Why is the Great War largely ignored?

[fiats3]

This has puzzled me all my life. WW2 is viewed as 'just' war, a war of good vs. evil and every batttle, every individual exploit is lavished with heroism and honor. The American Civil War is talked about as if it occurred last month. The conflagration is dripping in homilies and personal stories so poignant, grown mem are reduced to tears when watching a film on the subject.

And yet strangely, the most horrific, dehumanizing, bloodlustingly terrifying human generated event to circle the planet, was easily WW1. The few stories of valor, heroism, sacrifice, and irony that have emerged, easily overshadow those of all other conflicts combined.

Why do you think that is?

I call the Great War, the Forgotten War. And it's not because few participants still exist. It's as though revisionist history has reduced the bloodiest conflict in Mankind's history to a mere footnote, between the Civil War and WW2.

Please explain to me why there are virtually no movies (certainly modern) about WW1, and yet they crank out a WW2 movie every 6mos.

[John_Hartley]

I presume, from the spelling of some of your words, that you may be American. We have quite a number of US members who may be able to answer your question (and I know several of them would certainly agree that, in comparison with WW2 and the War Between the States, it is certainly not as much in the public consciousness.)

It is certainly not the case with us Brits and fellow members of the Commonwealth, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand - as you will see from the enthusiasm and vibrancy of this Forum.

If I was to try and answer the question (assuming we are talking about "forgotten" by the US), then I think it's because America paid what might be described as only a "bit part" in the actual fighting. I do not intend this to disparage the country or its contribution to the general effort following its declaration of war. But, it was not really until the last six weeks of fighting that US forces made any significant contribution and, by then, it was pretty much already won by the French and the British (and our Empire troops) .

Good question, though. I look forward to reading the discussions.

John

[andigger]

The American Civil War is talked about as if it occurred last month.

You're right.....

the most horrific, dehumanizing, bloodlustingly terrifying human generated event to circle the planet, was easily WW1.

On this I disagree... if the military cost was not greater in the second war, the cost to humanity of WWII far exceeds that of the Great War, both in numbers of lives (civilan and military) lost not to mention WWII circled the planet more completely than WWI.

To sum it all up I think it does have a lot to do with the American consciencousness... it is our (I am an American) memory that is captured by Hollywood and it is Hollywood's movies that portray world history on the big screen.

Andy

[centurion]

I suspect that for many parts of the US the impact of the ACW may have been far greater and long lasting than WW1. I have seen statistics, for example, that suggest that the population of New Hampshire took over 3 generations to recover from the effectof so many young men killed. I think that the effect was brought home to me a few years ago when I was visiting the US. I was lecturing at Xerox's place at Leesburg and I and a fellow brit decided to drive deep into Virginia one night to a small town that had a restaurant that had been highly recommended. We arived too early for our table to be ready and so took a stroll round the town and came across the town war memorial. Well the men of this town had been in many wars as there were entries for Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1 and even one man killed in the Spanish American War but by far the biggest section of the lot was that devoted to those killed in the ACW. It was only a small town (and presumably smaller in the 19th century) and it most have lost an incredible proportion of its young men (and in this case on the loosing side). Given the trendency (and I hope our American members will forgive me) of many US citizens towards isolationism (such that in 1991 I was asked at a conference in St Louis why Britain had not taken part in the 1st Gulf War!) one can see why the ACW looms so much larger.

Its also worth remembering that elements of the ACW had a WW1 tinge to them. Having walked the battlefield at Fredricksberg and approached the stone wall from the Union side I can understand that for the Northern troops attacking that day it must have been very much like a WW1 attack and from accounts the assault at Cold Harbour against the Confederate trenches was worse than Fredricksberg.

[PhilB]

The USA didn`t experience years of static trench warfare in WW1 and they`d no equivalent to Somme and Passchendaele. Their casualties were on a par with Rumania and Bulgaria. It`s not surprising that USCW & WW2 take precedence in their consciousness as they did have equivalent horrors.

[4thGordons]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Nov 18 2007, 04:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The USA didn`t experience years of static trench warfare in WW1 and they`d no equivalent to Somme and Passchendaele. Their casualties were on a par with Rumania and Bulgaria. It`s not surprising that USCW & WW2 take precedence in their consciousness as they did have equivalent horrors.

