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.

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?

It doesn't even feature too heavily in European history. The French and the Germans just see it as a continuation of the Franco Prussian war for the most part and totally overshadowed by ww2. The British are alone in the degree they commemorate it.

 Ketara wrote:
It doesn't even feature too heavily in European history. The French and the Germans just see it as a continuation of the Franco Prussian war for the most part and totally overshadowed by ww2. The British are alone in the degree they commemorate it.

I've seen plenty of WW1 war memorials in my travels in France and Germany over the years, and I'm not talking about the official war cemeteries, either.

Small French villages have a lot.

Russia, on the other hand, from what I've read, hardly seems to remember The Great War at all, with tons of forgotten battlefields, ruins, destroyed documents etc etc which is a shame, as there is probably a ton of historical material out there.

Again, that's understanable due to WW2.

I suspect the October and Bolshevik revolutions coming soon after overshadow it a bit, too.

You're conflating 'unremembered' with 'not commemorated to anywhere near the same degree. Over here, ww1 is staple of the curriculum, has countless memorials and sank deep into the British psyche. On the continent? It's just the war that marked the end of the colonial period.

WW1 isn't a huge thing over here for a number of reasons.

WW2 overshadowed it in every way, so thats a big one, WW1 never had the social impact here it did elsewhere. None of the fighting took place in the US, there is no "pearl harbor" moment, so theres not a huge number of terrible memories, in fact for the most part it greatly enriched the US (and it looks bad to flaunt that the US sucked a century of wealth out of Europe in 4 years) There is a fair amount of awkward hypocrisy in the US stance that led to its entrance (you're not neutral if you're respecting one sides blockade but running the other's and essentially single-handedly keeping one side in the war economically). The disaster of the aftermath is seen as something of a US policy failure on multiple counts (e.g. the 14 points not being adopted, the failure of the US to join the League and the Leagues failures, etc). The US involvement was late and relatively brief, and compared to other WW1 nations and the WW2 US casualty count, the US got off fairly light in WW1.

That said, yes its taught it in schools, but at least from my experience in school, much more from a European standpoint and all the issues that started it, 1914 is taught way more than 1918 and 1919, Princip and Schlieffen are bigger themes, not so much the US involvement aside from the 14 points and Submarines. There are documentaries, but often as not they tend to be about British stuff. Overall, its overshadowed by the second war.

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.

 Ketara wrote:
You're conflating 'unremembered' with 'not commemorated to anywhere near the same degree. Over here, ww1 is staple of the curriculum, has countless memorials and sank deep into the British psyche. On the continent? It's just the war that marked the end of the colonial period.

I would disagree

Verdun seems to feature huge in French history for obvious reasons.

WW1 sticks for the Brits because it was the end of Empire.

WW2 sticks because for the first time in centuries, possibly ever, we were genuinely in The Right, fighting against genuine evil. Helped clean much of the blood of empire off our hands.

I think it might have more to do with the fact that WWII and its cast of villains. Hitler, Tojo, Panzers, Stukas, Yamato, Death March, Concentration camps, etc, all pretty much capture more attention than trenches and bi-planes. WWII is fascinating in all aspects, whereas WWII looks rather dull.

And I do think WWI is very interesting and worth reading about, especially since I feel the world we live in today is moving pretty close to where the world was prior to the war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
WW1 sticks for the Brits because it was the end of Empire.

WW2 sticks because for the first time in centuries, possibly ever, we were genuinely in The Right, fighting against genuine evil. Helped clean much of the blood of empire off our hands.

WWII cost the Brits their empire, not WWI.

Both did. WW1 was the end of the Colonial Era, and the beginning of the end of Empire. WW2 hastened things considerably.

 Vaktathi wrote:
WW1 isn't a huge thing over here for a number of reasons.

