Support NeoGAF

[Magni]

World War 2 has taken up so much of our attention in pop culture. It's more recent, and its legacies remain- From the cold war that followed from the divide of east and west, and from the long peace- A state of ensured mutual destruction when man had the capability to end all life on earth through firepower.




But I've read that from the french point of view, World War 1, was a much more graving experience due to an extreme loss of life. And to top it off, to have such a death toll over one of the most pointless wars in history is hard to believe.
There aren't many good war stories about World War 1, there aren't many good video games about WW1. Unlike WW2 it hasn't made it out as something we talk about often. Not a story with villains and heroes and ideals and such.

But it really should be. Because WW1 explains WW2. And with the entire Greece failure, I think key lessons were not learned from the German Reparations act after WW1 ended.

Pop culture is heavily influenced by American culture, and WWII was at least an order of magnitude more impactful on the US than WWI was.

That's not so much the case in France, where WWI was arguably more traumatic than WWII.

Almost every single French town has a monument to its war dead, even the smallest ones. The village where my grandparents live had 1117 people living there in 1911. 79 died during the war. That's 7%, insane. Entire families were wiped out, leaving only parents too old and too bereaved to have children again (and in those days, that more often than not meant losing 3/4 sons, not just one).

Europe was robbed of its youth during the 1920s and 1930s. An entire generation decimated.

 

[CyclopsRock]

WWII also doesn't have nazis and A-bombs

WW1 but yeah, exactly. WW2 basically changed the world where as WW2 was "just" a massive tragedy that - as evidenced by WW2 - not only failed to change anything meaningfully but went some way to ensuring WW2 would happen.

 

[Osahi]

WW1 but yeah, exactly. WW2 basically changed the world where as WW2 was "just" a massive tragedy that - as evidenced by WW2 - not only failed to change anything meaningfully but went some way to ensuring WW2 would happen.

But ww1 did change the world. it changed the face of war, as it is the first 'industrial' war. It was the deathstroke for aristocracy. It fuelled civilian movements. It was the end of an old Europe.

It also most likely immidiatly led to wwIi

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Pop culture is heavily influenced by American culture, and WWII was at least an order of magnitude more impactful on the US than WWI was.

That's not so much the case in France, where WWI was arguably more traumatic than WWII.

Almost every single French town has a monument to its war dead, even the smallest ones. The village where my grandparents live had 1117 people living there in 1911. 79 died during the war. That's 7%, insane. Entire families were wiped out, leaving only parents too old and too bereaved to have children again (and in those days, that more often than not meant losing 3/4 sons, not just one).

Europe was robbed of its youth during the 1920s and 1930s. An entire generation decimated.

Yeah it's insane. I still don't understand the mustard gas thing.
Is that the same thing as is still being used today? I've heard that when we talk about chemical weapons in the middle-east a lot of that is mustard gas. Is that the same thing?




Something else I heard that I found very interesting was that WW1 was the first time people described PTSD. It was known as "womans hysteria". Insane!!!

 

[CyclopsRock]

But ww1 did change the world. it changed the face of war, as it is the first 'industrial' war. It was the deathstroke for aristocracy. It fuelled civilian movements. It was the end of an old Europe.

It also most likely immidiatly led to wwIi

It might have changed war but it did less (certainly not nothing) to change the world at large. WW2 did both, significantly. I didn't intend for this to be some weird extra-war pissing contest, I just meant to explain that I don't think it's unusual that WW2 gets so much more study.

 

[Osahi]

It might have changed war but it did less (certainly not nothing) to change the world at large. WW2 did both, significantly. I didn't intend for this to be some weird extra-war pissing contest, I just meant to explain that I don't think it's unusual that WW2 gets so much more study.

Sure, the overall effects of WWII were far greater on shaping the world as is. But I feel WW1 is being regarded to much as a war that led to nothing, while it did shape the modern world to a big extent. It might truly be the start of the 20th century, the century were the middle class rose and common Joe took over from aristocracy. I believe that WW1 had a big effect on that, as it raised awereness between the common soldiers in the trenches.

For instance, in Belgium, the Flemish movement has it's roots in the trenches, because the flemisch soldiers suffered discontent with the (French-speaking) aristocratic officers. Beforehand the Flemish struggle was something only some aristocrats discussed in parlors, WW1 transferred the awereness to the people. (The story that the flemisch 'farmers' were sent to their death by Walloon officers, because they did not understand their orders, is a myth though). That had political repercussions we still feel today. (And yes, WWII played a big part in the flemish movement too, as they collaborated with the Nazi's, feeling it would help their case) In Brittain it was the end of the Victorian age.