As a transplanted Brit working in education in the US with an interest in this area (obviously!) I have wrestled with this question

Whilst this is of course accurate you can look at it a very different way. WWI brought huge changes to US society (in terms of civill and political liberties etc) saw the institution of the draft (conscription) and catapulted the US by most counts from @17th in the world in terms of military power (after Portugal?) to very close to the top... all of which have consequences which still resonate today.

Although the casualty figures you cite look small if you are thinking in terms of absolute population base - another way to consider them is that the US sustained those casualties in a very short period of time (the months in combat being significantly shorter than time the US was in the war) so if you think of the casualty RATE (losses over time) the US losses are really fairly high. I haven't done the maths but it would seem to me the casualty rate in offensives like Meuse Argonne must come close to some of the more bloody engagement of earlier in the war. So while there was not the prolonged suffering of the battles you describe they were very intense. It may also be significant that ultimately the US battles are remembered as "successful" whereas the engagements you describe - while they may play an integral part in the ultimate success (Gary Sheffield et al an argumetn I find convincing) taken as individual battles are not. One other point that the US statisticians of 1919/20 were at great pains to point out was how quickly the size of the AEF grew compared to the time it took other allies to field comparable numbers of men (ignoring of course levels of training, preparedness and equipment!.)

I fully agree however that it is understandable (see my current project described under the "digging trench thread" also in chit chat) that other conflicts take precedence in the collective memory/interest, but that does not mean - to me at least - that this is a "good" thing in terms of the collective pool of knowlege upon which (for example) current policy decisions may draw or upon which people may draw when considering them.

One thing that is interesting is that over the year of WWI related events we have tried to organize, a large proportion of the attendees are the WWII generation who are very interested in "filing the gap" in their knowledge about their parents experience - and although not the same as for European countries it was a widespread experience (the massive expansion of the US military and conscription saw to that). To me this in itself is interesting - just as the WWII generation are being examined and re examined (cf the recent Ken Burns documentary series) there is great interest in that generation about their own parents. The isolationist turn of US policy in the 20s and 30s had fairly deep reverberations it seems in terms of directing attention elsewhere domestically.

Amongst the younger groups, my students and the school groups there is a total void in terms of knowledge but - there is an INTEREST once engaged... The most obvious anecdotal evidence I can cite is I have taken several student groups on a battlefields tour - we start with Hastings and go via Agincourt, Aaterloo, Ypres, Somme, to Normandy (D-Day) and end with the Bayeux tapestry to close the circle - and most people appear to initially sign up on the basis of the D-Day stuff - a very high proportion end up writing about WWI... which gives me something interesting to read!

Chris

[robmoff]

Leaving the American bit aside for a moment, while acknowledging that they do drive the entertainment industry extensively from their own viewpoint, I feel that there may be other factors at work here too.

It is not as easy to put the Great War on an obviously polarised 'Good against Evil' basis. Indeed it is difficult to understand how the conflict came about without a whole lot of background historical analysis. This would be far too boring, let alone time consuming, for your average audience. Without this the perception is that it all happened because of some foreign, not even German, aristocrat getting himself assassinated, by someone who wasn’t even British. That does not lend itself to audience involvement. Nor does it make it easy to see the enormous number of lives lost as any thing other than foolishly and needlessly wasted. The WW2 concept of paying a high price to gloriously defeat an evil tyrant bent on world domination is a lot easier to comprehend.

Neither does trench warfare make for the clean-cut hero type of portrayal that movie makers prefer. Sure, we here may think that a 'warts and all' accurate view of the daily grind of life and the intense horrors of WW1 is essential for an appreciation of how our forefathers had to fight the conflict, but I suspect that audience figures (and hence profits) would be low. Perhaps that is why most of the films made about WW1 that spring to mind are centred on the war in the air, much cleaner and dashing.

I remain grateful that occasionally someone does make a detailed and thoughtful series or programme that we can then argue about for a few weeks!

[PhilB]

Although the casualty figures you cite look small if you are thinking in terms of absolute population base - another way to consider them is that the US sustained those casualties in a very short period of time (the months in combat being significantly shorter than time the US was in the war) so if you think of the casualty RATE (losses over time) the US losses are really fairly high. Chris

That`s true, Chris. It had occurred to me too. I would suggest, though, that the total casualties in a war have to reach a tipping point before they sink into the public consciousness. Remember Vietnam? Britain seemed to tip in 1916. Perhaps USA was lucky not to quite reach it?

