Hello! :thumbsup:

I have a question what I can't really figure out. Why is WWII remembered and commerated more than WWI? Of course I realize that WWII took a lot more lives, and I also realize that atrocities galore were commited (Rape of Nanking, Holocaust...) but I think WWI should still have more importance in everyday life.

I think this because WWI introduced many of the new types of warfare used in WWII. For example, faster reload rifles were made, eventually leading to bolt action rifles and (portable) machine guns. Also, naval warfare was much more devastating and important in WWI than previous wars, for example the Crimean War.

WWI also introduced some forms of warfare not used in WWII, for example chemical warfare. You could argue gas WAS used in WWII, but that was only in Italy's conquest of Ethiopia in the 1930's. However, this only ran up to the war. Gas was used in WWI, the first time ever.

The first planes were used ever in war in WWI. The Wright brothers flew the first aeroplane in 1903, but they were first used in WWI. We all know how important planes in wars are now.

What I'm saying is that WWI lead a huge technological avancement in many ways for many countries. Modern warfare would not be the same without the advancements made in WWI.

What are your thoughts?

Well, most people are not experts in military tactics, so they are going to remember WW2 mainly because there are still people from its generation here to pass on the stories...and because of the identifiable tragedies on such a huge scale.

The holocaust, rape of nanking, even the firebombing of Dresden and other cities. Pearl Harbor in America, the London airbombings, Vichy France, Stalingrad...there were so many defining moments in that war that stick in a nations subconcious for so long.

I think it's simply becuase WW2 is a much more recent conflict than WW1...in our lifetimes I think we will see WW2 remembered and commorated less as it fades further into the past and there are less and less veterans around.

Nobody cares about the methods of warfare except military history buffs. We remember wars because of their impact on the general population, and WWII was far more devastating than WWI in that regard.

edit: sorry, I didn't spot Azale making much the same comments.

Indeed there is obviously the fact that WW2 saw more deaths and general destruction than WW1 too.

My father, now aged 86, is a World War II veteran. His father, who has been dead for almost 30 years, was a veteran of World War I. As the World War II veterans die out, that war will fade from memory.

Another way of thinking about it is: My grandfather fought in the War to End All Wars. My father fought in the war after that.

You people forget the media. There are gazillions of photos, films, sounds, radio speeches etc from WWII. Nations were better organized and more bureaucratic, so they also produced enormous amount of written data. WWII has been a pet subject of entertainment industry - Blitzing tanks is much more exciting image than wet and dirty trenches.

All this happened with WWI too, but you can't really compare.

You pretty much answered your question in the first paragraph......

Also, naval warfare was much more devastating and important in WWI than previous wars, for example the Crimean War. While naval warfare wasn't important in the Crimean War, it was a major factor in the Napoleonic Wars. Also, the naval blockade of the Confederacy was a contributing cause to the Confederacy's defeat in the American Civil War.

On top of the fact that WWII was more recent, and led directly into the Cold War, a time most people lived through, there's the fact that WWII was much more fluid. There were big events that occured, from Dunkirk, to Normandy, right up to the battle of the Bulge, that were all different in thier own way.

WWI as is taught these days was just 4 years of people getting killed while walking between two trench systems that stayed constant the whole time, which is of course not the case.

There is also the aspect that the Americans had much more to do with WWII, so the American media likes to inflate that as much as possible.

The first month and the last year of WWI are the most interesting. Plus there were some interesting people involved in WWI.

For instance, On September 15, 1918, about six weeks before the end of the war, Erich Ludendorff, the chief of staff of the German Army, believed that Germany's suffering throughout the war had been such that no other country would refuse her right to occupy Belgium upon such a basis as to give Germany full control of the Flemish coast. He thought that the King of Belgium would see the necessity for the city and fortress of Liège becoming an inalienable German possession. And this was at a time when it was obvious to everyone, including Ludendorff, that Germany was losing the war.

WWII had a lot more action than WWI.

It had blitzkriegs, Nazis, Communists, massive Bombing strikes, Nukes, D-Day, etc.

WWI was retarded. Western Front was slow, pointless, and useless. Russia got Owned, and went into Civil War, and the Balkans was tetering back and forth for a while, then got pushed back. And IMHO, it was the most pointless war ever.