You can't understate the importance of WWI because WWII had a noticable bigger effect. It's not a pissing contest. It's not black and white. The two are very much connected too.

 

[Dougald]

The arbitrary division of the Ottoman Empire in the middle east has repercussions to this day

All because Britain and France really liked straight lines on maps

 

[Mac@NeoGAF]

WWI also doesn't have nazis and A-bombs

It also doesn't have Americans saving the world single handedly.

If the Americans had been in it from the start you can guarantee there would be more known about WW1 as Hollywood went to work on the fake history they've so successfully planted in to peoples minds about WWII.

 

[Sober]

To add to that, we still feel the effects of Sykes-Picot in the Middle East to this day, because after the war, the European powers were the ones to divide up the Ottoman holdings.

I mean the Russian Revolution was literally born during the first world war.

And if you head even further east, you can see the birth of Chinese communism following WW1 in their reactions to the Treaty of Versailles.

Not only was the war a complete shitshow, even the entire proceedings following it were a complete disaster and totally set to stage not only for the interwar period and the second world war (if anything, I would consider WW1/WW2 really just the same war with a 30 year gap), but set the stage for a lot of the stuff you see coming out of WW2 and into the cold war and even today, really.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

It also doesn't have Americans saving the world single handedly.

If the Americans had been in it from the start you can guarantee there would be more known about WW1 as Hollywood went to work on the fake history they've so successfully planted in to peoples minds about WWII.

What fake history?

 

[Mac@NeoGAF]

I would consider WW1/WW2 really just the same war with a 30 year gap), but set the stage for a lot of the stuff you see coming out of WW2 and into the cold war and even today, really.

WW2 was simply the culmination of a near 100yr European civil war.

 

[Mac@NeoGAF]

What fake history?

You only have to see the way Americans play down the participation of the other Allies to see what I mean.

This narrative that America saved Britain from Nazi invasion is one, well no you didn't, Britain was safe from Nazi invasion 12mths before you guys turned up, winning the Battle Of Britain air war did that.

(not American academics & historians of course, those that have actually studied it, but the ordinary American, who's idea of WW2 has been shaped by hollywood for 70yrs).

 

[Matt]

You only have to see the way Americans play down the participation of the other Allies to see what I mean.

This narrative that America saved Britain from Nazi invasion is one, well no you didn't, Britain was safe from Nazi invasion 12mths before you guys turned up, winning the Battle Of Britain air war did that.

(not American academics & historians of course, those that have actually studied it, but the ordinary American, who's idea of WW2 has been shaped by hollywood for 70yrs).

I think you are overstating it a bit.

 

[Dougald]

If anything the western-front centric view of the second world war is worse than the "America won it all" narrative. The Eastern front was a bloodbath

 

[Chichikov]

You only have to see the way Americans play down the participation of the other Allies to see what I mean.

This narrative that America saved Britain from Nazi invasion is one, well no you didn't, Britain was safe from Nazi invasion 12mths before you guys turned up, winning the Battle Of Britain air war did that.

(not American academics & historians of course, those that have actually studied it, but the ordinary American, who's idea of WW2 has been shaped by hollywood for 70yrs).

That's a weird angle to take on this issue. The biggest misconception propagated by Hollywood is downplaying the eastern front.
I don't think it's all intentional (though certainly some of it was, especially during the cold war) but to a large degree the eastern front *is* world war 2, and it's certainly where it was won, but you wouldn't neccasirly know that from watching movies.

As for the idea that the US saved Britain, I'm not sure I see it too often pushed in earnest (as opposed to in jest, like A Fish Called Wanda) but don't downplay the importance of US support, there's a good chance the British would've starved without it.

And more broadly, while it's true that Americans tend to over-stress their role and importance in the war, the British do the same, maybe even to a higher degree.

 

[pa22word]

It also doesn't have Americans saving the world single handedly.

*eyeroll*

The reason the US doesn't like to remember WW1 is because the common thought at the time was that it was an entirely wasteful war we got into for highly dubious reasons that did nothing but end in dead americans at the cost for european interests. Essentially, it was the Vietnam War for the US public of the early 20th century. It's the key reason why the US swerved isolationist in the decades after and why the US public would have publicly executed FDR for taking the US into the European theater had Hitler not unilaterally declared war after Pearl Harbor. In the post ww2 era of increasingly internationalist US, you might be able to understand why most wanted to just forget WW1 ever happened while focusing on a more positive internationalist message.

