Why is WWI so overlooked?

[THE Bigzoman]

I notice that people in general just gloss over and handwave the great war. It baffles me.

WWI is a textbook example of what happens when institutions are on their last leg and enter the anger stage of greif; what happens when keeping it real goes wrong (keeping your own interest in mind)

It showed the world how disposable life can be when it comes to said interests. It showed the world how human suffering can be wrought for the shittiest of reasons.

[Deleted]

I notice that people in general just gloss over and handwave the great war. It baffles me.

WWI is a textbook example of what happens when institutions are on their last leg and enter the anger stage of greif; what happens when keeping it real goes wrong (keeping your own interest in mind)

It showed the world how disposable life can be when it comes to said interests. It showed the world how human suffering can be wrought for the shittiest of reasons.

Mainly because the only lesson that can be drawn from it is that war is a very bad thing. This is not something the ruling class wants to educate people about.

[zorkuus]

Because the second one was an even bigger mess. If WWIII happened I'm sure not that many would talk about the second.

[THE Bigzoman]

Mainly because the only lesson that can be drawn from it is that war is a very bad thing. This is not something the ruling class wants to educate people about.

You can derive this lesson from any conflict though. If that were the case, all wars would be overlooked.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the second one was an even bigger mess. If WWIII happened I'm sure not that many would talk about the second.

But WW2 wouldn't have happend if it weren't for the first. To understand WW2, you have to under how WWI set a precedent.

[Kaldreno]

I notice that people in general just gloss over and handwave the great war. It baffles me.

WWI is a textbook example of what happens when institutions are on their last leg and enter the anger stage of greif; what happens when keeping it real goes wrong (keeping your own interest in mind)

It showed the world how disposable life can be when it comes to said interests. It showed the world how human suffering can be wrought for the shittiest of reasons.

I don't get exactly what you're saying. Should be glorify all the people who died in the war like in World War II? Or make more games out of it like happened with CoD, Battlefield, Frontline, Front Battle, Battle Line, Call of Battle, And Battlefield Duty?

[zorkuus]

But WW2 wouldn't have happend if it weren't for the first. To understand WW2, you have to under how WWI set a precedent.

If you think about all the shit that has happened in your life the latest incident is probably the first one to pop into your mind. It's just how people are.

[Deleted]

yes but the WWI -> WWII is arguably what led to the eventual formation of the EU and why the US got Japan back on its feet after hostilities. Before that everyone just used to slap the loser about a bit and leave them to "get on with shit."

[Xar226]

But WW2 wouldn't have happend if it weren't for the first. To understand WW2, you have to under how WWI set a precedent.

Which, if your education was anything like mine, you studied extensively at every level you studied WW2 at. In my case, that was a fucking lot. At least once in grammar school, junior high, and twice in high school.

We don't specifically look hard at WW1 because it was a useless war that never should have been fought. There are two lessons to draw from it and they can be summed up in moments:

1. Don't engage in a secret web of alliances.
2. If you win a war, don't beat the loser down.

I suppose we can add "trench warfare and chemical weapons = bad" if we were so inclined.

[THE Bigzoman]

Which, if your education was anything like mine, you studied extensively at every level you studied WW2 at. In my case, that was a fucking lot. At least once in grammar school, junior high, and twice in high school.

We don't specifically look hard at WW1 because it was a useless war that never should have been fought. There are two lessons to draw from it and they can be summed up in moments:

1. Don't engage in a secret web of alliances.
2. If you win a war, don't beat the loser down.

I suppose we can add "trench warfare and chemical weapons = bad" if we were so inclined.

That's a gross simplification.

WWI, as I said before, is an textbook example of people clinging on to outdated institutions when it's time for change.

The Austria-Hungary empire/Ottoman Turks were great contributors to the war. All it was for them was a desperate attempt to remain relevant.