Trying to sum up, so far, why WWII gets more attention:

More recent. Obviously.

Bigger. Included far more people and involved more of society into the action. More geographically widespred.

More clear-cut ideologically. It's simply easier to see what the war was about. What was at stake.

The Bomb. For this reason alone it takes the cake.

Soviet occupation of eastern Europe. In a sense a state of cold war existed with the Soviets prior to WWII. (When it wasn't hot in 1919.) For westerners WWII brought the Soviets out of Russia and into the middle of things, armed to the teeth.

The Holocaust. Like the A-bomb this is one of these events that has a Before and an After. (For WWI the before and the after event is the mass killing in the trenches and the mechanisation. But as said, it's less recent.) The Holocaust is of course one of these things that has been cultivated ever since the camps were opened and filmed/photographed, the reason being that it's something that in a way defies explanation/rationalisation. There's no pat answer to a massive "Why?" hanging over it. So we return to its implications over and over again.

And finally, as Ukas pointed out, WWII is axcessible through film and photos in a way WWI isn't, at least not to the same degree. This means it's relatively easy and cheap to make commercial programming for television about it. It's not so much about the subjects depicted (plenty of excitement in WWI), but simply about access. There's as aspect of WWII becoming medialised well after the actual event. Thank the power of television here.

WWII fits the good/bad scheme better and the US saw more action -> more movies. The leaders had also way more "charisma" or recognition value than the monarchs from WWI.
WWI was a pointless mess.
I would say that politically WWI was way more important as it ended the old monarchic empires in Central and Eastern Europe, it also set the path to end the colonial era. But this point is more even as WWII had the implication of bringing the Cold war order.

First of all, World War Two is much closer technologically to modern warfare. Tank rushes, bombing strikes and infantry with sub machine guns. World War One was a nineteenth century war fought with turn-of-the-century weaponry.

Second, WW2 was much more dramatic. Fast, crushing defeats and then equally fast victories. Lightning war. WW1 was years of a static front even at the very end.* Gave the war a feeling of pointlessness.

Third, whereas WW1 was fairly even morally, WW2 was clearly a case of good VS evil and ended in a clear victory for democracy and freedom.*


*Eastern Europe? Not in Hollywood history!

A lot of important events happened in the First World War which the education system fails to bring across for the most part. Try explain to anyone young enough to be in school the significance of the First World War and they will, for the most part, just see it as 'World War Part 1', or 'the boring war'.

It is tragic that history in the education system here has to be 'exciting' in order for it to be taught. The impact of the war on domestic politics worldwide was very significant, for example here in the UK. The First World War caused a dramatic shift in party politics as the Labour party finally became strong enough to oppose the Conservatives, women first got the vote and the franchise was extended to younger men. Not to mention the coalition government which experimented with nationalisation and privatisation of key industries throughout Britain.
Other significant impacts of the war include the end of the Tsar in Russia, the end of the Kaiser in Germany, the disillusion of Italy... in essence, the First World War was more the Colonial Power war, adjusting the balance of power in Europe and America (possibly Africa + Asia too to a degree) while the Second World War was more accurately spanning the globe, involving every nation on the planet with a significant standing army.

History lesson over, it is pretty easy to assume that the Second World War was more significant, which in some ways it was, but I also think that it is largely easier to explain within a context of the end of the Great War why the Second World War started, rather than try to explain the significance and origins of the First World War.

Sorry if I offended you. I was only trying to get a point across...

WWII wouldn't have been the same without WWI, not to mention modern war. WWI became the early building blocks of war after that.

Hmm... I always thought that WWI got more play in European education? In terms of world history, I think an argument can be made that WWI is more instrumental in shaping things. From a strictly American perspective, WWII is the more defining event.

What's interesting about the WWI/WWII thing is that in
Europe, the memorials to WWI are generally much more
elaborate than those for WWII. The most striking example
I personally have seen was in Southampton. There was
a *large* column in a park with the words "The Great War"
carved at the base. Just in front of it was a very modest
sized plaque which said "World War II".