WW2 overshadowed it in every way, so thats a big one, WW1 never had the social impact here it did elsewhere. None of the fighting took place in the US, there is no "pearl harbor" moment, so theres not a huge number of terrible memories, in fact for the most part it greatly enriched the US (and it looks bad to flaunt that the US sucked a century of wealth out of Europe in 4 years) There is a fair amount of awkward hypocrisy in the US stance that led to its entrance (you're not neutral if you're respecting one sides blockade but running the other's and essentially single-handedly keeping one side in the war economically). The disaster of the aftermath is seen as something of a US policy failure on multiple counts (e.g. the 14 points not being adopted, the failure of the US to join the League and the Leagues failures, etc). The US involvement was late and relatively brief, and compared to other WW1 nations and the WW2 US casualty count, the US got off fairly light in WW1.

That said, yes its taught it in schools, but at least from my experience in school, much more from a European standpoint and all the issues that started it, 1914 is taught way more than 1918 and 1919, Princip and Schlieffen are bigger themes, not so much the US involvement aside from the 14 points and Submarines. There are documentaries, but often as not they tend to be about British stuff. Overall, its overshadowed by the second war.

Good summary.

As an amateur military historian, I do find the politics of the pre-WW1 US military fascinating. I think it was around 1908, but when the army asks Congress for money to raise the US army from 25,000 men to 30,000 men, the Army gets laughed out of Washington.

In 2018, it's hard to believe that there was a time when the USA was satisfied with an army 25,000 strong.

But back then, the USMC, was the go to for foreign conflict e.g Boxer rebellion and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

It's a shame it's forgotten, because WW1 changed the USA in so many ways.

Its interesting that WWII kind of had a rolling start to it. Kinda of starts with Japan and China, but when England and France declare war on Germany for invading Poland, only to watch in shock as Russia does the same, but have left them exasperated. And no declaration of war followed on the Soviet Union, which should have been. Lets say Germany never invades Russia, and Germany was defeated by the allies... do we really believe Russia would have given Poland back?

And in the process, Britain loses just about everything.

Its a really messed up war to be honest.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
WW1 sticks for the Brits because it was the end of Empire.

WW2 sticks because for the first time in centuries, possibly ever, we were genuinely in The Right, fighting against genuine evil. Helped clean much of the blood of empire off our hands.

WW1 made the British Empire bigger.

In 1922, it was the largest Empire in history, and ruled a 1/4 of the Earth

But you are right to say that despite victory, Britain seemed to be diminished thereafter.

It knocked the stuffing out of the nation, and we lost a lot of our brightest and best

and very nearly lost Tolkien and Robert Graves, two of my favourite authors.

It also killed off religion for many.

Basically, the men in the trenches couldn't see how God could allow such horror.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You're conflating 'unremembered' with 'not commemorated to anywhere near the same degree. Over here, ww1 is staple of the curriculum, has countless memorials and sank deep into the British psyche. On the continent? It's just the war that marked the end of the colonial period.

I would disagree

Verdun seems to feature huge in French history for obvious reasons.

Here's Germany.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28079136

I'd link to the French equivalent, but it's mostly in the most terribly boring academic prose you've ever read and in book format.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
You're conflating 'unremembered' with 'not commemorated to anywhere near the same degree. Over here, ww1 is staple of the curriculum, has countless memorials and sank deep into the British psyche. On the continent? It's just the war that marked the end of the colonial period.

I would disagree

Verdun seems to feature huge in French history for obvious reasons.

Here's Germany.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28079136

I'd link to the French equivalent, but it's mostly in the most terribly boring academic prose you've ever read and in book format.

I don't mind academic prose - I've done some history in my time. I know the difference between Von Ranke from Braudel.

Historiography is my middle name

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't mind academic prose - I've done some history in my time. I know the difference between Von Ranke from Braudel.

Historiography is my middle name

On your head be it! The academic in question is called Jay Winter. I couldn't tell you which of his several books it was; mainly because the man's writing is so stifling you fall asleep halfway through. He's so infamous for it that me and my cohort have a joke about how tedious a piece of writing is on a scale of Ruddock Mackay to Jay Winter. He does good work, but he writes like a funeral parade. Which is highly ironic given those sorts of things are his favourite subject....

In my AP American History we covered World War I in a single day.

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.