[4thGordons]

Phil, I think you are probably correct... the other factor of course is the speed by which the casualty levels become generally known. It might be a stretch, but it is at least conceivable to me that the scale of the US losses did not have time to have their full impact on US public opinion before the signing of the armistice...but they did begin to be realized later and contributed to the isolationist move (one of many factors)

There is a research paper in here somewhere....

Chris

[centurion]

Some other factors could be:

The United States was not in major danger in 1917 -18 (I don't think that Mexico was regarded as a major threat) whereas it was in the ACW (what it was all about really) and in 1941 had actually been attacked (albeit not on the mainland).

I suspect that the film industry (WD Griffith - Birth of a Nation as well as stuff like Gone with the Wind) had something to do with the ACW interest providing some spurious glamour with the South playing the cavalier role ("wrong but romantic"). And Holywood really went to town on WW2.

WW2 was much easier to portray in clear terms of right and wrong (the US was attacked by the Japanese and the Nazis were a highly repulsive regime) where s in WW1 opinion in the US (with a significant German and Irish vocal minority) was much less clear that the US should be in the war alongside Britain.

[dutchbarge]

I presume, from the spelling of some of your words, that you may be American. We have quite a number of US members who may be able to answer your question (and I know several of them would certainly agree that, in comparison with WW2 and the War Between the States, it is certainly not as much in the public consciousness.)

It is certainly not the case with us Brits and fellow members of the Commonwealth, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand - as you will see from the enthusiasm and vibrancy of this Forum.

If I was to try and answer the question (assuming we are talking about "forgotten" by the US), then I think it's because America paid what might be described as only a "bit part" in the actual fighting. I do not intend this to disparage the country or its contribution to the general effort following its declaration of war. But, it was not really until the last six weeks of fighting that US forces made any significant contribution and, by then, it was pretty much already won by the French and the British (and our Empire troops) .

Good question, though. I look forward to reading the discussions.

John

Though I'm much more interested in the British/German role in WW1 than the American, as an American, I feel compelled to offer a few thoughts on America's involvement. Being then a young nation America was scornful of the causes of what we at the time called the 'European War'. Viewed largely as a family squabble between spoiled aristocratic cousins over who had or deserved the biggest army, navy etc. Americans were disinclined to get involved. The mere concept of Royalty was contrary to American ideals. To see Europe engulfed in such a horrible war sickened America. While sympathies were pretty evenly divided between Germany and the Allies, the man on the street was very much opposed to US involvement. However, the Allies, especially the British, were very successful in building a very efficient propaganda machine in America (Wellington House) which gradually began to shift public opinion. More successful still was the Allied ability to secure huge loans form private American interests eager to profit from Europe's folly. The Allies were able to borrow from American sources some $10.5 billion, enough to enable them to maintain their 1914 defence budgets for the entire length of the war. American manufacturers (Winchester and Remington's rifles and ammunition, Midvale Steel's 8"howitzers to name a few) made war material to Allied specs. More important still was American supply of toluol. The French coke ovens which produced much of the Allied supply of toluol, an essential component of TNT, which when combined with ammonium nitrate created amatol, were lost to the Germans in 1914. The Americans were able to produce and ship to the Allies 700,000 pounds a month in late 1914, in 1917 6,000,00/month. It can be fairly stated that the Allies were greatly dependent on both the American suppy of both munitions and cash without which they could not wage war. While America was officially neutral, the US government, together with banking/manufacturing, silently was backing the Allies. It wasn't until 1917, when in the opinion of many observers it seemed likely that the Allies would lose the war, that it was decided that to protect American investments in the Allied cause, America must raise an army and send it to Europe. Of course most Americans, both politicians and private citizens, suspected the motives for our involvement were purely financial and said so. They were crushed by a new American propaganda machine which was closely tutored by the British. While America was late to the battle front, her financial and material contribution was in no way a 'bit part'. And in the actual fighting America, given her complete lack of experience, did as good (or bad) a job as the Allies had done with four years of experience behind them. It is now becoming widely accepted that the German General Staff lost their will to go on in large part because of the inevitable arrival of millions of troops from America.

I really do think that it is high time for serious students of the Great War give America the credit she is due. My own belief is that every soldier, on every side, made his maximum personal contribution to the war.

[dutchbarge]

This has puzzled me ... snip ... a WW2 movie every 6mos.