WWII truly affected our way of life. My uncles were in the war but my Grandmother, my grandmother worked in the shipyards in San Francisco. WWII didn't just affect soldiers and their families, it affected the civilian population as well. Resources, food, gas etc, were fed to the war machine and the leftovers were divided up amongst the civilians. These were the people raised listening to WWI stories. When they raised us, they had their own story to tell.

WWII is more interesting to people because it is easier to see it as a global conflict between Good and Evil. The Axis were perhaps the greatest alliance of sadistic dictators the world has ever known, and were responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians in death camps. Thus the Allies and the Axis are two wholly opposite sides of morality. Just like a movie.

WWI's nations were not as dramatically different, and the cause of the war was not the threat of facist takeover, but a triggering of alliances and pacts.

Between 1815 and 1914 there was no general war in Europe. The Franco-Prussian War lasted six weeks and other, minor wars were over equally quickly. In 1914, because an Austrian was killed in Bosnia, Germany was at war with France, Russia and Britain. This war lasted for four years, killing more people than any war except its continuation, World War II.

At the end of the war France and Austria were no longer world powers (Austria wasn't even a European power) and serious attempts were made to keep Germany from regaining her status as a world power. The United States became a world power.

WWII truly affected our way of life. My uncles were in the war but my Grandmother, my grandmother worked in the shipyards in San Francisco. WWII didn't just affect soldiers and their families, it affected the civilian population as well. Resources, food, gas etc, were fed to the war machine and the leftovers were divided up amongst the civilians. These were the people raised listening to WWI stories. When they raised us, they had their own story to tell.

Incorrect. Gas was not used. It was used in WWI. Civilians were affected in WWI. Rationing was imposed. Also, the French, German, Belgium etc etc civilians were caught in the struggle.

salty mud,

I believe 3 EMS was referring to gasoline rationing during WWII, not the use of poison gas.

@OP: You said the reasons yourself. All that stuff, planes, new types of machineguns, tanks, subs were just the start ... in WW2 they were used on a massive scale.
Plus WW2 has that "spice": the holocaust, nazis, commies, atrocities, mysticism ... etc. with all the glamour that these things have ... and they have plenty. :D

I agree that it's partly the "good vs evil" ideology of WWII. It's got all the good villains (and heroes) while WWI seems to lack both. Also, as I said elsewhere, WWII is the last time when Britain made a big difference on the global scene, which is why the British remain obsessed with it. I think something similar might apply to America, since it's the last time the US was involved in a major war where they can reasonably claim to have been on the "right" side.

I posted it on the other thread, but I just have to post it here too - Georges Brassens' song about the Great War (really an attack on the kind of mentality that enjoys warfare, of course). Looks like not everyone thought WWII to be "better"...

Depuis que l'homme écrit l'Histoire
Depuis qu'il bataille à cœur joie
Entre mille et une guerr' notoires
Si j'étais t'nu de faire un choix
A l'encontre du vieil Homère
Je déclarerais tout de suite:
"Moi, mon colon, cell' que j'préfère,
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit!"

Est-ce à dire que je méprise
Les nobles guerres de jadis
Que je m'soucie comm' d'un'cerise
De celle de soixante-dix?
Au contrair', je la révère
Et lui donne un satisfecit
Mais, mon colon, celle que j'préfère
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit

Je sais que les guerriers de Sparte
Plantaient pas leurs epées dans l'eau
Que les grognards de Bonaparte
Tiraient pas leur poudre aux moineaux
Leurs faits d'armes sont légendaires
Au garde-à-vous, je les félicite
Mais, mon colon, celle que j'préfère
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit

Bien sûr, celle de l'an quarante
Ne m'as pas tout à fait déçu
Elle fut longue et massacrante
Et je ne crache pas dessus
Mais à mon sens, elle ne vaut guère
Guèr' plus qu'un premier accessit
Moi, mon colon, celle que j' préfère
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit

Mon but n'est pas de chercher noise
Au guérillas, non, fichtre, non
Guerres saintes, guerres sournoises
Qui n'osent pas dire leur nom,
Chacune a quelque chos' pour plaire
Chacune a son petit mérite
Mais, mon colon, celle que j'préfère
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit

Du fond de son sac à malices
Mars va sans doute, à l'occasion,
En sortir une, un vrai délice
Qui me fera grosse impression
En attendant je persévère
A dir' que ma guerr' favorite
Cell', mon colon, que j'voudrais faire
C'est la guerr' de quatorz'-dix-huit

Michael Flanders translated it loosely but brilliantly, although unfortunately he didn't come up with any translation for "massacrante":

War has had its apologians,
Ever since history began,
From the times of the Greeks and Trojans, when they sang of arms and the man.
But if you asked me to name the best, Sir,
I'd tell you the one I mean,
Head and shoulders above the rest, Sir, was the War of 14-18,
Head and shoulders above the rest, Sir, stands the War of 14-18.

