Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
(And we have never talked about the Napoleonic wars) So far the only war we have really covered is the American civil war :-\
Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
My teachers barely mentioned it, although I'm not surprised seeing as USA did little. We usually talk about American revolution, Texas/USA war with Mexico, and ACW. Very little WW1, WW2, and no Napoleonic Wars.
My teachers barely mentioned it, although I'm not surprised seeing as USA did little. We usually talk about American revolution, Texas/USA war with Mexico, and ACW. Very little WW1, WW2, and no Napoleonic Wars.
Nationalism all the way.
'Cos all that happened outside of the USA, just ain't important.
Much to my chagrin in my schoolboy days, I never noticed history classes focussing much on military history at all.
We did have a bit on World War I though, in which we watched Blackadder and were shown some pictures of half rotten feet.
Most of the World War II we covered was about the home front as well, as I recall.
Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
Same. Damn British Education! They only teach us about Britain no other countrie's History!
Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
Same. Damn British Education! They only teach us about Britain no other countrie's History!
Are you somehow from every country there is or ever was, or something?
There's intensive Advanced Placement US and EU history courses and a range of specialized electives, among other things. I haven't taken the US and EU history courses, so I'm not completely sure what the entire curriculum is, but I'm pretty sure they teach some substantial stuff on WWI.It has little emphasis because of how little the role of the US actually had on the war. It's just based on Wilson's Foreign policy and first major wartime country that had to dedicate toward resource usage. So not really.
My teachers barely mentioned it, although I'm not surprised seeing as USA did little. We usually talk about American revolution, Texas/USA war with Mexico, and ACW. Very little WW1, WW2, and no Napoleonic Wars.
Not directly, but their intention behind it is to let us feel guilty for it. They obviously do not say: "you should feel guilty!" but indirectly they do.
Are you really teached to feel guilty? :p
Actually, for GCSE, we've done about Germany, Hitler's rise to power and the League of Nations, nothing about Britain!Here in the UK we learnt very little about WW1, in fact I can't even remember being taught it at all. My brother was once told who was on each side, but he insisted that Italy was in the Central Powers so I doubt they taught him well... When I chose to do GCSE History (High school qualification) we spent quite a bit of time on Treaty of Versailles, St. Germain, Neuilly, Sevres etc etc. Nothing on the actual war itself though.
Same. Damn British Education! They only teach us about Britain no other countrie's History!
Unless you mean the Armenian genocide, I'm not sure what the Holocaust has to do with WW1.Believe it or not, the holocaust has its roots in (more at the end of) WW1.
The roots of the holocaust are in the european middle ages.
In medieval Europe, many persecutions of Jews in the name of Christianity occurred, notably during the Crusades — when Jews all over Germany were massacred — and a series of expulsions from England, Germany, France, and, in the largest expulsion of all, Spain. Jews were frequently trialled and put to death for a variety of imagined religious offenses against Christianity. On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of the blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. Jews were also falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, Martin Luther's teachings inspired and deeply influenced Protestant traditions and culture. He was widely known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic. He stated that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.
During the time of the great war and the 20's, the jews were very integrated in most of Europe, however, that changed with the rise of the Nazis.
Overall
Your history lesson is very erroneous, Mazz.
The roots of the holocaust are in the european middle ages.
In medieval Europe, many persecutions of Jews in the name of Christianity occurred, notably during the Crusades — when Jews all over Germany were massacred — and a series of expulsions from England, Germany, France, and, in the largest expulsion of all, Spain. Jews were frequently trialled and put to death for a variety of imagined religious offenses against Christianity. On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of the blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. Jews were also falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, Martin Luther's teachings inspired and deeply influenced Protestant traditions and culture. He was widely known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic. He stated that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.
During the time of the great war and the 20's, the jews were very integrated in most of Europe, however, that changed with the rise of the Nazis.
Overall
Your history lesson is very erroneous, Mazz.