Hello Fiats,

America had very specific reasons for entering the conflict which were satisfied by the Allied victory. Unlike the British and French, America was able to profit enormously from the war with a minimum loss of life to her citizens. Our Allies were left virtually bankrupt and their casualties were appalling. It is not in the nature of Americans to kick a friend when he's down, so perhaps it was felt that we should move on without a lot of fanfare. Mourning and Remembrance are usually conducted in relationship to how much is lost. By the way, there are some great newish WW1 movies, Joyeaux Noel, A Long Engagement, Legends of the Fall, Razor's Edge, Flyboys, The Man who Climbed a Hill and Came Down a Mountain to name a few. Bill

[4thGordons]

Dutchbarge;

I would agree with a great deal of what you say - in particular regarding the financial elements and the reasons for US involvement.

I am not sure I would attribute the ultimate defeat to "loss of will" on the part of the German High Command - as that opens a whole can of worms....I think there were very real material and tactical/strategic reasons for the defeat and to argue that victory is a question of "will" is not something I find appealing.... we could also perhaps dicker back and forth over the relative importance of the specifically military contributions of the AEF - in general though, I agree with the thrust of your argument (I think serious students DO and for a long time have paid serious attention to the role of the US- if anyone is simplistic about the contribution it tends to be on this (US) side of the pond)... however my point is somewhat different:

The original question asked about the relative lack of attention paid currently to the Great War and I am genuinely interested in what you think about that given your arguments.

Chris

PS regarding the movies (and I have seen all you list and all have been discussed at some point on the forum) I think it is informative to note how many/few of them were US made/funded.

[armourersergeant]

WW1 is not Sexy!

[dutchbarge]

Dutchbarge;

I would agree with a great deal of what you say - in particular regarding the financial elements and the reasons for US involvement.

I am not sure I would attribute the ultimate defeat to "loss of will" on the part of the German High Command - as that opens a whole can of worms....I think there were very real material and tactical/strategic reasons for the defeat and to argue that victory is a question of "will" is not something I find appealing.... we could also perhaps dicker back and forth over the relative importance of the specifically military contributions of the AEF - in general though, I agree with the thrust of your argument (I think serious students DO and for a long time have paid serious attention to the role of the US- if anyone is simplistic about the contribution it tends to be on this (US) side of the pond)... however my point is somewhat different:

The original question asked about the relative lack of attention paid currently to the Great War and I am genuinely interested in what you think about that given your arguments.

Chris

PS regarding the movies (and I have seen all you list and all have been discussed at some point on the forum) I think it is informative to note how many/few of them were US made/funded.

Hello Chris,

I'm flattered that you solicite my opinion. At the risk of appearing extremely cynical I'll proceed with my thoughts. I think the reasons are manifold. By late 1918 the powers that be in the US had secured what they wanted, Victory in Europe and passage of the Income Tax. Both taken together insured repayment of US investment in the Allied cause. In the event, the US forgave most of the Allied debt and the US taxpayer, newly minted, made sure every penny of principal and interest was repaid to the bankers et al. But more than the obscene profits, they had achieved for America an ascendency into the highest level of world power. The US was rated 17th before WW! and was at the top afterwards. (My own take on this was that while we didn't actually rise all that much, rather the war dragged all the others down) At any rate once these goals were met it was no longer necessary to get the population behind the war effort. To the contrary, the quicker everyone forgot about the war the safer were the secrets of why we really entered the conflict. Making the world safe for democracy was a very effective sound bite, but very cynical. Between them Britian and Russia ruled half the world's surface, an empire built on the ruins of other nations. Few of their subjects had many rights, let alone that of suffrage. In Britian, 2 percent of the population controlled 98 percent of the wealth. Belgium's reputation as a colonial barbarian has yet to be surpassed and France, while in name a Republic, was in practice suffering from a hangover of its Imperial Dynasty and their cronies. Hardly the company in which to celebrate Democracy. The sooner the war was forgotten the better. Some unfortunates died, most didn't and America was none the worse for what most viewed as a short interlude of foreign adventure.

The Great Depression which followed the war was an altogether different matter. While the war was an anomoly which took place beyond everyone's view, the Depression tore asunder the very fabric of the Nation in plain sight. Ask anyone old enough to remember it and they will resoundingly refer to the Depression as the worst memory of their life. Even my Grandfather who served in WW1 (US Army) felt this way.

