Why is WWII remembered more than WWI?

[salty mud]

Hello!

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?

 

[Azale]

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.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

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.

 

[jameson]

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.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

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

 

[YNCS]

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.

 

[Ukas]

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.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

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

 

[YNCS]

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.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

 

[YNCS]

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.

 

[Bluemofia]

WWII had a lot more action than WWI.

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

WWI was ******ed. 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.

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

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.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

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!

 

[AxiomUk]

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.

 

[salty mud]

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.

 

[.Shane.]

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.

 

[Serutan]

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".

 

[3 EMS]

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.