And more broadly, while it's true that Americans tend to over-stress their role and importance in the war, the British do the same, maybe even to a higher degree.

This is a good point.

Everyone has their own almost mythical historical narrative of WW2. Just ask any of the countries involved in the Pacific theatre what happened and you'll get wildly different narratives depending on the nationality in question.

 

[Molemitts]

It might have changed war but it did less (certainly not nothing) to change the world at large. WW2 did both, significantly. I didn't intend for this to be some weird extra-war pissing contest, I just meant to explain that I don't think it's unusual that WW2 gets so much more study.

I'd agree that WWII is more interesting, whereas WWI is just a depressing meat grinder. But it's hard to deny that the Treaty of Versailles, that immediately followed WWI, hasn't greatly changed the course of history.

 

[Dougald]

As for the idea that the US saved Britain, I'm not sure I see it too often pushed in earnest (as opposed to in jest, like A Fish Called Wanda) but don't downplay the importance of US support, there's a good chance the British would've starved without it.

Britain would have been pretty sunk without Lend Lease

 

[King Tubby]

I find World War I incredibly fascinating. Part of what makes it so relevant ts its very cruelty and pointlessness. World War II is a much easier war to construct a simple or easy to digest narrative of "good and evil", in some regards justified. It's one of the reasons it's often depicted in media. WWI to me is closer to the "true" nature of warfare, a concentration of brutality achieving little, and yet resulting in the flourishing of new thought and reflection in the aftermath.

I really enjoyed the Hardcore History series about the war and learning about Verdun and this seems as good an occasion to revisit it.

 

[pa22word]

Britain would have been pretty sunk without Lend Lease

Also without exporting hunger to the colonies at famine levels.

Pretty famous churchill quote around when asked about what happens to the indian's going through a famine due to the policies they enacted to extract more foodstuffs he basically said fuck 'em, they deserve it.

 

[Tizoc]

There was a thread on gaf about ww1 and what started it
I raintly remember something about the rulers being distant relatives or such
If someone could link to this video series or thread i would appreciate it

 

[Dougald]

Also without exporting hunger to the colonies at famine levels.

Pretty famous churchill quote around when asked about what happens to the indian's going through a famine due to the policies they enacted to extract more foodstuffs he basically said fuck 'em, they deserve it.

If there's one positive we can say about both wars is that the first knocked imperialism back, and the second basically killed it off

There was a thread on gaf about ww1 and what started it
I raintly remember something about the rulers being distant relatives or such
If someone could link to this video series or thread i would appreciate it

I'm not sure which thread you're talking about, but you're right in that most of the Aristocracy was related

The Great War did a very good 3 part miniseries on the circumstances leading up to WW1

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

That's a weird angle to take on this issue. The biggest misconception propagated by Hollywood is downplaying the eastern front.
I don't think it's all intentional (though certainly some of it was, especially during the cold war) but to a large degree the eastern front *is* world war 2, and it's certainly where it was won, but you wouldn't neccasirly know that from watching movies.

As for the idea that the US saved Britain, I'm not sure I see it too often pushed in earnest (as opposed to in jest, like A Fish Called Wanda) but don't downplay the importance of US support, there's a good chance the British would've starved without it.

And more broadly, while it's true that Americans tend to over-stress their role and importance in the war, the British do the same, maybe even to a higher degree.

It reminds me of watching this; http://www.fallen.io/ww2/


I... I knew that a lot of russians died, but I've never seen it be presented like this. Numbers are just numbers. Seeing it like this made me stop and pause. It's absolutely mindblowing. Almost incomprehensible!

 

[pa22word]

It reminds me of watching this; http://www.fallen.io/ww2/


I... I knew that a lot of russians died, but I've never seen it be presented like this. Numbers are just numbers. Seeing it like this made me stop and pause. It's absolutely mindblowing. Almost incomprehensible!

As bad as the eastern front was, the pacific theater was probably worse. Raw numbers over a short period of time the eastern front had, but the war raging in the pacific theater drug on for around 15 years of unrelenting bloodshed and mass atrocities from all sides happening almost daily.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Also without exporting hunger to the colonies at famine levels.

Pretty famous churchill quote around when asked about what happens to the indian's going through a famine due to the policies they enacted to extract more foodstuffs he basically said fuck 'em, they deserve it.

