Why does everyone goes crazy about WW2, yet no one gives a shit about WW1?
Is it because Americans were barely involved in it and couldn't take the credit for the victory?
>>1064990
>Is it because Americans were barely involved in it and couldn't take the credit for the victory?
Pretty much. Also there isn't as clear of a good/evil distinction between the belligerents and trench warfare was boring af.
Why does everyone goes crazy about [bigger newer thing], yet no one gives a shit about [older smaller thing]
>>1065001
>there isn't as clear of a good/evil distinction between the belligerents
but that's what makes it more interesting
>trench warfare was boring af
That's just wrong
>>1064990
This may just be the American perspective, but the operations pulled off were very impressive and theatrical. Operation Torch to have a massive push by Allied Powers into Africa, and then everyone knows D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. Meanwhile, Russia bleeding to the last man in Stalingrad as Hitler's reserves and supply lines fade out, brought low by the Russian snows, culminating in a revenge spree on the road to Berlin. Island hopping and the battles in the Pacific are really neat and not as detailed, but the end with the Atomic Bomb was a feat to show how far science has come; the threat of Nuclear warfare has defined conflict ever since WW2.
But WW1?
It ended mainly in a status quo besides the breakup of Austria-Hungary and some of the Balkan States. It was a match of new technology versus attempts to use old tactics that just left men slaughtered in mass droves without many gains. There were no grand heroes leading charges to save oppressed/genocides peoples, it was old men playing territorial wars.
Then, as most media portrayal goes (as an American), it's just English, French, Germans, and Americans in trenches getting shot at and it sucking bad. WW2 gets a lot of drama and interest from filmmakers, but that may be because film was more ready and available after WW2, for vets to share their stories, while WW1 not as much, their tales now a 30 years prior. I'm not sure how it's depicted in other countries, but I believe Australia/New Zealand gets a big boner for the ANZACS and Gallipoli.
>>1064990
WW2 was much more total. It was about ideology. Extermination of whole races and so on.
WW1 was your generic european war between some monarchs, albeit on a much bigger scale.
>>1065001
>trench warfare was boring af
American "historian" detected.
>yet no one gives a shit about WW1?
Maybe in burgerland, certainly not the UK.
>>1065038
This.
>>1064990
>yet no one gives a shit about WW1?
Because WWI destroyed the old world that no one living remembers while WWII created the shitty one we all live in.
>>1064990
Because it was viewed as a pointless endeavor in which millions died for no reason, the commanders and armies were all equally shitty in how they treated their soldiers, and it left a bitter taste in peoples mouths.
WWII is remembered much more fondly as a war in which fascism was crushed for good, and soldiers who fought in it felt proud of their service.
Plus a little bit of >>1065001 as well.
>>1065001
Except there was a "good/evil" distinction drawn by the Allies in WWI. They drew up a whole propaganda narrative of representative democracies versus evil oppressive autocracies and the scary inhuman Germans. We're still living off WWII propaganda because the people who fought in it are still alive and there hasn't been a war big enough to supplant those old thoughts.
Kaiser Wilhelm was very much considered the most evil man ever before Hitler was given that title. The former is now given much more varied critiques and the latter will after enough time has passed.
>>1065261
Yeah But it wasn't that wide Spread outside of The Anglosphere and France otherwise you would have Moralists Dutch demanding Their Goverment Hand over Willy.
>>1065290
You do know the "widespread" view of WWII isn't really that applicable outside of North America, Oceania, and Europe right? There's countries in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East that don't demonize Hitler at all.
Can someone recommend me good books about ww1?
>>1064990
>Is it because Americans were barely involved in it and couldn't take the credit for the victory?
Pretty much
In case you havent noticed, America is the current cultural superpower
Entertainment is completly dominated by them.
And the reason why they spam movie and video games industry with their precious WW2 is because it's the only big war in which their role wasrelevant to the outcome
>>1067480
All quiet on the western front or the road back
>>1064990
>Is it because Americans
All this Euro butthurt.
>>1067587
>>1067480
If you're going to read Alls Quiet on the Western Front, you should also read Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger. 'All's Quiet' is historical fiction written by someone I've seen criticized as relatively un-involved with the actual horror. Storm of Steel is a memoir of someone who was actually at a bunch of the "big battles". One is about the destruction of innocence by the war, and the horrors it brought to bear. The other is a sobering memoir of the horrifying the war was, but how it changed Ernst Junger into what he thought was a better version of himself.
They're interesting to juxtapose.
Historians are really interested in WWI - it gets almost as much attention as WWII. You should read Alistair Horne's "Verdun" and for a post-war Europe book, Between Two Fires: Europe's Path in the 1930s is a top-notch book that really sets the stage for WWII.
