive fought in WW1 for us to talk to.

You say that, but Flo Green only died five years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Green

Frank Buckles only a year before her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Buckles

If you'd been active in the last decade, you could easily have spoken to several dozen before they corked it.

I'm sure I mentioned it before but in college I had a History Professor that always pitched a WWI course but there wasn't a lot of interest for it while WWII classes tended to fill. They also tended to have people complain once they realized they had to do a lot of studying for WWII but that is a different thread.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I ask this question mainly to American dakka members, but with 1918 obviously being the centenary of The Great War, there are obviously a lot of events happening all across Europe to mark this event.

However, as a non-American observer, there doesn't seem to be a lot happening in the USA this year. Over the years, with reading and studying history books, The Great War doesn't seem to feature heavily in the American consciousness IMO, WW2 is obviously the war that's remembered the most in the USA.

Obviously, the USA entered WW1 quite late, and we tend to remember Woodrow Wilson, the 14 points and all that...and that's about it!

but the questions for American dakka members are this: Is it taught in schools? Does it feature a lot in TV documentaries? Is it embedded in the national memory like Iwo Jima, or Normandy, or The Bulge?

Or is it just an oft-forgotten chapter of US history, a niche topic for a minority of scholars, like the US-Mexican war of the 1840s, or the War of 1812, or something like that?

No. And to repeat it - feth no. WW1 was the worst atrocity we as a country had ever seen. The sheer scale of death ... I still can't get over it.

Sadly the reperations given to the Germans/Etc set the stage for WW2. Which upscaled ww1 into a new region.

We haven't forgotten WW1, but considering it let into WW2 and the sheer devastation of that? It's like saying we forgot act 1 in a 2 act play.

Read a great book about Black Jack and the Hell Fighters of Harlem. Incidentally early in the war before the Harlem men proved themselves, the word "black" didn't precede his name but a much less kind epithet starting with the letter N.

It is bio of General Pershing. CNC of US forces in Europe. Kinda cool learning that Patton and Bradly maybe Eisenhauer too served under him.

"My Fellow Soldiers”

Recommended.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh also of course the Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Guns of August” is fantastic, but really is before the US gets significantly involved. It is such a sad time in the history of warfare... As all wars are I guess. WW1 especially savage... Pressaged by the final years of the ACW. Trenches, , Miners, Seiges, Submarines, Total War on citizens, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer OP, yes I think the scale and tragedy is only discovered by a relative handful of curious Americans, although several everyday expressions are still in use but not realized.

Not all that long ago, I read a very good book on what led to WWI - The Sleepwalkers.

I highly recommend it.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dimaestro wrote:
[
Sadly the reparations given to the Germans/Etc set the stage for WW2. Which upscaled ww1 into a new region.

We haven't forgotten WW1, but considering it let into WW2 and the sheer devastation of that? It's like saying we forgot act 1 in a 2 act play.

More directly, the economic punishment that Germany suffered in the wake of WWI set the stage. Seriously, read the terms of the Versailles Treaty.

Which in turn led to Germany making some disastrous economic decisions, in a futile attempt to limit the damage of the Versailles Treaty - instead making it worse.

Which led to much of the Western world to believe that Germany had been dealt with in a patently unfair manner (which was pretty much true) - which led to turning a blind eye when Germany began to ignore the terms of the treaties that bound them in the wake of WWI.

We have no idea what would have happened in the wake of WWI had saner heads imposed less vindictive terms to the armistice agreements.

But it was what it was.

And insanity let a mad man seize power in Germany.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

We have no idea what would have happened in the wake of WWI had saner heads imposed less vindictive terms to the armistice agreements.

But it was what it was.

No war had ever had such a high cost, and people wanted to know that the people responsible (ultimately Germany at the end of the day) were going to pay for it in some regard. Furthermore, they didn't have the examples of WW1/WW2 to look back on and go, 'Ah, this will simply lead to further trouble'. Heck, had Hitler not come to power, it's entirely possible WW2 would never have happened, Treaty of Versailles or no.

I think it is far too easy to say, 'Ah, if only the saner heads had prevailed' when the heads in question had lost far more than it is possible to empathise with for most.

 Ketara wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

We have no idea what would have happened in the wake of WWI had saner heads imposed less vindictive terms to the armistice agreements.

But it was what it was.