Well there wasn't many trials at all ... more of Bung them in a hole in the ground so they can't escape and then set fire to it:Spoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpast.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F196%2F1%2F3%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-1.gif&hash=a7cf25ba208bc9025e2a8a3451a9838333afbf18)[close]
And as for Martin Luther, he was an inspirer for but never took part in the protestation movement as he simply wanted a reformation on the current Catholic system to be rid of things like indugances and Pluralism .. he far from wanted a splitting of the church at the time.
But back onto WWI, probably not mentioned due to more of the heavy intake of other nations. WWI lacked really the "World" part of its name, WWII on the other hand can go right across the globe due to the large involvement that took place at such early datings to the begining of it.
The big involvment of nations from across the globe in WWII really spurred the historical focus over "The Great War".
Come to think of it, shouldn't we call the Napoleonics a world war too?
Your history lesson is very erroneous, Mazz.
[...] But thats Germany. You learn alot about Nazis and how bad they are and how guilty you should feel, but you don't actually learn anything proper about Germanys history. (In the part of Germany where I live, might be different in other parts.)I always thought you were Swedish :o
The loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the humiliating defeat suffered by the French would have been fresh in the minds of soldiers on the Western Front
You are wrong, again. War crime doesn't equal to genocide, let me explain to you the difference between genocide and a war crime.Your history lesson is very erroneous, Mazz.
I was talking about war crimes (equal to genocide) committed on russian soil.
And the museums we visited was indeed not connected to WW1 but to WW2.
Now, WWI deserves recognition because of the sheer change it ushered into Europe. The French Revolution was a wound to the Old Regime in Europe, but WWI sealed its fate. It was the fall of empires, with new governments being set up in their steads, a redrawing of the maps of Europe. I suppose it also deserves to be noted that this was the final war where cavalry played any major role, as the Polish cavalry during WWII was unable to help protect that nation from occupation. It's always a wonder to look at the diplomatic web that initiated the Great War, though.
The roots of the holocaust are in the european middle ages.
In medieval Europe, many persecutions of Jews in the name of Christianity occurred, notably during the Crusades — when Jews all over Germany were massacred — and a series of expulsions from England, Germany, France, and, in the largest expulsion of all, Spain. Jews were frequently trialled and put to death for a variety of imagined religious offenses against Christianity. On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of the blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. Jews were also falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, Martin Luther's teachings inspired and deeply influenced Protestant traditions and culture. He was widely known for his writings about the Jews, the nature and consequences of which are the subject of much debate among scholars, many of whom have characterized them as anti-Semitic. He stated that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues and schools burned, money confiscated, and rights and liberties curtailed.
During the time of the great war and the 20's, the jews were very integrated in most of Europe, however, that changed with the rise of the Nazis.
Overall
Your history lesson is very erroneous, Mazz.
Well there wasn't many trials at all ... more of Bung them in a hole in the ground so they can't escape and then set fire to it:Spoiler(https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpast.oxfordjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F196%2F1%2F3%2Fembed%2Finline-graphic-1.gif&hash=a7cf25ba208bc9025e2a8a3451a9838333afbf18)[close]
And as for Martin Luther, he was an inspirer for but never took part in the protestation movement as he simply wanted a reformation on the current Catholic system to be rid of things like indugances and Pluralism .. he far from wanted a splitting of the church at the time.
But back onto WWI, probably not mentioned due to more of the heavy intake of other nations. WWI lacked really the "World" part of its name, WWII on the other hand can go right across the globe due to the large involvement that took place at such early datings to the begining of it.
The big involvment of nations from across the globe in WWII really spurred the historical focus over "The Great War".
Ww1 did not lack the world part of its name, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. World War 1 was fought in Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe.
Of course politicians did care, and even if they were too young to remember as well they were certainly aware of it and were eager to get back at Germany for it, but there weren't really any soldiers fighting on the western front who remembered it.
O and the only thing we only learned about WW1 is that 1 million Belgians fleed to Holland, and that that war was useless.
In Dutch schoolbooks ie you learn that the Battle of Waterloo is fought between UK and Prussia against the French, nothing mentioned about the Dutch/Belgians.
The Dutch history book is neutral and you could easily say that it can used by any nation.
0% patriotic in other words.
O and the only thing we only learned about WW1 is that 1 million Belgians fleed to Holland, and that that war was useless.