There were the wars against all those Louis,
There were Caesar's wars in Gaul,
There was Britain's war in Suez, which wasn't a war at all.
There was the war of the Spanish succession,
Many other wars in between,
But they none of them made an impression like the war of 14-18,
They didn't make the same impression as the war of 14-18.

The war of American independence,
That was enjoyable, by and large,
Watching England's free descendants busy defeating German garge.
But the Boer war was a poor war, And I'm still inclined to lean,
Though Sir, it possibly isn't your war like the war of 14-18,
Though, it probably isn't your war, Sir, the war of 14-18.

There are certainly plenty of wars to choose from, you pick whichever one you please.
Like the one we've had all the news from, liberating the Vietnamese,
Or those wars for God and country, be it Korean or Philippine.
Sir, if you'll pardon my affrontry, give me the war of 14-18,
If you'll pardon my affrontry, Sir, the war of 14-18,

Every war has its own attraction from total war to border raid,
Call it rebellion, police action,
War of containment or crusade.
I don't underrate the late war we see so often on the screen,
But that wasn't a really great war like the war of 14-18,
No, the late war wasn't the great war like the war of 14-18.

No doubt Mars among his chattels has got some really splendid war,
Full of bigger and bloodier battles that we've ever seen before.
But until that time comes, Sir, when that greater war comes on the scene,
The one that I on the whole prefer, Sir, is the war of 14-18,
Yes, the one that I still prefer, Sir, is the war of 14-18.

better publicity, holocaust..?

however most people, i know, dont know too many details about either one

but less about WWI

Incorrect. Gas was not used. It was used in WWI. Civilians were affected in WWI. Rationing was imposed. Also, the French, German, Belgium etc etc civilians were caught in the struggle.



I apologise, Salty Mud, I meant gasolene.

In Canada, the opposite is true. WWI is generally talked about more than WWII and appears more in literature and so forth.

It is tragic that history in the education system here has to be 'exciting' in order for it to be taught.

not true, my class spent three weeks on the depression and only a week on WW2

WWII is more interesting to people because it is easier to see it as a global conflict between Good and Evil. The Axis were perhaps the greatest alliance of sadistic dictators the world has ever known, and were responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians in death camps. Thus the Allies and the Axis are two wholly opposite sides of morality. Just like a movie.

WWI's nations were not as dramatically different, and the cause of the war was not the threat of facist takeover, but a triggering of alliances and pacts.

I disagree. Both sides were equally ruthless, and killed enormous amounts of civilians.

I am glad that the Allies won, however.

The cause of WWI wasn't just a "triggering" of alliances. Who "triggered" them? The combatants chose to go to war. For example, Austria chose to declare war on Serbia because they wanted to increase their hegemony in the Balkans. And when Russia declared war on Austria to defend Serbia, Germany chose to go to war against them, even though the terms of their alliance with Austria did not demand it. Now the system of alliances may have largely determined precisely who went to war against whom - for example, France's alliance with Russia meant that, once Germany had decided to go to war against Russia, they began by attacking France. However, the decision of the German government to go to war in the first place was not determined by the alliances. On the contrary, they seem to have been quite keen to have a war, partly out of a desire to stoke up nationalist sentiment and reduce the threat (as they perceived it) of communism among German workers.

not true, my class spent three weeks on the depression and only a week on WW2

Think of your initial basic history education. They will tell you the big basic exciting facts, where possible, that will stick in your mind. World War 2 wins over the Great War any day.

hoooray, big long depression

I have nothing to add in the discussion that hasn't already been said, but if you're ever in Kansas City, take the opportunity to see the WW1 memorial downtown. Built around 1920, it is striking and awesome. It gives you a feel for how people looked at The Great War prior to the next war.

