Why is WWII remembered more than WWI?

[Ecclesiastes]

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.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

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.

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)

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

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.

 

[AxiomUk]

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.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

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.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

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

 

[YNCS]

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.

 

[Bungholio]

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

 

[Raven9983]

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.

 

[Raven9983]

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?

 

[Raven9983]

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

 

[Raven9983]

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

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

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

...now guess who was exiled to a tiny island after losing a decisive battle near Brussels on June 18th, 1815?

 

[aaglo]

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).

 

[Pokurcz]

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.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hello!


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.

 

[fing0lfin]

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)

 

[JtheJackal]

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

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Thorbal]

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 ;-) !