That's harsh to say.But the truth!
That's harsh to say.but not even that we helt them at the rhine!
Also we learn about the Roman culture, but not even that we helt them at the rhine!Rome wasn't really interested what was north of the Rhine mouth. Marsh, swamps & some dwelling hills. The only ressource Rome was taking there was cattle. But the dutch culture is based mostly on roman culture, not on a frisian tribe or something. Your oldest city was foundet by romans. Even your most important german tribe, the Batavi got romanized until the 3rd century. Don't deny your own culture!
We read "All quiet on the Western Front" though, which I remember sparking the brilliant debate wether 7 pages would be enough to rate a book "boring".Quote
LOL.
Also we learn about the Roman culture, but not even that we helt them at the rhine!Rome wasn't really interested what was north of the Rhine mouth. Marsh, swamps & some dwelling hills. The only ressource Rome was taking there was cattle. But the dutch culture is based mostly on roman culture, not on a frisian tribe or something. Your oldest city was foundet by romans. Even your most important german tribe, the Batavi got romanized until the 3rd century. Don't deny your own culture!
Until all groups of the tribe left their byre-dwelling-settlements and start living in villae rusticae, vici, municipia or coloniae or other roman settlements and "start" living, working and writing like romans did.Also we learn about the Roman culture, but not even that we helt them at the rhine!Rome wasn't really interested what was north of the Rhine mouth. Marsh, swamps & some dwelling hills. The only ressource Rome was taking there was cattle. But the dutch culture is based mostly on roman culture, not on a frisian tribe or something. Your oldest city was foundet by romans. Even your most important german tribe, the Batavi got romanized until the 3rd century. Don't deny your own culture!
How can a tribe be romanized 'until' a certain era?
We did, even though no-one told us to shut up :o
We did, even though no-one told us to shut up :o
Shut up!
We did, even though no-one told us to shut up :o
Shut up!
You should become a policeman.
Intresting considering Nijmegen is outside the bataven-Islands.Isn't that because it was rebuild after the Batavian Revolt? (Forced to relocate to a less defensible position as punishment for revolting)
Anyway, we've gone waaaaaay off-topic.
Intresting considering Nijmegen is outside the bataven-Islands.Isn't that because it was rebuild after the Batavian Revolt? (Forced to relocate to a less defensible position as punishment for revolting)
Anyway, we've gone waaaaaay off-topic.
The problem with WW1 games is that companies not wanting to make a WW1 based game is not because they barely know anything about it, it's mainly because It's very hard to make a profit from it. It's not really entertaining for some people to play a game where you sit in a trench for months waiting for the enemy to attack, while the enemy does the same thing, called a stalemate.
I understand a game would be boring, but the point is if we lost this war, the British "Myself" and the French would be speaking German.
I understand a game would be boring, but the point is if we lost this war, the British "Myself" and the French would be speaking German.
I understand a game would be boring, but the point is if we lost this war, the British "Myself" and the French would be speaking German.
The French continued to speak French after losing the Franco-Prussian War. What makes you think World War 1 would have been different?
The problem with WW1 games is that companies not wanting to make a WW1 based game is not because they barely know anything about it, it's mainly because It's very hard to make a profit from it. It's not really entertaining for some people to play a game where you sit in a trench for months waiting for the enemy to attack, while the enemy does the same thing, called a stalemate.
Well, to be honest WW1 was unique, who cares about the game, I don't know if your British, french or whatever, but these brave men thrown there life's away for the stuff we can do today, well ww2 is more unique in this way but still, standing in a line and getting shot at may be brave but when they charge out of their trenches in ww1, because the machine gun had recently been invented many many of them died, more people lost their lives in ww1 than the Napoleonic Wars for the shit we can do today, those brave men, despite the Napoleonic wars went on longer, Total KIA, Wounded etc in WW1: 22,477,500, Total Kia Wounded etc in Napoleonic Wars: 3,350,000 to 6,500,000,
I understand a game would be boring, but the point is if we lost this war, the British "Myself" and the French would be speaking German.