I have nothing to add in the discussion that hasn't already been said, but if you're ever in Kansas City, take the opportunity to see the WW1 memorial downtown. Built around 1920, it is striking and awesome. It gives you a feel for how people looked at The Great War prior to the next war.
And if in France, and you happen to end up in some one-cow village in the countryside, be sure to look up the gigantic war memorial over the village's war dead 1914-1918.

It doesn't matter which rotten little French village it is, it will have a huge monument. Usually a WWI soldier and some angelic figure etc. They mass-produced these things in the 1920's.

These monuments are pretty much all pathetic considered as artworks. But the real shocker here is the relation betwee the size of the village, the size of the monument and the length of the list of dead young men.

In almost every town in Belgium and the northern part of France occupied by Germany you can find grave stones with the inscription "fusillé par les Allemands" or "shot by the Germans." Usually the dates are 1914-18, but occasionally you'll find the dates 1940 to 1945.

For the US, there is no comparison. Same thing with Japan (who joined the allies in WWI to seize German colonies). I'd also assume that the same holds for the Poles.

But, what about France? While Britain had the feeling of a lost generation, France really did have a lost generation and drop in population after the war. The refusal of the French army to advance at the end, and the scared landscapes. How does this compare for the French to the swift defeat and occupation by Germany during WWII? It seems that Charles de Gaule is the biggest hero of the two wars, is this accurate?

It seems to me, from studying British history, that there existed two generations of war children that grew up hearing about the horrors, except the second generation didn't have to go through a WWIII, and I wonder how great of a role that played in the 60's.

Bright day
WWI is well remembered in Czechia, many troops fought on both sides and we got our independance from it. Also we have myth of Czechoslovak Legions.

Everyone seems to be forgetting one other significant factor. News coverage. WW I was fought when news from Europe came a month after the fact, in papers, with no photos. WW II was famous for live radio broadcasts, daily print stories, and weekly newsreels. Not only has the memory of the fighting survived, but the more distant memory of the home front.

However, consider the landmark film The Best Years of our Lives. It was about the vets coming home, and what their problems were. But it was released before the fighting was actually over, in 1945, shot the previous year, and writen the year before that. It is in many ways a movie about 1919, with newer cars. Now that I think about it, cinema had a much bigger impact on our current recollection than even the living memory. Hollywood made what were then current events, or updated memories of the first war to the new names and equipment.

J

J

Actually world war one had far more losses and cassualties than world war 2, but like theyve said, more news coverage/siginificance and the like put it as more of a priority.

Actually world war one had far more losses and cassualties than world war 2, but like theyve said, more news coverage/siginificance and the like put it as more of a priority.

:confused:

According to wikipedia, WW1 saw roughly 15 million dead, and WW2 saw roughly 62 million dead.

On the original topic the point about the increased media coverage on WW2 is a good one (news reels, photos etc)

To be fair, the original assumption only holds true for some parts of the world...it's only that one of those today completely dominates the media (and this forum as well). No offense, just a matter of fact.
In my history classes (two decades ago, admittedly), WW1 played a much larger role than WW2. Which makes a lot of sense, since in Europe (not in the Pacific!) WW2 was nothing but a logical continuation of WW1. For France or Belgium or Austria-Hungary, WW1 had a lot more impact. For Germany, it was leading directly into WW2 (which by itself had a larger impact, no question). GB, I'd guess it's a tie.
For the US of A, Japan and, for different reasons, the former Soviet Union, WW2 is indeed a lot more important.

It's also a case of WW2 being a clear-cut case of a 'war against evil'. Despite the importance of the Great War, the Second World War was significant as a black and white case of good and evil at its most basic level.

WWI may have made my nation a world power, and set the world stage directly for the modern world order, modern warfare, and WWII itself, but I think it's just too long ago and was just overshadowed by WWII.

It had a more resounding affect on our world today. And it's effects were seen until the end of the Cold War.

Sorry, Tank Guy, but I have to disagree. World War I's influence is with us today.

Just as a for-instance, modern Iraq was the result of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. This was a secret understanding between the British and French governments defining their respective spheres of post-World War I influence and control in the Middle East. The boundaries of this agreement still remain in much of the border between Iraq and its surrounding countries.