But WW2, while inflicting far worse casualities to the US than WW1, is viewed by this same demographic which pleasant nostalgia and fond affection. Surely many died, or suffered terribly, but it was the war which ended the Depression and cemented America's place as the only Superpower. Remember that all the industrialized nations, save America, had their infrastructure in ruins, their systems deep in debt. We were top dog by miles. On top of which everyone, even our former enemies, really liked us.

These collective memories and opinions were inculcated into all Americans up until the Vietnam War at which time it all began to unravel. From that point on the youth weren't much interested in listening to the opinions of those who had brought the US costlier and more outrageous wars of imperialism. We all seem, in one way or another, to return to WW2 because it seems (on the surface at least) to have been a nobel and unselfish war for us to have fought in. Our zenith if you will.

Some reasons which prolong the subject's long overdue study in America: Unlike the UK it is not stressed in schools; most American filmmakers realize that there is more interest in later wars with sexier weapons (2 hours of sitting in a trench can't compete with chainguns and napalm) and unlike Britian nobody in the US can remember a relative who fought in WW1 but Dad/Gramps sure did fight in WW2.

Regarding the American Civil War I can only guess it is popular in the US for the same reasons the Great War is so popular in Britian, namely that both were avoidable tragedies that set brother against brother (remember that all the Royals in Europe were closely related by blood as were many of their upperclass just as were many of the players in the American Civil War) and which cost the lives of an unsufferable number of innocent souls. The main departure seems to be that the end of the American Civil War kicked off the start of the 'American Century' while the end of the Great War signalled the end of the 'English Millenia'.

Sorry if this is somewhat unpolished but I'm late to dinner! Regards, Bill

PS: Re 'loss of will', remember that the German Army at the time of the Armistice was still in control of most of the territory it had siezed early in the war and unlike the French had never dissolved into mutiny, still maintained military discipline in the front lines and retreated orderly back across their border, under their own officers in possession of their arms and flags. All the American military leader thought this a disgrace. They insisted that instead of an Armistice we should have pounded the Germans into oblivion so that they knew without a doubt that they had been beaten. It is my oinion that had we done so Hitler could never have risen to power on the tidal wave of resentment of those who 'sold out the army'.

[4thGordons]

and nobody in the US can remember a relative who fought in WW1 but Dad/Gramps sure did.

PS: Re 'loss of will', remember that the German Army at the time of the Armistice was still in control of most of the territory it had siezed early in the war and unlike the French had not dissolved into mutiny, still maintained military discipline in the front lines and retreated back across their border in possession of their arms and flags. All the American military leader thought this a disgrace. They insisted that instead of an Armistice we should have pounded the Germans into oblivion so that they knew without a doubt that they had been beaten. It is my oinion that had we done so Hitler could never have risen to power on the tidal wave of resentment of those who 'sold out the army'.

Thanks for your interesting response. Again on many points I would concur.

On the two points quoted above however I would disagree in emphasis at least. My current project has involved contact with a large number of the WWII generation and they CAN remember relatives who fought in WWI and are very interested in them and knowing more about them on one level this has been a big surprise to me as this generation is under the microscope re WWII many of them are asking questions relating to their fathers conflict. This past veterans day no fewer than 5 individuals (WWII vets) brought artifacts, photos and questions about their parents service.

Secondary point - in part it is a passage of time issue - so the same (were it true that "no one can remember" it would also apply everywhere else UK, FRANCE, GERMANY etc) where there are higher levels of interest in the conflict so the lack of direct personal connection can only be a subsidiary cause of the collective amnesia. I find your politico-economic reasons more convincing. The treatment of veterans and the "Bonus Army" would of course fit with your theme.

On the issue of the armistice / defeat - it seems to me that you are wanting to have it both ways.... if it were purely a question of will (the Nazi myth) then defeat was not inevitable however in the same passage you indicate that the Allies may/should have gone on to "pound the Germans into oblivion" something which would indicate that there were material reasons for the defeat other than will - and that it may have been inevitable. Even so, we may be arguing over a question of semantics - clearly the US arrival on he scene had a significant psychological impact on both the German High Command and soldiery, it may well have significantly undermined the will to fight and thus hastened the surrender, but I would maintain this is different than saying the outcome was determined (purely) by a loss of will. I think you overestimate the cohesiveness and strength of both the German field army and the economic base behind them.

I also think you rather over-stress the fragility of the French who in 1917 had suffered well known mutinies but these had effectively been overcome - and while it is true that the Germans maintained discipline, they were in constant retreat and had been for 100 days (since Amiens) and - again you may be over stressing the extent to which they "retreated back across their border in possession of their arms and flags."