Churchill was an old school upper class tory, and thus a complete shit. But being that way is likely what got Britain through that war.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I'm not very well-versed on history and my brain is wired that when I hear Verdun my brain automatically goes to The Angel of Verdun from Edge of Tomorrow, although I've recently been to a couple of museums which has made me want to read up a bit on WWI and WWII.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I wouldn't say WW1 was unnecessary, it was after all rather inevitable.

 

[foxtrot3d]

It reminds me of watching this; http://www.fallen.io/ww2/


I... I knew that a lot of russians died, but I've never seen it be presented like this. Numbers are just numbers. Seeing it like this made me stop and pause. It's absolutely mindblowing. Almost incomprehensible!

One also has to take into account that many Russian deaths can be attributed to Stalin. First, he had basically executed every senior military official prior to the war that even most a hint of a threat to his rule. This of course reeked havoc on his military when war broke out and suddenly he had no competent military leaders, only individuals who knew how to throw men into the meat grinder. Then there was the policy of executing retreating soldiers, denying supplies to his own civilians, forcing them to burn their properties and supplies, and even executing his own civilians.

Second, of course, is the brutal policies enacted by the Nazis in fighting the Russians. The Germans, and Hitler, despised the Russians and they were treated on near the same level as Jews. Russian civilians were routinely rounded up and executed in addition to being sent to forced labor camps or concentration camps. The Nazis also didn't have the supplies to feed the often massive amounts of Russian soldiers that had surrendered during the early days of the war. Many of those prisoners ended up dying of starvation.

While I do think that the Eastern Front is often misrepresented in its efforts in winning the war I do think there is also a tendency by others to bolster the efforts of the Russians as if they did a greater amount of effort winning the war simply because more of their people died during the war. The object of war is have as little of your soldiers die while completing your objectives, the fact that U.S./Alled forces were able to win the war with significantly less casualties than the Soviets does not mean they contributed less to the war effort.

 

[Dictator93]

One also has to take into account that many Russian deaths can be attributed to Stalin. First, he had basically executed every senior military official prior to the war that even most a hint of a threat to his rule. This of course reeked havoc on his military when war broke out and suddenly he had no competent military leaders, only individuals who knew how to throw men into the meat grinder. Then there was the policy of executing retreating soldiers, denying supplies to his own civilians, forcing them to burn their properties and supplies, and even executing his own civilians.

Second, of course, is the brutal policies enacted by the Nazis in fighting the Russians. The Germans, and Hitler, despised the Russians and they were treated on near the same level as Jews. Russian civilians were routinely rounded up and executed in addition to being sent to forced labor camps or concentration camps. The Nazis also didn't have the supplies to feed the often massive amounts of Russian soldiers that had surrendered during the early days of the war. Many of those prisoners ended up dying of starvation.

While I do think that the Eastern Front is often misrepresented in its efforts in winning the war I do think there is also a tendency by others to bolster the efforts of the Russians as if they did a greater amount of effort winning the war simply because more of their people died during the war. The object of war is have as little of your soldiers die while completing your objectives, the fact that U.S./Alled forces were able to win the war with significantly less casualties than the Soviets does not mean they contributed less to the war effort.

I believe the emphasis of the war being won / lost in the east has to do with a military question of where resources where allocated and the German Command's objectives (and their failing after a certain time in the east). IMO, that is why the idea is prevalent, not just as a result of the serious suffering.
---
The Battle of Verdun, like Somme, is a terrifying thought.

 

[Lach]

In August of 1999 (I was 15), while on holiday in central france, my father took me and a friend of mine on a daytrip to Verdun to witness the total solar eclipse. While the solar eclipse was spectacular, what really stayed with me was visiting the museums and fortresses, as well as seeing all the soldier graveyards in every small town in the area.

This made me really read up on the Battle of Verdun and the Hell it must have been back then.

 

[Brerlappin]

Yeah it's insane. I still don't understand the mustard gas thing.
Is that the same thing as is still being used today? I've heard that when we talk about chemical weapons in the middle-east a lot of that is mustard gas. Is that the same thing?




Something else I heard that I found very interesting was that WW1 was the first time people described PTSD. It was known as "womans hysteria". Insane!!!

I never heard it referred to as that before! But yeah, Shellshock was a term coined in WW1 for what was essentially PTSD. Warning: Graphic video of WW1 shellshock sufferers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS1dO0JC2EE

It really is disturbing to see people so utterly broken. Cant imagine how bad it was for them.
While WW1 might not be as "popular" as WW2, e.g, theres not as many great movies or videogames about it, there iss till plenty of fantastic works out there id urge people interested in WW1 to take a look at.