Anyway, I think WWII gets more attention in general because it was much broader and in terms of intercontinental military strategy, ground-level tactics involving lots of mobile troops, mechanization, the air war, etc etc. There is a lot more stuff for laypersons to dive into regarding WWII, whereas appreciating the nuances of WWI military engagements requires a bit more attention, and has less pop cultural outlets from which to absorb information.
>>1067664
>. There is a lot more stuff for laypersons to dive into regarding WWII, whereas appreciating the nuances of WWI military engagements requires a bit more attention, and has less pop cultural outlets from which to absorb information.
I'm gonna go with this. WWI to people who aren't genuinely interested in WWI just sounds like
>It's another 'The General threw the youth of his nation into slaughter' episode
>>1067687
Plus people are just generally historically illiterate - the chronology of the 20th century means nothing to them, so the significance of the First World War is something they just don't understand. I'm a TA for a class on American history and students think WWI started anytime from 1875 to 1945 and they think it was just German people and French people running at each other from trenches until America saved the day. And that's like....a good student's understanding.
>>1064990
Because movies. That's all.
Nazis are good for movies, so they are used in a lot of movies. Also jews are obsessed with the Holocaust, and as a consequence with WW2, and a lot of decision makers in Hollywood have always been jews.
>Is it because Americans were barely involved in it and couldn't take the credit for the victory?
No. First, Americans don't know that. Second, people who make movies wouldn't give a shit about that.
>>1067587
>>1067613
>>1067616
Thanks lads
>>1064990
To be fair the Soviets took Berlins. The American's helped but they only lost 500,000 troops compared to the 20 million the Soviets lost.
>>1065038
>It ended mainly in a status quo besides the breakup of Austria-Hungary and some of the Balkan States
>status quo
I hardly see it as status quo when a majority of the great empires of that time collapsed after the war
>German Empire
>Russian Empire
>Austro-Hungarian Empire
>Ottoman Empire
The British Empire was the only empire left standing.
>>1065212
Short but sweet.
Anon, you're probably right.
>>1067480
John Keegan's 'The First World War' is the best one volume history.
Read Herwig's 'The Marne'. It's the best book on the beginning of the Western Front war.
>>1068203
>>1064990
ww2 was greater in scope, there was a clear delineation between ideologies, the war was more dynamic for sure, better equipment, airplanes wiht purpose, TANKS, a lack of trenches. Trench isn't even slogging it out as its usually depicted, its simply boring, and harder to make a movie out of
>>1064990
I think it's because the Holocaust lends itself to "good Allies vs evil Nazis" myth-making. Even though half of Europe ended up under Soviet occupation WW2 is still considered a black-and-white good-vs-evil affair.
WW1 on the other hand is far more difficult to simplify as "Good Allies vs Evil Central Powers"
>>1064990
In the UK WWI gets a lot of focus in school and our cultural life but Americans make great films and games about WWII so it's cooler.
>>1064990
Nah, it's because WW1 is a genuinely depressing war that was fought for no real reason. It was just a domino effect of alliances.
WW2 is about saving Europe from Nazis so it's a better story with clear good and bad guys. As long as we just ignore the Soviets completely of course.
>>1068445
>for no real reason
no
>>1068445
WWI was fought to check German aggression and expansionism.
>>1068403
How are the Historians who are pushing the narrative that Entering WW1 was a mistake such as Niall Ferguson viewed in the UK?
>>1065261
Haha no.
Kaiser was ultimately not a bad man and didn't do anything distinctly evil.
Hitler was a bad man who did bad things for bad reasons and then blamed everyone else before killing himself. The only people who are going to be saying Hitler was a good guy in 50 years are the same caliber of people saying it now.
>>1067574
The US's involvement, or rather, lack on involvement with Germany was a deciding factor. England cut off trade to Germany and the US got mad, but ultimately didn't call England's bluff.
Without the good and raw materials coming in Germany slowly crumbled.
They had lots of manpower left in 1918, but they were on the brink of famine and running out of supplies. US entry into the war made what was a hopeless endeavor suicidal so of course they called it quits there.
A world where the US told the British blockade to shove it would look very different today. Either the US stops selling to the UK and possibly France or it continues trade with Germany and remains on good terms with them throughout the war.
>>1064990
>Americans can't take credit for the victory
I can and will, froggy. Unless you don't think the massive influx of money, materiel and men didn't tip the scale. To say nothing in the huge morale effect of American entrance on both sides
>>1064990
>Why does everyone goes crazy about WW2, yet no one gives a shit about WW1?