Between 18th of July and 11th of November 1918 according to the introduction to Haig's Dispatches by John Terraine

The combined French Americans and Belgians captured 196,700 prisoners and 3,775 guns, in the same period the BEF captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns Something that Gary Sheffield (quoting the same figures) argues is "By far the greatest victory in British military history" (Sheffield p262) - so clearly a significant chunk were not retreating in good order fully armed across their border.

If you have not read it - as a discussion of this question which is well researched and documented and tightly argued Sheffield's "Forgotten Victory" is excellent - and it is specifically directed towards the questions raised here. I think at times Sheffield over-stretches - but I find his general thesis convincing.

Best,

Chris

Oh and a PS when you say " it [WWII] was the war which ended the Depression and cemented America's place as the only Superpower" (emphasis added) I think you are mistaken and ignoring the best part of 50 years. The US may indeed emerge as the only superpower in the 1990s but I am fairly certain even here in the US this was not the view in the 50s, 60s 70s and 80s!

[dutchbarge]

Hello Chris,

As I said I was in a rush as I was late for dinner! Of course you're correct that some of my arguments were a bit weak. However, regarding your observations of the WW2 vets interest in their father's WW1 service, I wonder if this isn't of a more personal rather than collective nature. It is one thing to search out information about ones family as your near the end of your own life, quite another to have your own life experience over shadowed by a parent's. So I still believe that WW2 vets look back upon the Depression with more dread than WW2. Most US WW2 soldiers weren't even involved in combat. As Mitchener said, 'it was a very long line of men which lead to the front' (stevedores, transport, supply, accounting, training, clerking, etc.) While it was one thing to risk your life in what was perceived to be the most noble cause in history it was quite another to be out of work, out of money and out of self -esteem.

Regarding my second poorly stated argument, if I may reiterate, while all but a handful of WW1 vets are now passed my generation and my parents generation(I'm 56), both here and in Britian, are still their contemporaries. But, in comparison to Britian, on this side of the Atlantic there are very few of us per capita who have relatives who served in WW1 . We are a nation of Emmigrants, most of whom in the last 50 years did not come from Europe. What I had hoped to convey was that when a movie producer looks at his prospective audience, he will find more people here with a connection to WW2 than WW1.

As to having it 'both ways' I must admit that that's usually my preference! But I do think that the two ideas are not incompatible. Of course the Germans had been in retreat for 100 days, as had been the Allies during the Kaiserslag earlier in the year. Were they done in? Possibly, but perhaps not yet. They still had millions of troops. They were approaching their homeland, traditionally a point where most armies dig in for one last stand. And they had the Rhine as a formidable obstacle in their favor. And shorter lines of communication versus the Allied's longer lines. The Americans truly believed that they had the means at hand to resoundingly defeat and completely destroy the German Army on the field of battle and felt that the British and French were making a grievous mistake to accept an Armisice before they had the chance to do so. The Germans meanwhile saw that with the Americans in the war and gaining strength and experience everyday it was probably wiser to propose an Armistice, go home and regroup. (which they did less than 20 years later) They had considered sueing for peace several times earlier in the war. This was the way wars had traditionally been resolved in the past. The idea of total war was just in its infancy. All the major European wars previous had been ended by negotiation long before the enemy was completely annhilated. While embarrassing to the loser it was still considered honorable. I know the British love to talk about how many guns or troops they captured in the last days of the war, (in much the same way they like to discount American victories of that same time period as being insignificent because the Germans were pulling back anyway) but it still remains that the bulk of the German Field Army marched home and were welcomed as heroes. They were not smashed to dust as the Nazis were. Much better had they been!

A pleasure 'foruming' with you. Sorry about spelling errors, etc. It's good to exercise my cobwebbed mind with someone so engaging. Best, Bill

[Gamburd]

I live in the U.S. also, and have sometimes wondered about this.

Just thought I would add my opinion.

I went to public high school in the U.S., and took a few history courses. This was a school that was in a high property tax district, so it was one of the "better" schools, probably within the top ten public schools in the state; a fact which really had to do more with the level of education the students' parents had than anything that was being taught there.

I don't remember discussing WWI very much; this was a general U.S. History survey course, and I don't remember discussing the war in any detail, even discussing Belleau Wood. I think (hard to remember) the teacher just said the Treaty of Versailles's terms imposed a large war reparation financial burden on Germany, and that sort of set the stage for the next war.