In terms of books, first and foremost, All Quiet on the Western Front is an incredible book written from the perspective of a young German conscript in WW1.

Also read a great one last year called Somme Mud by E P F Lynch. Its a veterans WW1 diaries in book form, and is absolutely riveting, harrowing reading.

Any of the WW1 poetry by Siegfried Sassoon is also worth reading, and theres a great compilation of WW1 stories and poetry out there called For King and Country.

For films, ive not seen it but ive heard the film version of All Quiet is excellent. My own personal favourite if Joyeux Noel about the unofficial Christmas truce in 1916

For games, id actually recommend the 360/PS3 game The Darkness. Its WW1/Hell levels werent the best from a gameplay point of view, but their depiction of WW1 as a living hell were absolutely amazing. Theres also the multiplayer shooter Verdun which is quite good, and then you have Valiant Hearts: The Great War, which is, in my opinion, absolute trash to be avoided at all costs if you want ant kind of actual history in your historical games.

 

[Greg_le_Casual]

For movies, Paths of Glory (Stanley Kubrick).
Really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paths_of_Glory
Tells a lot about the mentality of the "chiefs" and the people who had to follow orders.

 

[Team Filler]

If anyone is ever in Kansas City and has the opportunity, they should visit the city's WWI museum. There's a lot of absolutely fascinating (and harrowing) material to go through and take in, especially when one considers the level of US involvement in the war.

 

[dabig2]

I definitely recommend WW1 in Color. You get to hear surviving WW1 veterans recall the horrific times, hear the letters that were written then, and look at colorized footage which helps adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.

Here's episode 2 that focuses on Verdun/Somme trenches:
World War I in Color HD Episode 2 - Slaughter in the Trenches

It's a torture hearing the letters being read out loud and then told the outcome of the soldier writing them.

 

[More_Badass]

all the big battles in WWI sounded fucking crazy from listening to hardcore history

this and the somme

Yup, HH really highlighted how fucking insane those battles were

 

[Halcyon]

Are there any documentaries that do a decent job showing how the actual battles take place? Like with graphics and troop movements and such.

I can't wrap my head around just watching people run across an open field to their death without sorta generally knowing what they're trying to accomplish.

 

[Valhelm]

I wish WW1 had more relevance in our global cultural memory. Some much of our modern world that we take for granted (the dominance of democratic nation-states, English as the world's language, the rise of Marxist-Leninism, the breakdown of continental empires) directly came as a result of that war.

 

[More_Badass]

Are there any documentaries that do a decent job showing how the actual battles take place? Like with graphics and troop movements and such.

I can't wrap my head around just watching people run across an open field to their death without sorta generally knowing what they're trying to accomplish.

Not video, but I can't recommend enough to listen to the Hardcore History's series Blueprint For Armaggedon. Carlin paints such a gruesomely vivid picture of these battles, of the mindsets of the commanders and the soldiers.

 

[DrM]

In school we went on the excursion on the path of Isonzo/Soča front. Another large front with many casualties. They even used avalanches as weapon during winter months. You can still visit trenches and mountain strongholds, riddled with craters.

 

[Tizoc]

If there's one positive we can say about both wars is that the first knocked imperialism back, and the second basically killed it off



I'm not sure which thread you're talking about, but you're right in that most of the Aristocracy was related

The Great War did a very good 3 part miniseries on the circumstances leading up to WW1

There was a thread about that video i think actually, gonna favourite it so I don't forget it again, thanks

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

Are there any documentaries that do a decent job showing how the actual battles take place? Like with graphics and troop movements and such.

I can't wrap my head around just watching people run across an open field to their death without sorta generally knowing what they're trying to accomplish.

There's a series with Dan Snow but i forget the name. There's also a series called "Trench Detectives" which cover a lot of history of the sites. When i remember i'll post the names of the two series i can't recall at the moment.

 

[Mineshaft_Gap]

I am only capable of love and hate, and I hate General Falkenhayn.

 

[Sulik2]

Some of the stuff in Hardcore History about this battle. Drowning in giant artillery holes filled with rancid water and poison runoff from gasses as you tried to move up to the front lines at night. Just awful stuff. In a lot of ways, WWI was worse then WWII for the average front line trooper on the western front.

Was this the one with the 1.5 million artillery shell bombardment in 24 hours? Or was this the really big one?