No war had ever had such a high cost, and people wanted to know that the people responsible (ultimately Germany at the end of the day) were going to pay for it in some regard. Furthermore, they didn't have the examples of WW1/WW2 to look back on and go, 'Ah, this will simply lead to further trouble'. Heck, had Hitler not come to power, it's entirely possible WW2 would never have happened, Treaty of Versailles or no.

I think it is far too easy to say, 'Ah, if only the saner heads had prevailed' when the heads in question had lost far more than it is possible to empathise with for most.

Even at the time, there were saner heads - Great Britain and the US among them. (There was a reason that the US signed a separate armistice than that of the bulk of Europe.)

The French on the other hand had a double dose of dislike for Germany - both from the effect of The War on France and Belgium and because of the Franco-Pussian War. (A textbook Short Victorious War. Heck, until the Franco-Prussian War, there was no united Germany - instead there were dozens of little tiny nation-states that were the Germanies.)

And France was the loudest voice at the table for the Versailles Treaty.

If Germany had been under a better leader, things might have been avoided in the first place - Wilhelm II was... kind of an idiot. (I have just signed a mutual defense pact with a nation getting ready for war. Time to go on vacation!)

The Auld Grump - it was likely that Germany and France would have gone to war soon enough in any event, both sides were looking for an excuse on that front - most likely over Africa, had it fallen that way.

Having been around in British, Canadian, and American education systems I find it interesting how different the perspectives on the same war are despite being on the same side.

In Britain I was taught that WWI was essentially the downfall of the empire, having lost many overseas territories not to mention countless lives in the process. Possibly the most Pyrrhic victory in the history of the country.

Canada meanwhile sees it as a coming of age tale, by waiting a day to declare war after Britain they treat it as the point when they stopped being a colony and turned into a country. Vimy Ridge is a common spot for school trips and the war has been commemorated in coins and monuments quite a bit, especially in the last few years.

My American history courses on the other hand skipped past WWI very quickly, treating the war much like a prequel to the larger and more impactful one that would come some years later. I suppose the fact that the US joined the war so late and the fact that they profited immensely from it means that it is both fairly insignificant and a little out of place to talk about such a predominantly European war.

WWI was a horror story on so many, many levels - with technology changing faster than the tactics, and a refusal to learn from the American Civil War in regards to both tactics and strategy. (Railroads and improved RoF.)

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Even at the time, there were saner heads - Great Britain and the US among them. (There was a reason that the US signed a separate armistice than that of the bulk of Europe.)
The French on the other hand had a double dose of dislike for Germany - both from the effect of The War on France and Belgium and because of the Franco-Pussian War. (A textbook Short Victorious War. Heck, until the Franco-Prussian War, there was no united Germany - instead there were dozens of little tiny nation-states that were the Germanies.)

And France was the loudest voice at the table for the Versailles Treaty.

Again, you're working with hindsight here. How much less harsh need the terms of Versailles have been to prevented WW2? A few million off the debt? An extra 20,000 men permitted in the army? Where do you pin it down, where does unreasonable become reasonable and reasonable inadequate? The terms of Versailles were onerous, but were they really /too onerous? How do you judge? Because the nation suffering under them found them unfair? Because the Americans, sitting there relaxed with little (relatively) lost and much gained thought they were a bit much? Because you personally, sitting there with several historical examples to hand and no involvement, feel them a bit harsh?

The entire affair was entirely unprecedented, no-one could have foreseen what was to come, and the Triple Entente could have imposed harsher terms still (the disbanding of Germany altogether, perhaps?). Talking about 'saner heads', as if the French (or indeed many of the British who felt the same) were somehow unhinged just comes off as Captain Hindsight on his Throne of Judgement.

If Germany had been under a better leader, things might have been avoided in the first place - Wilhelm II was... kind of an idiot. (I have just signed a mutual defense pact with a nation getting ready for war. Time to go on vacation!)

The Auld Grump - it was likely that Germany and France would have gone to war soon enough in any event, both sides were looking for an excuse on that front - most likely over Africa, had it fallen that way.

There were war scares between the major powers every decade like clockwork for the prior fifty years. There was no necessity that war had to occur (Britain almost didn't enter WW1), and had it been put off at that moment (as it was the previous five times), you might well have found a completely different grouping of alliances and interests dominated for a war that started twenty years later.

