The Obscure World War I

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Walther Darré
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 02 Apr 2002 15:13
Location: European Union

The Obscure World War I

Post by Walther Darré » 10 Aug 2002 13:00

Why is WWI such a "background" war really?

User avatar
Linlu
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 04 Aug 2002 16:33

Post by Linlu » 10 Aug 2002 17:59

Hi all,

WWI didn't involve as many countries or so many people killed, I think.

- Linlu :mrgreen:

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 10 Aug 2002 18:01

I think that it is (for people in general) simply overshadowed by the horrors of WW2.

/Marcus

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 11 Aug 2002 03:43

Agreed Marcus. And we must remember, that there are far more people alive now who were in the Second World War, than there are who were in the First World War. This, coupled with the sheer size and immensity of the Second, with its horrors, has made the Second the event of the 20th century.

User avatar
The Desert Fox
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 05 Aug 2002 09:35
Location: Australia

Media technology

Post by The Desert Fox » 22 Aug 2002 15:18

WW2 owes much of its greater estimated importance in the 20th century due to Media Technology.

Film and photography was far more primitive in WW1 than WW2. By WW2 the development of the media technology mean a visual recording of the conflict was greater. Movie pictures with sound, tell a greater story than still black and white photographs.

Hence with greater source material to be accessed, WW2 has become a lot more well known.

regards
The Desert Fox

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 23 Aug 2002 23:30

I prefer ww1, it was the last time and chance for the European powers to retain European superiority over the world, instead America began to intervene on a scale that would eclipse all the European powers combined.

User avatar
Zachary
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 21:55
Location: Sunshine State, USA

Post by Zachary » 24 Aug 2002 02:11

I personally like both wars in interestingness (is that a word?) I agree with Lord Gort though that the Second World War depended on the US a lot.
WWI was such a slaughter though I hate reading about the millions of men thrown over the trenches to get cut down by rifle fire.
Regards,
Zachary

User avatar
The Desert Fox
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 05 Aug 2002 09:35
Location: Australia

The Decline of European Superpowers

Post by The Desert Fox » 24 Aug 2002 08:52

Yes I have to agree with that, World War One certainly signalled the end of the domination of European Powers in world affairs. The superpowers of 1914 by 1918 where either destroyed or Giants on the wain. The peace the USA enjoyed for 3.5 years of ww1 gave them a unique opportunity to flex there muscles on the world stage. Simply because the flower of their manhood hadnt been butchered to the same extent.

The Desert Fox

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 03 Oct 2002 12:33

WWI was called "the war for civilization" ... The strategy and tactics emplied were simple , but 30 milions casualities is a record , 2nd place after WWII . For me , WWI was a preview of WWII , or WWI ended in august '45 after japonese capitulation.
For Romanians WWI's end was full of achievements while the end of WWII was dramatic , regarding losses of territories and men , as well as entering in the shadow of the communism ...

BI

William Wagner
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 04:39
Location: USA

Post by William Wagner » 26 Oct 2002 19:20

I think it was mostly due to the stalemate and realitive simplicity of the war. Nothing new except for subs, tactically came out of it.

User avatar
The Desert Fox
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 05 Aug 2002 09:35
Location: Australia

How can we forget Aircraft development?

Post by The Desert Fox » 27 Oct 2002 03:20

William Wagner wrote:I think it was mostly due to the stalemate and realitive simplicity of the war. Nothing new except for subs, tactically came out of it.
cough cough and what about the huge development in aircraft as a tool of war between 1914 and 1918. At start of war they where just a tool of reconainance by 1918 they where a weapon.

regards
The Desert Fox

William Wagner
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 04:39
Location: USA

Post by William Wagner » 27 Oct 2002 15:03

Yes but they were not that affective of a weapon. Also major inovations in the use of Aircraft did not come until after the war , with the use of German offensive Strategy and American counter industrial strategy. AFTER the war is when everyone sat down, especially the Germans and tried to figure out the best way to use aircraft. Sunmarines on the other hand had tactics drawn up for them and maintained a specific use throughout the war. In WWII the strategy was only refinded

coldam
In memoriam
Posts: 197
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 23:51
Location: all at sea

Post by coldam » 02 Nov 2002 00:45

hi

World War2
- as opposed to number one
'the war to end all wars' -
is not only recent enough
for survivors to be around and vocal.

It also still influences attitudes and politics strongly.
Examples: Russia, Israel, Germany.

WW2 was also the first BIG war
with a large number
of civilian casualties in most countries involved
(notable exception: USA)

and the displacement of many many millions.

...peter

Anthony EJW
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 31 Aug 2002 22:52
Location: Great Britain

Post by Anthony EJW » 02 Nov 2002 08:29

William Wagner wrote:Yes but they were not that affective of a weapon.
I'd disagree. For reconnaissance they were invaluable- armed with either a camera to see what the enemy where up to, or a wireless set to spot for artillery they could prove most potent.
Also major inovations in the use of Aircraft did not come until after the war , with the use of German offensive Strategy and American counter industrial strategy. AFTER the war is when everyone sat down, especially the Germans and tried to figure out the best way to use aircraft.
Disagree. Just about every use possible of aircraft- fighters, bombers, torpedo bombers etc (with the possible exception of dive bombers) had been tried during WW1.

The tactics were pretty much all there- all the strategists had to do was draw the correct lessons and realise that planes were much more advanced.

William Wagner
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 04:39
Location: USA

Post by William Wagner » 03 Nov 2002 04:42

There is a difference between recon and weapon. As a weapon they had little impact on the conflict. The statagest had been given a new toy and did not know how to play with it. Just like tanks. Dispite there use in the middle of the war they did not affect the stalemate much. Sure they could drop a bomb but it did little for the war, because the bombs were weak, the tactics lacked and the equipment sucked

Return to “First World War”