15% of the American population fought in it, and itmcaused the deaths of million, and the only use of nukes in a war.

It is tragic that history in the education system here has to be 'exciting' in order for it to be taught. The impact of the war on domestic politics worldwide was very significant, for example here in the UK. The First World War caused a dramatic shift in party politics as the Labour party finally became strong enough to oppose the Conservatives, women first got the vote and the franchise was extended to younger men. Not to mention the coalition government which experimented with nationalisation and privatisation of key industries throughout Britain.
Other significant impacts of the war include the end of the Tsar in Russia, the end of the Kaiser in Germany, the disillusion of Italy... in essence, the First World War was more the Colonial Power war, adjusting the balance of power in Europe and America (possibly Africa + Asia too to a degree) while the Second World War was more accurately spanning the globe, involving every nation on the planet with a significant standing army.

History lesson over, it is pretty easy to assume that the Second World War was more significant, which in some ways it was, but I also think that it is largely easier to explain within a context of the end of the Great War why the Second World War started, rather than try to explain the significance and origins of the First World War.World War 1 may not have been on the global scale of WWII, but it was far from a Colonial power war. It wasn't fought for control of land at all, it was fought because nationalistic tension was stretched to the breaking point. WWII is probably remembered more because there were more people fighting in it, more people died, the direct result of the end of the war was the polarization of the world (Cold War) and the revelation that mankind now harnessed the destructive power to end itself with nuclear weapons. Atrocities and genocide occurred during both wars, nations arose and fell as a result of both wars, and tactics forever changed as a result of both wars. WWI set the ground rules for proper combat conduct and human rights during war (which were completely disregarded by the Axis during WWII), ended the centuries old tactic of squaring off in lines and charging a position, and paved the way for WWII. WWIIs legacy lies in the large number of still living veterans who were more than ready to share their stories and experiences with a younger generation which is willing to listen (explains the success of numerous WWII based action video games, just as a for instance). WWI vets just didn't have this effect apparently, and none of them are around any more to share their experience with the new generation. I also believe that because it was the only war of the 20th century to ever be considered a "just war" it has a positive legacy. WWIs legacy is that it was nothing compared to the even bigger, far more destructive war that was fought on the same turf.

PS: Submachine guns, tanks, submarines, and aircraft were the new weapons for WWI: bolt-rifles had been around since the 1850s and machine guns since the 1880s. Still, it was WWII which technological development can be considered a foundation for what our military uses today. Everything from assault rifles, to aircraft carriers, to cruise missiles, to night vision stemmed out of technology developed on both sides to gain the technological edge in the war.

Actually world war one had far more losses and cassualties than world war 2, but like theyve said, more news coverage/siginificance and the like put it as more of a priority.where did you hear this lie? the same rag that led the baby boomer generation to believe Vietnam was a far worse war than the war their parents fought in Europe and the Pacific?:crazyeye:

To be fair, the original assumption only holds true for some parts of the world...it's only that one of those today completely dominates the media (and this forum as well). No offense, just a matter of fact.
In my history classes (two decades ago, admittedly), WW1 played a much larger role than WW2. Which makes a lot of sense, since in Europe (not in the Pacific!) WW2 was nothing but a logical continuation of WW1. For France or Belgium or Austria-Hungary, WW1 had a lot more impact. For Germany, it was leading directly into WW2 (which by itself had a larger impact, no question). GB, I'd guess it's a tie.
For the US of A, Japan and, for different reasons, the former Soviet Union, WW2 is indeed a lot more important.I disagree, the Iron Curtain of the cold war is what had the lasting effect in Europe. Had hitler won, and the internet been created (doubtful in a world where all freedoms are suppressed) we'd be writing differently

Between 1815 and 1914 there was no general war in Europe.
I guess you've never heard of the Napoleonic Wars... It stretched from Portugal to Russia and spilled over in the North Africa too.
The megalomaniac at the helm was a pint-sized frenchman instead of a self-loathing, half-jewish austrian that liked to scream alot :p

I guess you've never heard of the Napoleonic Wars... It stretched from Portugal to Russia and spilled over in the North Africa too.
The megalomaniac at the helm was a pint-sized frenchman instead of a self-loathing, half-jewish austrian that liked to scream alot :p
...now guess who was exiled to a tiny island after losing a decisive battle near Brussels on June 18th, 1815?;)

Might have already been said, but here's what I think about this issue:

- In WWI, there were no clear winners (altough I might be wrong about this)
- WWI was pointless war (that's gotta be true for most parts).