For others, it was just an opputune moment to nab spoils (Italy/Japan etc)

[PBitt]

You are correct, but WWII was an even larger conflict and began a mere two decades after the first was over...and really the effects of the end of WWI had a lot of impact on WWII (it would very likely not have even happened without WWI), and this is the main reason why WWI is not focused on much, IMO. I mean, you can find 10 WWII books, movies, documentaries, etc for every one you can find on WWI, so you definitely have a point.

[Kalis]

WWI was the last of the old wars and the beginnings of modern warfare. It's not that it is overlooked as such, it's just that so many of the lessons learnt from it are ingrained we no longer need it as a reference.

For example, do we really need to be reminded that running headlong into a hail of bullets from a machine gun is likely to get you killed?

Also, post-WWI the general situation didn't change that much, the powerful nations were still intent on fighting it out themselves if they needed to, whereas post-WWII it was mainly proxy wars and the two largest alliances avoided head on conflict.


tl;dr WWII changed everything, WWI didn't change a lot.

[Acidbaron]

It was recently remembered here in 2014, followed by events, broadcasts and sorts.

Unless you were in a country that was really effected by it i doubt you're going to get a lot of attention to it. Arguably the first war effected Belgium more then the second, due to the german emperor disliking of the francophone he tried to gain favor of the dutch speaking part and as the dutch speaking part was generally seen in Belgium before as the lesser part, he even changed some universities and institutes that were primarily French speaking to dutch control.

We eventually did rebel and build our own civil military force and contributed to victory over them since well we were still occupied, but it was the kickstarter so to speak of the "flemish cause" and more independence and say so in the before mostly french speaking dominant Belgium.

The Netherlands stayed neutral through most of it, so you had a front in Belgium, Greece and parts in eastern europe, it was "smaller" then the second world war, where a whole lot more was involved.

[Reeve]

What do you mean? People don't gloss over WWI.

[Schmeebs]

In the US, WWI is glossed over because we spent the first couple years of the war profiteering from it.

[Kalis]

In the US, WWI is glossed over because we spent the first couple years of the war profiteering from it.

Yeah, you kinda did that in the second one as well.

[cubby]

I notice that people in general just gloss over and handwave the great war. It baffles me.

WWI is a textbook example of what happens when institutions are on their last leg and enter the anger stage of greif; what happens when keeping it real goes wrong (keeping your own interest in mind)

It showed the world how disposable life can be when it comes to said interests. It showed the world how human suffering can be wrought for the shittiest of reasons.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're getting at either. Your little statements about it seem like you just want to prove how clever you are rather than make a valid point. What would you like people to do?

[Tradu]

It most certainly isn't. It might be in the US because it didn't really affect you as much as it did some parts of Europe, I guess? Where I live, both world wars were kind of a big deal, because the part of Denmark I live in bounced back and forth between being Danish and being German multiple times in the period from 1864 to the end of WW2, which created the strong feeling of Danishness here.
Lots of people still resent Germany for sending young Danish men to die for a country they had no love for whatsoever.

[cubby]

That's a gross simplification.

WWI, as I said before, is an textbook example of people clinging on to outdated institutions when it's time for change.

The Austria-Hungary empire/Ottoman Turks were great contributors to the war. All it was for them was a desperate attempt to remain relevant.


For others, it was just an opputune moment to nab spoils (Italy/Japan etc)

Again, what is your point? Your phrases describing it seem overly catchy without making any real, specific point. "Remain relevant" could mean almost anything and describe almost any country that went to war in the history of the world. Same with the rest of what you're saying.

I get what you're saying (I think) but what caused you to start this thread? What upsets you about the U.S. (and possibly others) not talking more about WWI?

[Polyxo]

I think a lot of it was because it was an ugly war to talk about and make entertainment out of. A lot of it was people hanging around in muddy trenches, dying from disease and hoping artillery shells didn't land on them.

[Destinas]

As far as I recall, in school where I live (WI, US) we covered WWI and WWII equally. I remember having the same amount of study time, reading about the same amount of chapters, and having the same amounts of tests on both subjects.

That said, WWII stuck more in my mind. I'm not sure why, perhaps because Asia was influenced quite a bit more by actions in WWII, or perhaps because my grandfather was in Japan after WWII.