I don't think he mentioned that the U.S. didn't join the League of Nations or that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't ratified by the U.S. until 1921; there probably was a little bit about the 14 Points ( I'm sure you weren't made to memorize them all), but I can't remember.

This other Elective course I took was a year long (two semester) course called European History, which started with the Renaissance, and during the last few days of class at the end of the second semester, we talked about the Schlieffen Plan, and the very very beginning of the WWI (just got to the start of the invasion of Belgium by Germany) . This guy didn't analyze, besides the assasination, the other reasons why Europe was heading towards war.

A lot of things in this class were just talked about in a relatively simple way; there was no in depth discussion of anything in either of these classes; usually, the teacher would discuss events, and then dish out three or four reasons for them; you memorized that, and then dished it back to him in an essay on the test, or better yet on an Advanced Placement National exam for college credit (which you had to pay $ to take) given at towards the end of the school year.

I have seen very little about the First World War on American television; there was a series by CBS called World War One that was made in 1964, which has been shown on my local PBS station maybe two are three times during the last twenty years. This was pretty primitive material, mostly newsreel footage with a single narrator; there may have been a single veteran that was interviewed in one of the shows; there were no interviews with any historians in the programs.

Our History Channel, which is commercial and is rapidly watering down the intellectual quality of its primetime programs, dealing more with UFOs and Alaskan Truck Driver "Reality" shows, has, to my knowledge, shown almost next to nothing about WWI at least during the last 10 years or so.

Someone told me they did show a series called WWI In Color, and I did see a show on WWI Dogfights two months ago, but I think that has more to do with the movie Flyboys than any editorial decision to have programming about the war.

A British series called The Great War was also aired within the last 10- 15 years on PBS. Maybe one or two other shows, and that is about it I have seen about WWI on TV and my local Cable in the U.S. (someone told me some shows were shown on something called the Military Channel which I don't receive).

That's about it; that's almost everything (there's were two other shows I remember, a TV movie (Lost Battalion) and a half hour program on The Somme) that has been aired on U.S. televison probably since 1980.

Why? Well, my own opinion is that after the Bonus Army, made up of WWI veterans and their families, marched on Washington D.C. around the height of the Great Depression in 1932, demanding a payment of veteran's bonus money that they were supposed to receive in 1946, a decision was made by the U.S. Government not to really honor these veterans and basically exclude their story from the public's memory.

I think the Bonus Army can't be mentioned enough; that caused international embarrassment for the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government doesn't tend to show favor to people who make it look bad.

In addition, we have a militaristic society compared to other English speaking societies. Canada's Remembrance Day ceremony emphasizes peace and the futility of war; our National Veterans' Day Ceremony at Arlington Cemetery (which wasn't commenced until 1954, and it is called Veterans' Day here, we don't call it Remembrance Day) lasts about 45-50 minutes, and doesn't dwell on the negative aspects of war.

It is a wreath-laying ceremony, and the President or V.P. gives a speech, and some music is played, and that's it (Veterans' Day is celebrated more locally than nationally in the U.S.; none of the major TV networks like CBS, NBC, ABC show the ceremony; only C-Span (Cable Public Affairs Network) shows it, and perhaps maybe one of the cable news networks).

A lot of U.S. business revolves around military contracts and war, and they donate $$ to politicians' campaign funds; the First World War was truly horrific and the massive scale of the loss of human lives that occurred for yards or miles of earth showed a callousness and an utter and reckless disregard for the life of the average citizen soldier. The war and conditions for the average soldier were truly awful, and do not make war look like a great adventure.

I think it is just easier for the U.S. Government to just blot this out, and just simply not even bother to try to explain to the average citizen about what was going on in European history at this time, why the war was fought, and more importantly, what lessons can be learned from this very destructive, horrible war.

[dutchbarge]

Excellent post. My educational experiences are much the same. My introduction to WW1 was Life Magazine's 50th Anniversary of Verdun issue. (That really dates me!) Hard at that time to find anything (books back then no internet) to expand my knowledge but I do remember sitting in the stacks of my Jesuit prep school captivated by a musty copy of the Times Illustrated History of the War.

