- 15 May 2006 12:14
#874079
I have come across and interesting thought about the study of the First World War. Is the study of the First World War dead? By this I mean do people study World War One for the sake of studying the first Total War, or do people only study the Great War for the sake of being able to get a context for World War Two. I asked several people in my World War One subject why they are studying the Great War. All replies were based around this premise. “I’m studying World War One so that I can understand the treaty of Versailles and how that led to the rise of Fascism/Nazism and then the outbreak of World War Two.â€
To me the study of World War One is now just a stepping stone into the world of study of the Second World War. Don’t get me wrong. To study the causes of World War Two you must study the Great War and the Treaty of Versailles, and the study of World War Two is good too. It was one of the two major events in 20th Centaury history. But the art of studying World War One in its own right and own implications seemed to be lost to me.
The fact that World War one was the first Total War, the fact that it was a ‘liberating’ experience for women, and the fact that it was the first industrialised war and in effect completed the industrialisation of the ‘West’ seem to be loosing their strengths in the study of the First World War.
Does anyone else feel the same way about this? I feel that the study of the Great War has a much to offer as any other event in ‘modern’ history. And that the study of the First World War shouldn’t be overshadowed, or passed over as a lead into, the Second World War.
To me the study of World War One is now just a stepping stone into the world of study of the Second World War. Don’t get me wrong. To study the causes of World War Two you must study the Great War and the Treaty of Versailles, and the study of World War Two is good too. It was one of the two major events in 20th Centaury history. But the art of studying World War One in its own right and own implications seemed to be lost to me.
The fact that World War one was the first Total War, the fact that it was a ‘liberating’ experience for women, and the fact that it was the first industrialised war and in effect completed the industrialisation of the ‘West’ seem to be loosing their strengths in the study of the First World War.
Does anyone else feel the same way about this? I feel that the study of the Great War has a much to offer as any other event in ‘modern’ history. And that the study of the First World War shouldn’t be overshadowed, or passed over as a lead into, the Second World War.
"If I wasn't a Heterosexual, I'd totally be a Homosexual..." -2012