Since this thread seems appropriate for it, a Hungarian friend once told me a joke that expresses just how crazy the aftermath of WW1 was for Hungary.
It went something like this:
It is shortly after the US became involved in WW2. Hungary has just declared war on the US. Roosevelt is sitting in the oval office, discussing the Hungarian declaration of war with one of his aides.
Roosevelt: I am afraid Hungary is a country I do not know much about. Can you give me a quick briefing? It is a kingdom, isn't it?
Aide: Yes it is sir.
Roosevelt: I thought I remembered that correctly. Though strangely enough I can't remember what their king is called...
Aide: Well, that is logical sir. Hungary has no king.
Roosevelt: No king? I see. But if they have no king, then who is their ruler?
Aide: Hungary is ruled by a regent sir, admiral Miklos Horthy.
Roosevelt: Ruled by an admiral? Hungary must have a powerful navy then.
Aide: No sir, Hungary has no navy. It is a landlocked country.
Roosevelt shakes his head: That makes no sense... Why did this admiral declare war on the Allies then? Does it have to do with WW1?
Aide: Yes sir. Hungary seeks to recover its lost territory. It lost a lot of its territory in WW1. That means they have a lot of territorial disputes, mostly with Romania. There is a lot of hostility between Hungary and Romania as a result.
Roosevelt: I see, then I guess they have declared war on Romania as well?
Aide: No sir, Hungary and Romania are allies.
Roosevelt: So you are telling me Hungary is a kingdom without a king ruled by an admiral without a fleet who is allied to his enemy?
Aide: Yes sir.
Roosevelt: Get out. This is no time for jokes.

 Ketara wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Even at the time, there were saner heads - Great Britain and the US among them. (There was a reason that the US signed a separate armistice than that of the bulk of Europe.)
The French on the other hand had a double dose of dislike for Germany - both from the effect of The War on France and Belgium and because of the Franco-Pussian War. (A textbook Short Victorious War. Heck, until the Franco-Prussian War, there was no united Germany - instead there were dozens of little tiny nation-states that were the Germanies.)

And France was the loudest voice at the table for the Versailles Treaty.

Again, you're working with hindsight here. How much less harsh need the terms of Versailles have been to prevented WW2? A few million off the debt? An extra 20,000 men permitted in the army? Where do you pin it down, where does unreasonable become reasonable and reasonable inadequate? The terms of Versailles were onerous, but were they really /too onerous? How do you judge? Because the nation suffering under them found them unfair? Because the Americans, sitting there relaxed with little (relatively) lost and much gained thought they were a bit much? Because you personally, sitting there with several historical examples to hand and no involvement, feel them a bit harsh?

The entire affair was entirely unprecedented, no-one could have foreseen what was to come, and the Triple Entente could have imposed harsher terms still (the disbanding of Germany altogether, perhaps?). Talking about 'saner heads', as if the French (or indeed many of the British who felt the same) were somehow unhinged just comes off as Captain Hindsight on his Throne of Judgement.

If Germany had been under a better leader, things might have been avoided in the first place - Wilhelm II was... kind of an idiot. (I have just signed a mutual defense pact with a nation getting ready for war. Time to go on vacation!)

The Auld Grump - it was likely that Germany and France would have gone to war soon enough in any event, both sides were looking for an excuse on that front - most likely over Africa, had it fallen that way.

There were war scares between the major powers every decade like clockwork for the prior fifty years. There was no necessity that war had to occur (Britain almost didn't enter WW1), and had it been put off at that moment (as it was the previous five times), you might well have found a completely different grouping of alliances and interests dominated for a war that started twenty years later.

For the bulk of Germany, it was the crushing debt, far more than the limitation on armed forces. When the mark was worth more as blank paper than when it was printed into currency.

As for hindsight - even at the time, there were people that stated that within twenty years there would again be war, simply because the terms of the treaty were so punitive.

So, not just hindsight - France, in particular, had pulled against a similar leash following the Franco-Prussian War - a little hindsight on their part, as well as a hint of foresight, would have gone a long way.

But, agreed, any war resulting from the tensions between France and Germany would have been a very different war, possibly of smaller scale

And the US being largely undamaged by WWI no doubt did limit our own desire for any revenge.*

More importantly, the disaster of the Versailles treaty directly affected the treatment of the Axis powers in the wake of WWII - the world avoided repeating the mistake.