I don't know about your country, but here in New Zealand we hear loads about WWI and Gallipoli
>>1064990
Scale of the war and how relatively recent it was. Also if I may be allowed to oust myself as a /pol/itician, the Jews perpetual yodeling about the holocaust keeps WW2 on the stage, albeit as a supporting character
Seems like a decent thread to ask. What was used against Kaiser Wilhelm to paint him as a warmongering monster? My high school history teacher, who's probably the most intelligent person I've ever met, never particularly blamed the war on him, but considered him a dodgy type due to his crippled upbringing making him bitter and edgy.
From what I've read he actively wanted to avoid the war but couldn't stop it once it got started and generally tried to act decently as a gentleman and a ruler, and was also something of an anglophile and navy-nerd.
Did Kaiser Wilhelm really do anything to justify his evil reputation outside of being the figurehead of the side that lost WW1?
We go pretty "crazy" about WW1 in Britain, but WW2 as well.
They're seen in quite different lights.
WW1 is a war of pointlessness, death and suffering which highlights mans flaws.
WW2 is seen a just and heroic war of necessity against tyranny where we all pulled together.
>>1069542
Monarchist
>>1065261
Yea but that WW1 narrative was purely wartime propaganda, anyone with a brain could see after the war that there was no bad side and no good side, just a fucked up system of alliances and nations wanted to have a fight.
If the Kaiser was really considered more evil than Hitler he wouldn't have been allowed to abdicate and become a comfy archaeologist for the next 20 years.
>>1069542
All the violence against the Belgian civilian and killing Edith Cavell
>>1069579
It's not like he personally ran the war effort. I thought that because of Prussia's bullshit Germany's military leaders pretty much did whatever they wanted and the kaiser just sort of went with it because what the hell else could he do?
>>1064990
>Why does everyone goes crazy about WW2, yet no one gives a shit about WW1?
To be fair, I'd argue that the British, and most likely the French give more of a shit about WWI than WWII, most likely down to the much higher casualties both suffered, with the ill-fated British 'pals battalions' system leading to the entire going male populations of towns wiped out in single battles. It was less romantic and less of a feel-good war (why it tends to be ignored in the USA than WWII with so many lost and the victory feeling hollow, and it's much harder to portray the Central Powers as evil megalomaniacs hell-bent on taking over the world than it is Hitler.
Just consider that in Britain WWII events are rarely celebrated or remembered, but armistice day from WWI is a big deal, with large events and tributes, and the wearing of poppies becoming a common feature.
"On the 11th hour, of the 11th day of the 11th month…the guns fell silent"
>>1069600
>To be fair, I'd argue that the British, and most likely the French give more of a shit about WWI than WWII,
I wouldn't go that far
>Just consider that in Britain WWII events are rarely celebrated or remembered, but armistice day from WWI is a big deal, with large events and tributes, and the wearing of poppies becoming a common feature.
It's a general remembrance of warfare as a whole, you'll see lots of WW2 vets on parade as well as Iraq and Afghanistan vets too.
>>1064990
Only Euronigs participated in it.
Meanwhile WWII has an Asian front
>>1069613
um
>>1069624
>declare war
>don't send troops for over another year because the war is ending
>We won!
Americans are pure scum
>>1069624
Are you serious?
The only battle in the Far East in WWI was some shitfight in Jiaozhou.
Meanwhile in WWII had the Pacific campaign, the war in China between them and the Nips started earlier and was so big it has separate name. To say nothing of Europeans getting BTFO of their Southeast Asian colonies.
>>1069624
>Yurocucks drag their colonies with them.
>All the world participated m8!
>>1069613
What are you even doing on a history board man?
>>1069631
> Completely ignoring Africa and the Middle East
>>1069634
Well didn't they?
>>1068612
Germans weren't any more expansionist than Russians or French or anyone else at the time though. In fact, they were probably less expansionist since literally everyone else had more colonies than them.
>>1064990
Might be that all the vets are dead.
Its hard to relate to something thats in a distant past.
Unless you're a jew
>>1068226
French and British were left intact of the large empires.
Portuguese and dutch empire where left intact of the small ones.
Im not sure if Denmark or Belgium counts as Empires, But they kept there oversees possessions as well.
It was the end of land based European empires though.
it's because practically everyone anyhow involved in first one have been dead for decades
>>1069613
ask the average normie if they've ever heard of Austria-Hungary
>>1069717
Of course ive heard of austria and hungary you fucking nerd
>>1069720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6-UoiE6S9k
>>1069690
>It was the end of land based European empires though.
For a few years at least
>>1067480
Journey to the End of the Night
>>1064990
it was fucking stupid and just a grinding horrifying nightmare for everyone involved
WW2 had much more interesting shit