WW2 cemented the political landscape of the world and the major powers for the next fifty years. This whilst WW1 left things in a state of imbalance as if the world held its breath and further can be claimed to be a mere prelude to WW2 where the scores where settled.

It was not possible to rid the world of colonialism, one of the most ruthlessly worldshaping mechanisms, untill after WW2. The thought was possible to concieve thanks to the first world war but not possible to implement untill after the second world war. The old superpower UK had to have the reality of the end of its power driven home for the worlds mindset to be altered.

The first world war is often said to be the real end of the 19th century, but that is only partly true, for the 20th century didn't realy start untill after WW2.

Rather both wars where one drawnout conflict with a ceasfire in the middle.

Hello! :thumbsup:


The first planes were used ever in war in WWI. The Wright brothers flew the first aeroplane in 1903, but they were first used in WWI. We all know how important planes in wars are now.


What are your thoughts?

Planes were used in the Balcan Wars (1912-1913) by Greece, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (and probably other sides as well) ;)

I think that mainly it has to do with the fact that more ww2 veterans are still alive. Also it was the last great war, and it led to the iron curtain, which still existed up to a few years ago.

I think that in history all events are linked. WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles caused WW2. Of course there is something which had led to ww1 and etc.
But why is ww2 more remembered ?
It's certainly not about the new weapons. Who do you think care about what tanks or planes or rifels were used during the war ? Mostly the historians and people who are interested in history. And they are not a majority.
WW2 afected the life of more people than ww1, and the most important, big number of these people are still alive. I am almost certain that every of us had heard the stories of veterans. WW2 is somehow still alive. I read something but i don't know is it true. We all now what spam means on the I-net. But this word had acquired such meaning during the war. The british soldiers were sick of the spam( a kind of ham) and spam became byword for something bad, for something you get sick of.


Mostly every child know for the war. And the child had learnt it much before the lessons about the war in school. It's because the medias(nazism and ww2 is often spoken in the medias), the films(how many films about ww2 and how man about ww1 have you watched ?), the Holocaust (it's really often spoken about it).

Generally i think that ww2 is more remembered because it happend sooner, more people took part, one ideology which became synonym of evil, and of course the medias and the films.(mostly of which are so stupid and propaganda that i am sick of them)

However, consider the landmark film The Best Years of our Lives. It was about the vets coming home, and what their problems were. But it was released before the fighting was actually over, in 1945, shot the previous year, and writen the year before that. It is in many ways a movie about 1919, with newer cars. Now that I think about it, cinema had a much bigger impact on our current recollection than even the living memory. Hollywood made what were then current events, or updated memories of the first war to the new names and equipment.


The Best Years of Our Lives was released in 1946

I guess you've never heard of the Napoleonic Wars... It stretched from Portugal to Russia and spilled over in the North Africa too.
The megalomaniac at the helm was a pint-sized frenchman
Actually he was 168 cm, i.e. the exact average height of Frenchmen of his day.

His only tiny when the British draw him.;)

Hm... I think while WWI is perhaps not as "dramatic" as it´s sequel, I tend to think that it is more important than generally thought - I do not believe there would have been a WWII without nr.1. WWI resulted in a complete social change in central europe, the abolishment of a lot of monarchic systems, sometimes outright anarchy and, most important, would Hitler have gotten a chance to rise to power if it was not for the dire situation Germany was in after the war ( perhaps it would even have sufficed to make the Versailles treaty a bit less harsh?? ) ?

edit: argh, fingOlfin already said that, sorry for pointless posting ;-) !

Actually he was 168 cm, i.e. the exact average height of Frenchmen of his day.

His only tiny when the British draw him.;)

I have heard it said that the myth also prossibly comes from the fact that many of his marshals and senior officers were tall men therefore Napoleon would likely seem small when standing next to them.