The Auld Grump

* For irony - you may remember Great Britain declared that Germany was lying when they tried to warn the US that they were going to sink the Lusitania - because they claimed that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, against treaty... Well, she was. (The Germans tried to put up posters warning people, and the Port Authority took them down.)

There was a cover-up, not of the English deliberately trying to bring the US into the war (which is unlikely at best) but that they had been using civilian passenger vessels to carry munitions.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
For the bulk of Germany, it was the crushing debt, far more than the limitation on armed forces. When the mark was worth more as blank paper than when it was printed into currency.

As for hindsight - even at the time, there were people that stated that within twenty years there would again be war, simply because the terms of the treaty were so punitive.

So, not just hindsight - France, in particular, had pulled against a similar leash following the Franco-Prussian War - a little hindsight on their part, as well as a hint of foresight, would have gone a long way.

You're putting your interpretation of socio-political events onto things and assuming that things were perceived in the same way as you're perceiving them now at that point in time. Which they really, really weren't. Even the word 'strategy' held a different meaning and connotation to the way we'd use it now.

People back then perceived culture, war and politics in a form that's really quite alien to the thought processes of today. The way the result of the Franco-Prussian war was evaluated at the time (both domestically and externally) and the way you now look at WW1 are utterly miles apart. Trying to say that they should have interpreted the outcome of the former in the way you now interpret the outcome of the latter is the very literal definition of viewing the past through a contemporary lens.

Speaking as someone who very regularly spends many hours every week shuffling bits of paper from British movers and shakers at that specific time period, I'm constantly surprised by what crops up. Just when you think you've come to know the Edwardians, you'll always find something to make you realise otherwise. A strange yet familiar phrase, the placing of importance on a nonsensical matter, a way of looking at foreign affairs that would never even be considered today.

History is a funny thing, both in the writing and the reception of it. Hindsight often makes up far more of it than should be the case.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Both did. WW1 was the end of the Colonial Era, and the beginning of the end of Empire. WW2 hastened things considerably.

The wars hastened the end of Empire, but neither war was the real cause of the end of the British empire. Economics ended the Empire. By the start of the 20th C colonies weren't the cash cow they once were. The cost of maintaining an empire grew increasingly expensive, while the cash and resources that a colony generated had long since leveled off.

Think of it this way. Germany lost both wars, and both times their industrial base was smashed in to tiny pieces. Both times they rebuilt, and today still have a powerful industrial base. This is because manufacturing remained was still a highly profitable area of economic activity. Running colonies not so much.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I ask this question mainly to American dakka members, but with 1918 obviously being the centenary of The Great War, there are obviously a lot of events happening all across Europe to mark this event.

However, as a non-American observer, there doesn't seem to be a lot happening in the USA this year. Over the years, with reading and studying history books, The Great War doesn't seem to feature heavily in the American consciousness IMO, WW2 is obviously the war that's remembered the most in the USA.

Obviously, the USA entered WW1 quite late, and we tend to remember Woodrow Wilson, the 14 points and all that...and that's about it!

but the questions for American dakka members are this: Is it taught in schools? Does it feature a lot in TV documentaries? Is it embedded in the national memory like Iwo Jima, or Normandy, or The Bulge?

Or is it just an oft-forgotten chapter of US history, a niche topic for a minority of scholars, like the US-Mexican war of the 1840s, or the War of 1812, or something like that?

having thought about it for a day or two (I don't remember when this started XD) I don't think it's a forgotten chapter in American history as much as an ill remembered one. The first two decades of the American 20th century were pretty big. Lots of stuff going on. Unions and Union busting were disrupting the economy and the way people thought it should work in relation to the state. Minority groups were making the pushes that would lead to the Civil Right's era, disrupting the social dynamics of the country. The state itself was rapidly expanding, and America was increasingly venturing into imperialist foreign policy.

On the whole WWI for America just seems like kind of a blip. We showed up at the very end of it, and we didn't even send the "army." We sent the "expeditionary force" and that force was overseas for such a short amount of time relatively speaking that the number of people directly effected by the war experience was really tiny.

WWI isn't forgotten so much as we were only barely a part of it to begin with. More than a third of our casualties were killed by Spanish Flu, not combat. Despite mobilizing 4,000,000 troops the war came and went so fast that it's impact on a "roaring" period of our history left something of a shallow impact in the public consciousness.