The problem with WW1 games is that companies not wanting to make a WW1 based game is not because they barely know anything about it, it's mainly because It's very hard to make a profit from it. It's not really entertaining for some people to play a game where you sit in a trench for months waiting for the enemy to attack, while the enemy does the same thing, called a stalemate.
Well, to be honest WW1 was unique, who cares about the game, I don't know if your British, french or whatever, but these brave men thrown there life's away for the stuff we can do today, well ww2 is more unique in this way but still, standing in a line and getting shot at may be brave but when they charge out of their trenches in ww1, because the machine gun had recently been invented many many of them died, more people lost their lives in ww1 than the Napoleonic Wars for the shit we can do today, those brave men, despite the Napoleonic wars went on longer, Total KIA, Wounded etc in WW1: 22,477,500, Total Kia Wounded etc in Napoleonic Wars: 3,350,000 to 6,500,000,
I understand a game would be boring, but the point is if we lost this war, the British "Myself" and the French would be speaking German.
I am sorry, but it's well established that WW1 was a war of empires. No one died for "Freedom" in that war, no matter what Propaganda wanted their soliders to believe. I even doubt the borders would have changed that much in western Europe, propably would have had more effects on Africa if anything.
Eastern Europe would propably have been redrawn, but that happened anyway die to the Revolution.
And not even Nazi Germany in WW2 would have annexed more than maybe Alsace-Lorraine again, they hold on to France because there was still a war to fight with the British, of course they would have installed a german-friendly regime like the Vichy one.
The land they wanted to annex was in the east.
Pfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
Pfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
Pfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
I think you might mean "revolution" in this case. A civil war can be between two warlords/kings/whatever fighting over who can oppress the people.
And what if it's a war between different ethnicities or a majority with strong hatred against a minority? :oPfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
I think you might mean "revolution" in this case. A civil war can be between two warlords/kings/whatever fighting over who can oppress the people.
Yeah, I guess I mean revolution. I meant something that starts and is lead by the people, not by some leader, or state.
And what if it's a war between different ethnicities or a majority with strong hatred against a minority? :oPfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
I think you might mean "revolution" in this case. A civil war can be between two warlords/kings/whatever fighting over who can oppress the people.
Yeah, I guess I mean revolution. I meant something that starts and is lead by the people, not by some leader, or state.
And what if it's a war between different ethnicities or a majority with strong hatred against a minority? :oPfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
I think you might mean "revolution" in this case. A civil war can be between two warlords/kings/whatever fighting over who can oppress the people.
Yeah, I guess I mean revolution. I meant something that starts and is lead by the people, not by some leader, or state.
Ehm, the Armenian genocide?What do you mean?
And genocide mostly is the trait of the WWII.
Seriously, this attitude is freaking annoying. "Oh, well because it happened outside of the US and they don't talk about it in a US history class it must not be important because it's not 'MERICA!!!!!".My teachers barely mentioned it, although I'm not surprised seeing as USA did little. We usually talk about American revolution, Texas/USA war with Mexico, and ACW. Very little WW1, WW2, and no Napoleonic Wars.
Nationalism all the way.
'Cos all that happened outside of the USA, just ain't important.
After that we watched this horrible 1979 version of "All quite on the western front". Thats all we did.Do you have no appreciation of Richard Thomas! Shamefur Dispray. Though, I have a deep love of the orignal as well. But the book will forever be my favorite. Though, the 1979 TV Movie version follows the events as the book did them better. More flashback type things.
Because the US is made up of States?Pfff. A war between states is not a war for freedom. A civil war is a war for freedom.
The American civil war is sometimes referred to as the War between the States...
It's not really entertaining for some people to play a game where you sit in a trench for months waiting for the enemy to attack, while the enemy does the same thing, called a stalemate.It's not really entertaining to play a game where you sit in a truck or boat, or whatever for a while than make camp.
If people enjoy games which involve large charges and huge amounts of slaughter... Why hasn't there been a proper game about the 2nd Sino-Japanese war?IK it was a slaughtering war, but we Americanos no like that kind of Chinese vs Japanese war... Also I am asian of none of the listed nationalities ):