Couldn't agree more with you about the Bonus Marchers. Most Americans haven't even heard of them. Can't imagine non-Americans have either. Just another instance of how our government really treats our veterans like dirt. I'm talking about all our wars not just WW1. Anyone who disagrees need only visit a VA (Veterans Administration) hospital. Cheers, Bill

[Aaron Pegram]

Not here in Australia. Participation in the First World War was a significant national event since federation in 1901, and was our 'baptism of fire' as a new nation. Consequently, its a very important part of our national identity. ANZAC Day on the 25th April, the anniversary of the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli, means a lot more to many Australians than Australia Day does on the 26 January, the anniversary of the establishment of the British penal colony at Port Jackson (Sydney).

Maybe the First World War is not remembered as much in the US because American forces were committed relatively late in the war, and did not suffer as many casualties as other belligerent nations. It was this massive loss of life which framed the popular memory of the war in France, Britain and Germany, and may not have resonated as much in the US?

Perhaps Vietnam is America's First World War?

Just some random thoughts...

Cheers,

Aaron

[Paul Hederer]

I'm not sure I'd agree that the First War was any more ignored than any other aspect of America's past--outside of the checklist items that the big brains somewhere decided it was important for us to know to be good citizens. Yeah, I can tell you about Teapot dome, but vast swathes of our history were covered with broad strokes. If you were to ask the average young person on the street about Korea I'm sure you'd get blank stares.

Face it, for the large majority of Americans history never penetrates unless it comes in some form of popular culture. The Ken Burns' series on the Civil War did a hell of a lot to bring the war into the consciousness of the American people.

The Civil War was a defining moment in American history. As Shelby Foote said--there can be no understanding of America or its people without an understanding of the Civil War. The Great War was not a defining moment for us. It was perhaps a step towards what we have become, but perhaps more as it started the eclipse of Europe. We came late and we didn't stay long.

I don't remember studying much about the war in school, but then again I don't rmember us covering too much outside of American politics and a smattering of WWII.

Paul

[AndyHollinger]

I apologize for being so late to the fray. I will try to be net.

WWI doesn't sell well to Americans. There is no sound-bite as to why we went other than Wilson's War to make the world safe for Democracy" or the "war to end all wars" ... Americans clearly see the advent of WWII as making a mockery of their entry to WWI and thus, try to ignore it. WWI suffers as does Korea and the Mexican War as being unpopular - albeit for different reasons.

As you study the Progressives in national scope, though, you find WWI to be, like women's suffrage and Prohibition, the apex of all things progessive. The failure of the Treaty and the peace - largely due to US retrenchment - again largely due to Wilson's personae, leaves us hanging, leaves us unfulfilled - thus we go on to grander stuff like WWII with clean-cut issues and a finality that fits!

The ACW, WBS or WYA is, of course, a different animal. It is us and everything about US. It is a myth, it is legend it is dashng and daring and world class conflict - changing the world and the military forever. It has heroes and villians who are so pure as to be adulated 150 years later. It was both Crusade and a great Business Adventure. If America and it's corporations live for a thousand years, men will still consider this - The Confederate War for Independence - their finest hour.

To my thinking, however, WWI is extremely instructive ... both for me the British Historian and me the American Historian. This board helped me write my WWI lecture - 55 minutes - of what the war really meant to Americans and to our Associated Powers - From the American point of view, it was a logistic exercise with a few brisk moments of combat ... Division Commanders behaving badly and so forth. 1919 was the American Year ... and as such, we led the world, transformed the world, then retreated to our New Era at home. The world, deprived of our leadership and involvement - wandered till 1939 in Europe ... No, the story is too complex and unclear for most Americans to appreciate.

[IanA]

Largely ignored eh? Remind me of that the next time I try to reach the Menin Gate on a wet October evening only to find it 'full up'.

[drummer]

My recollection is that by the time a course reached the early 20th Century, the school year was about over and if mentioned at all, WWI was gone over rather quickly. I remember it being pretty much being taught as “Lafayette we are here…Bang bang…we’ll show you fellers how to beat the nasty Hun..there, see you later.”

One cannot discount, either, the fact that the motion picture industry was reaching its “Golden Age” just as the Second War began and so kicked into gear with a great outpouring of films dedicated to maintaining morale on the Home Front. No sense in rehashing old heroism when new heroism against such obvious bad guys was making daily headlines..Unfortunately most Americans get their view of the world from the movies, and when I was growing up, WWII war films were staples on television.

[Paul Hederer]

Largely ignored eh? Remind me of that the next time I try to reach the Menin Gate on a wet October evening only to find it 'full up'.

With Americans?