America had the war that Britain thought it would have in every regard. From the profiting by supply of its allies, to the showing up at the end with a large army to weight the peace table, to the one year short engagement.

I think too as much as I do find WWI fascinating in its own right, I think a lot of average people can look at the insanity of it and just want to skip over it. I mean, all the death trying to cross no-mans land and so on. Its not just that the military leaders were out of their depth when it came to the tactics not keeping up with the technology, but how long it dragged on for. I guess there wasn't any other option. Its very sad if you were a regular grunt in the trenches, or a pilot who wasn't given a parachute because 'a true pilot doesn't abandon his aircraft'.

WWI just doesn't have the cast of characters to follow like WWII has either.

I've got a handful of classes left until I finish my degree, I plan on making one of them about World War 1, and it's the only class left that I'm excited for. I'll probably save that until right before my capstone, so I have the drive to keep pushing for it.

 djones520 wrote:
I think in large part, the first couple decades of the 20th century have been "forgotten" in the US, because it's a time frame we aren't very proud of.

Those were the years where we were the most imperialistic, and our actions in places like the Phillippines leave a pretty big stain on us.

Also, when you contrast our contributions in WW1 to WW2, it easily becomes over shadowed. We played a role in WW1, for sure, but we weren't the role that made the difference, like we were in WW2. So in terms of historical importance, WW2 was the war we fell in love with, while WW1 just became a foot note in history books.

Nah, we're just terrible at teaching history. Kardashian is a thing, you expect us to remember something thats not on Facebook?*
*Plus we've had WW2, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam, Iraq I, Kosova, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Iraqq III this time its ISIS etc etc. since then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
In America, WWI tends to get lost in the race to to go from the Civil War to WWII in History class. My, albeit fuzzy at this point, memories of school recall that we spent lots of time on general world history before the discovery of America, then a huge focus on the Americas and the founding of the US, then a quick rush to the Civil War (with a passing mention of some guy named Napoleon in between), a bit of the aftermath of the Civil War, then another quick rush to get to WWII (with a passing mentions of WWI and the Titanic in between). Anything from 1950 and beyond barely had any time left in the year to cover. Hell, I learned more about 1970s history in English class, where we read and watched All the President's Men.

THIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Alright Mr Imsooldthatihavefirsthandexperienceofworldwarone.


How many of those movies put anything a positive spin on WW1?

Wonder Woman?

KTG17 wrote:
I think too as much as I do find WWI fascinating in its own right, I think a lot of average people can look at the insanity of it and just want to skip over it. I mean, all the death trying to cross no-mans land and so on. Its not just that the military leaders were out of their depth when it came to the tactics not keeping up with the technology, but how long it dragged on for. I guess there wasn't any other option. Its very sad if you were a regular grunt in the trenches, or a pilot who wasn't given a parachute because 'a true pilot doesn't abandon his aircraft'.

I think its worth noting that a lot of that is the public's perception of WWI, but the reality was a lot more complex. It seems like a handful of days at the Somme have come to define the Western Front, and the Western Front has come to define the entire war. But even there the stagnant front lines were quite misleading.

People often think machine guns were the big issue but that's not true. Artillery killed far more, but even then that's not the real story. Most offensives reach the enemy lines, and a very large share (maybe a third, going off memory) managed to clear the enemy from the area. The problem was that it rarely led to breakthrough, and even consolidation was rare. The story of the Western Front wasn't pointless offensives, but small wins that rarely led to anything bigger, and were instead generally lost in a counter-offensive.

The was because the biggest advantage held by the defender were in communications and logistics. If successful attackers needed to communicate for reinforcements, most of the time they were trying to do it with signal flags. If command got the message then new troops had to walk across no-mans land to aid the offensive. In contrast, the defender would have a cable line allowing him to communicate instantly with command, and command could use rail lines to immediately reinforce a wavering position.

It did take some time for commanders to come to terms with the problem, that's true. It wasn't really until the last couple of years of the war that you see particularly the Western commanders start to give up on the hope for a decisive, deep penetration of the enemy, and instead look for wide breakthroughs which could disrupt the enemy across a wide front.

Anyhow, tldr version is the events of WWI are actually way more interesting and complex than the popular perception would have you believe.

Fun (?) Fact: Casualties in 1918 were worse than any other year of the war!