WWI vs WWII: Which is the more interesting war? - General

[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;21811538]WWI was a stalemate in trenches.[/QUOTE] I never would've known.

Wwii

My vote goes to the Cold War. [img]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/3752/m388davycrockettnuclear.jpg[/img]

WW1 is the least interesting war in my opinion, next to Grenada.

[QUOTE=mzathemind;21831248]WW1 is the least interesting war in my opinion, next to Grenada.[/QUOTE] Then your interest in war must not extend past the pretty colors in movies and COD.

World War II. It's got more personalities and it's got more stories to tell.

WWII, maybe just because I've just had my history exam where I had to write a short essay on the naval arms race being a main factor to beginning the first world war. I just think WWII was more interesting.

The thing i find most interesting about WW1 is that is was the beginning of aerial combat. Sure the airplanes were made of wood and cloth, but the pilots were able to do some outstanding maneuvers with them. The program Dogfights! had an episode entirely for ww1 aviation. This happens to be one of my favorite episodes of this show. [media] [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=RLXsNHVEdZk"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=RLXsNHVEdZk[/media][/URL]

I find WWII to be the more interesting war to study, although they both are quite fascinating. If you guys want a good WWI movie, check out the Lost Battalion. It's a made-for-TV movie but it's pretty damn good.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;21811624]without ww1 and 2 we would still be at the technological level from just before ww2 on average think; no computers, rockets etc etc not just because they where invented in ww2, but because the basis for all these things was also invented in ww2, and often the basis for that basis aswell[/QUOTE] Sure, while war does give us a few quick 'boosts' to our technological progress I still think this argument all over is a load of shit. War destroys entire economies, out of which new technologies or knowledge could have flourished had the economies stayed stable and were able to spend money on research. War leads to the death of countless innocents, any number of which could have went on to be the 'next Einstein'. Hell, there's a point in itself. A LOT of scientists and such were lost during WWII due to a lot of them being Jewish and German. Einstein was smart enough to get out of the country before it got too bad, though and to stay out. I reckon we'd still more or less be up to par with our technological level now had the first and second world wars not happened. Sure, our guns may not be as sophisticated and we may not have ten thousand new methods of which to reduce people to a fine, red mist, but... does that really matter?

WWII is the more interesting war for me. It was the birthing ground of modern infantry tactics, high scale urban warfare and small arms design that has, for the most part, been stale since the advent of personal automatic weapons. Besides, paratroopers are fucking cool.

World war one basically changed the world. Due to the naval arms race in the 1900s, Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire both losing land in the balkans to new nations and growth of colonial empires, it needed just one small tiny thing to start it off. After this it changed the world forever, it effectively smashed Europe to shit and got rid of several empires. The Soviet union was formed and the British Empire reached it's largest extent. The middle east, eastern Europe and such now had lots of new nations. We had tanks, aircraft that actually worked well and the auto-mobile industry kicked off and railways declined massively. America was able to grow into a very powerful nation as the war did not effect it much, Japan became highly nationalistic and starting expanding it's empire. The second world war was caused by the expansionist polices of Germany, Italy and Japan in my opinion. After that war we had computers, jet engines, atomic bombs and nuclear power. It did let a huge amount of land be taken over by Soviet Russia, and the empires that survived the first war fairly well (Britain, France, Japan, etc) now lost their empires. With the only two superpowers being Russia and America left they both went into a cold war with each other. The period from 1900 till 1950 was probably the second most important period in history (The first being the 19th century as it took the world from farming and using muskets to having machine guns and factories) as at the start nobody could fly. We had no computers or many radios. The telephone was barely used and the television or radar did not exist. Some ships still had sails. The railways used steam locomotives and electricity was a novel concept to the average man in 1900. By 1950 it was possible for somebody to have a chat and see each other. A computer game existed and people could fly to places by jet plane. Many people owned cars. When you think about it 1950 was not that different from today. And the most interesting thing is practically all these technologies came about from both world wars(Or were improved by them).

WW2 in my opinion. So much more variety.