 

[Vincent Alexander]

This is why I go berserk everytime I hear some dumb cunt joking about how us french people love to surrender. My great-grandfather lost 2 of his brothers during WWI (not in Verdun though) and my family (on my father's side) lost a lot to the trench wars and it wasn't the first time that my family bled for France (I can go back to one of my ancestor serving under Napoleon). So yeah ... The germans humiliated us during WWII. But France is still the country that fought and won the most wars in History (you can check that on wikipedia). It's disgusting that people who respect and even worship their own veterans would shit on the tens of millions of men who died for France by calling them cowards who love to surrender (which couldn't be further from the truth).

/endrant.

I know I'm only one person from US, but since France helped the colonies during the Revolutionary war, I always think of France as our brother/sister. If that makes sense...just woke up and can't phrase things well yet. France will never not have my respect.

 

[ebullientprism]

There is a description by a soldier (who was part of the fresh troops that were heading to the meatgrinder) of soldiers that were coming back from the frontlines which is haunting and horrific. For the life of me I cant find it though.

I cant even imagine what it would feel like to be a new soldier on his way to the trenches of Verdun. Having seen what people coming back from it look like. Seeing the dead and the wounder. Seeing the distant hellish landscape and the inferno of artillery getting closer and closer. Knowing that you will spend time there. Probably die there quickly if you are lucky. Get horribly maimed and mutilated and lie in no mans land if you arent.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

It might have changed war but it did less (certainly not nothing) to change the world at large. WW2 did both, significantly. I didn't intend for this to be some weird extra-war pissing contest, I just meant to explain that I don't think it's unusual that WW2 gets so much more study.

I used to think the same thing until i read up on it much more extensively. The Great War utterly collapsed 2 European empires, one Eurasian, and one middle eastern. It obliterated the north of France and it bankrupted the British.

The Great War was the single greatest event to happen for American Industry and nascent super-power venture. They effectively gained Europe's gold reserves and pivoted world trade at the cost of a "paltry" 60 thousand dead.

 

[Nathan_Drake]

This is why I go berserk everytime I hear some dumb cunt joking about how us french people love to surrender. My great-grandfather lost 2 of his brothers during WWI (not in Verdun though) and my family (on my father's side) lost a lot to the trench wars and it wasn't the first time that my family bled for France (I can go back to one of my ancestor serving under Napoleon). So yeah ... The germans humiliated us during WWII. But France is still the country that fought and won the most wars in History (you can check that on wikipedia). It's disgusting that people who respect and even worship their own veterans would shit on the tens of millions of men who died for France by calling them cowards who love to surrender (which couldn't be further from the truth).

/endrant.

Understandable friend. As an American, I get annoyed when someone makes some quip about the French and surrender. If not for France we would not have achieved our independence (at least as early as we did). If not for France we would not have the style of government we have today (well you know back then ). If not for France we would not have that kick ass Green Lady chilling off NY and NJ that we are so proud of. If not for France we wouldn't have tongue kissing or 3 somes. Ha

America loves France

 

[jstripes]

*eyeroll*

The reason the US doesn't like to remember WW1 is because the common thought at the time was that it was an entirely wasteful war we got into for highly dubious reasons that did nothing but end in dead americans at the cost for european interests. Essentially, it was the Vietnam War for the US public of the early 20th century. It's the key reason why the US swerved isolationist in the decades after and why the US public would have publicly executed FDR for taking the US into the European theater had Hitler not unilaterally declared war after Pearl Harbor. In the post ww2 era of increasingly internationalist US, you might be able to understand why most wanted to just forget WW1 ever happened while focusing on a more positive internationalist message.

Canada, on the other hand, found its identity during WWI.

It entered the war as a subservient dominion of Britain, and ended the war as an internationally respected, more independent nation.

So we're a bit more aware of all the horrors of WWI in Canada. School curriculum spends a lot of time on it.

 

[Llyranor]

Read The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark. It's been published recently and is up to date with modern research and it's written by an actual historian. He really does a good job painting a picture how much of a clusterfuck Europe was and how the war was inevitable and every side of the conflict wanted it.

Read this last year, one of the best factual books I've ever read.

I can't emphasise this book enough. such a good read.

Thanks for the recommendation. Going to pick this up.

 

[Jag]

Not video, but I can't recommend enough to listen to the Hardcore History's series Blueprint For Armaggedon. Carlin paints such a gruesomely vivid picture of these battles, of the mindsets of the commanders and the soldiers.

Just mentioning Verdun in the title is like putting up the Hardcore History beacon!

HH OT here if anyone is interested.