Plus WWII touched many more lives in the US than WWI did. I remember my grandmother telling me how all the young men in her small town went off to fight in WWII, and many did not come back, and how sad that was. As a country we were far more invested in WWII than in WWI.

 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.

That was my experience as well. I remember a number of teachers getting bogged down at various points in the coursework, with beginning-of-the-year promises to try and get to particular post-WWII periods usually not quite getting fulfilled.

WWI is featured more significantly in the Canadian curriculum (at least in the GTA/Ontario area) on par with (or in some cases more than) WW2 at some level since WWI was when Canada really came into their own as a distinct nation rather than simply being seen as yet another colony of Britain. With successes at Vimy Ridge, and Canadian regiments representing some of the better troops of the Commonwealth (you know you're doing something right when Germans call you stormtroopers), we contributed a lot more there than in WW2, where most of our contribution was less of us in the spotlight and more of being part of the team effort in the Western front, like D-Day and our work in the Netherlands.

In Russia WW1 is seen as important, but it is seen very differently from the way people see it in the West. For Russia, WW1 lasted until 1922. 1914 is the year that kicked off the entire chain that led to the Revolution and the Civil War. It was all basically one big war with constantly changing participants. First the Tsar and the Western allies vs the Austro-Hungarians and Germans, then the Germans brought in Lenin and it became the Bolsheviks and a whole lot of smaller movements vs the Tsar, then the Tsar abdicated and it became the Bolsheviks vs the other political movements, then the Bolsheviks installed themselves as the new government and it became the Bolsheviks vs the remnants of the Imperial regime, the Western allies, and a whole host of smaller rebel movements with frequently shifting alliances and backstabbing.

Of course, because of how complicated all this is it is frequently overshadowed by the story of the Great Patriotic War with its easy good and evil narrative. This is also helped by the fact that the Great Patriotic War was much larger in terms of scale and unlike WW1 and the Civil War is still within living memory.

In the Netherlands, WW1 is largely ignored. Kids learn a bit about it in school but that is it. The Netherlands did not participate in WW1 so I can imagine that is why it isn't given much attention.

In general in public school I learned far less about World War 1 than World War 2, but my girlfriend works for the ABMC (the American Battle Monuments Commission) which is a federal organization, and they're doing a World War 1 publicity campaign. She's going to France in March to speak, and has already given lectures at a couple of universities.

So it's improving, or at least someone is trying to improve it.

We had to read "All Quiet on the Western Front" in my 8th grade school and later in my Junior year of High School. That's about the only exposure I had to WW1 in my scholastic career.

That book, the movie interpretation and Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episodes on WW1 taught me everything I know about WW1.

 nels1031 wrote:
We had to read "All Quiet on the Western Front" in my 8th grade school and later in my Junior year of High School. That's about the only exposure I had to WW1 in my scholastic career.

That book, the movie interpretation and Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episodes on WW1 taught me everything I know about WW1.

Pretty much this. I graduated in 2005, so the War on Terror and such was too new to be included. WW1 lasted a day in history class, WW2 lasted two weeks, and from Korea on was less than 2 days.

We were taught a lot about both world wars in School, but there was alot more focus on the Second World War, to the point that it's one of my least favourite historical topics to this day.

The First World War was, in my opinion, a much more transformative experience for the world as a whole, it truly brought the world from the 19th into the 20th century. The Soviet Union was more or less a product of WWI. The US truly stepped up on the world stage. Austria-Hungary went from major power to nothingness. The Ottoman Empire went through its death throes. The world realised more than ever before just how different warfare would be in the modern age.

The Second World War gave us insight in just how horrible humans can be, it cemented the US and the USSR as the only remaining superpowers and there were significant military innovations made, most importantly nuclear weapons. WWII was important, sure, but I don't think it changed the world to the degree that WWI did. Not to mention that WWII was largely a result of WWI anyway. Without WWI, almost certainly no Nazi Germany, and no Soviet Union. Without Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, we don't have the main actors of the Second World War.

Since there seem to be a few Swedes chipping in here/in the thread on Sweden with an interest in history, do any of you live in/near Stockholm? PM me if so please. There's a reason for my asking peripherally related to but separate from the general topic.