In history one of the three topics we do is WWI (and the years leading up to it and after it) but the only things we get taught about the actual combat itself is about the Western Front then a tiny section on naval combat.

World War 2 definitely in my opinion at least.

Both of them are interesting. But I would go with WW2 because I know more about it.

[QUOTE=sltungle;21835150] I reckon we'd still more or less be up to par with our technological level now had the first and second world wars not happened. Sure, our guns may not be as sophisticated and we may not have ten thousand new methods of which to reduce people to a fine, red mist, but... does that really matter?[/QUOTE] Airplanes aren't used solely as weapons that turn people into a fine red mist. War practically created the modern airplane. without war, modern aircraft would more than likely still be on par with those of the 1950's or even earlier.

I would say WWII. The trench fighting of WWI was boring. Also, WWII had multiple fronts: North Africa, Europe, Western Asia, Pacific Islands, etc...

[QUOTE=isack55;21841618]I would say WWII. The trench fighting of WWI was boring. Also, WWII had multiple fronts: North Africa, Europe, Western Asia, Pacific Islands, etc...[/QUOTE] WW1 had multiple fronts as well.

[QUOTE=isack55;21841618]I would say WWII. The trench fighting of WWI was boring. Also, WWII had multiple fronts: North Africa, Europe, Western Asia, Pacific Islands, etc...[/QUOTE] I love how people post in a thread without actualy reading the OP.

[QUOTE=isack55;21841618]I would say WWII. The trench fighting of WWI was boring. Also, WWII had multiple fronts: North Africa, Europe, Western Asia, Pacific Islands, etc...[/QUOTE] Wold War I Fronts: North Eastern France Eastern Prussia North Sea Egypt Arabia Pacific Ocean Atlantic Ocean Balkan Peninsula Italian Alps - Just to name a few

Well I'll say WWII because it directly lead to the cold war, and I love learning about the cold war.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;21845173]I love how people post in a thread without actualy reading the OP.[/QUOTE] You posted a question in the title. They skip to answering right away. *bump to keep it off the second page*

world war one, because it always was the first 'modern' war to me.

WWII seemed to have more of a focus than WWI.

WWII, Its interesting to find out what caused the death of 60 million people.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21811748]:words: Anyone know that Japan not only declared war on the Central Powers, but actually sent two Destroyers to the Mediterranean Sea to aid the British against the Austrian and Ottoman navies? Does anyone realize that the Allies had sent armies into Russia after the revolution to stop the communists?[/QUOTE] Japan and Italy's assistance for the allies is probably why they joined Germany in the Second World War. Japan wanted racial equality; the allies denied it after the war despite prior agreements. Italy wanted conquered lands, and the allies agreed to it with the Treaty of London, but were denied them after the war. Germany was humiliated with the Treaty of Versailles' war guilt clause and ridiculous reparations. WWII was essentially a continuation of WWI. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21811887]I recently did a 20 page term paper on the causes and aftermath of World War One for my Western Civilization class in college. Even before doing the research for the paper, I've read over a dozen books about the war. It truly is a turning point in the history of humanity that should not be overlooked.[/QUOTE] I spent a week studying WWI in my AP European History class in high school. Even before that, I watched the History Channel and the Military Channel. I agree.

World War I is hugely interesting to me. World War II, while heavily fascinating, has just been done to death. Both are hugely fascinating, but World War I is the winner for me.

[QUOTE=uberdood15;21840311]Airplanes aren't used solely as weapons that turn people into a fine red mist. War practically created the modern airplane. without war, modern aircraft would more than likely still be on par with those of the 1950's or even earlier.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't have taken long for people to notice how useful they were and to exploit that. Someone would have noticed the potential to make money and would have invested their own money into planes. People will find a way to capitalise on anything and everything.

[QUOTE=PeanutTHENINJA;21831244]My vote goes to the Cold War. [img]http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/3752/m388davycrockettnuclear.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] You do know that if you fired that, you would be inside the radiation radius of the bomb right?