What's so intriguing about WWII?

Not interested in the Boyne, PCH?
 
Nine Years' War is aight, but Spanish Succession has Marlborough, making it win. Marlborough is a rather awesome dude have I mentioned?
 
Meh, James comes over after losing the war in England, tries to raise an army in a smaller, militarily less capable country, and, unsurprisingly loses again.

A minor member of the nobility going from inability to control Tyrone to raising a rebellion that took out 30,000 English troops, nearly bankrupting the Kingdom and effectively conquered Ireland at the same time, while leaving tons of historiographic questions because the central figure was such a damn good liar is a lot more interesting.
 
some of us like our barbaric metallic tanks and airplanes

I think there was something wrong with the opening post and this part definitely attracts attention.

No non-metallic tanks or airplanes ever existed.

All tanks are metallic, even today (well maybe some stupid experimental designs were made from rubber or something). You can stretch the definition of a tank by saying that the wooden unarmed mock-ups that were used in inter-war German military training were in actuality tanks, but I don't think they could be classified as such.

Main tank armour was based on different types of steel. After war, the shaped charge projectiles proliferated, then the Russians came up with reactive armour, which is added on top of the steel armour. But most western tanks use a ceramic based armouring solution, exact layout of which is a military secret, but the tanks still have steel construction regardless.

Furthermore, all powered flight based aircraft have always had metallic parts, in the engine at the very least, but some early airplanes had significant wooden construction.

I think a proper air plane is "sexier" than something like a paper and wood attempt at flying (plummeting to the earth from a tower or something). I have found model airplanes to be an interesting hobby though. :D
 
Furthermore, all powered flight based aircraft have always had metallic parts, in the engine at the very least, but some early airplanes had significant wooden construction.

I think a proper air plane is "sexier" than something like a paper and wood attempt at flying (plummeting to the earth from a tower or something). I have found model airplanes to be an interesting hobby though..
No aircraft was metal skinned until the mid 1930s (many serving in WWII, such as the Hurricane, were partially fabric, and you have things like the Mosquito, which clearly did not just plummit to the earth, with a metal structure only for control surfaces). Most WWI aircraft were primarily wood and fabric (excluding the engine).

And then in context where it is a comparisson with the 9 Years' War...
 
I think the reason WW2 is so intriguing is because of its scale. It was such an absolutely massive conflict, and it involved practically every major power in the world. It was a huge clash of ideologies that had just been implemented for the first time and resulted in the most radical and abrupt change in world politics in our history. It changed the entire world. It triggered the collapse of the European colonial powers, the space race, the rise of Asia, nuclear weaponry, the Cold War and brought about the United Nations. It changed geopolitics forever.

The battles were deadly and completely epic. Whether it was the Siege of Stalingrad, the battle on the beaches of Normandy or the Battle of Shanghai, the battles of WW2 were so massive in scale and saw such a vast deployment of soldiers and weaponry, of the likes we'll probably never see again. Almost every major city in Europe had some fighting going on.

And it was only 65 years ago. That's not very long ago at all, and my Grandpa is still alive to tell the tale. That makes it much more personable. WW2 also had fantastic leaders, so I don't know what the TC is talking about. The leaders of WW2 were charismatic, insane, evil, brave etc.. you name it. Hitler, Stalin, FDR, Churchill, De Gaull, Mussolini, Hirohito, Chiang Kai Shek etc... It's scale and its effect on history is what makes it so fascinating.
 
WWII is so unaesthetical, with all these barbaric metallic tanks and airplanes, boring-looking uniforms, and yawn-inspiring leaders (okay, Stalin's moustache isn't that bad, but it isn't enough). Why so many threads on that forum discuss it? Surely, other eras are a lot more pleasing. The colonial wars of 18-19th century are so interesting - attractive uniforms (love the British red!), exotic locations (Spicy Seringapatam sounds so much cooler then boring Moscow or even El-Alamein), interesting economic and social dynamics of colonialism. Napoleonic wars are very nice, too - the uniforms are much sexier, the image and story of Napoleon can be presented as very romantic. While Zheng He references are very annoying, Chinese history isn't limited to him only. And the Middle Ages - all that romanticism of Western Europe (owning much to Romantic movement of later centuries, but whatever), the Byzantine imperial bling.

Obviously, the importance of historical events and the amount of significance we must hand over to them and study them and know about them clearly correlates with the impressiveness and colour of the Uniforms or the lusty sexual nature of a romanticised war. Afterall, sex sells. WWII? Urg. Too much death, too noisy, how depressing. Oh but give me some of that Agincourt booty! Brave sexy English Bowmen in Robin Hood tights and Orlando Bloom Hair, shooting off arrows nobly with their twitching muscles. Deaths you say? Ah But the French knights died in suits of armour decked in French Blue! Gorgeous. What better scale is there but a beauty pageant between world and historical events? Ming Dynasty Imperial Robes beat the drab of Crusader armour. Hunky Brad Pitt with those blue eyes in Samurai garb with Katanas, like a true man, fighting for honour! Sexy Ricky Martin Bolivar leading men to Latin independence... oooh much better. With Calvary and sabres! Hot.

Pfff. WWII is just sad. All that bombing... and men dieing unsexily in mines and blast. They even died unsexily in unsexy places. Like Kursk. I mean, that just sounds like cold moldy rocks. Tobruk? Urg. I hear Camels spitting.

I agree with lone wolf. Let's just chuck that boring, drama queen of an WWII Era out of our history books and focus on the sexy hot flavour of 18th Century uniforms leading cavalry and sword fights!
 
I agree with lone wolf. Let's just chuck that boring, drama queen of an WWII Era out of our history books and focus on the sexy hot flavour of 18th Century uniforms leading cavalry and sword fights!

I actually have huge respect for all those who fought in wars prior to about 1850. Warfare back then sounds to have been hell.
 
I actually have huge respect for all those who fought in wars prior to about 1850. Warfare back then sounds to have been hell.

Warfare is always hell. Regardless of year.
 
Warfare is always hell. Regardless of year.

Well I'm not going to pretend that fighting in 2011 is a barrel of laughs, but the idea of fighting on a battlefield in massive blocks, so knowing that if you get hit is entirely down to your enemy and not your own ability to keep out of the way and cam up, having smoke everywhere so you can't see the unit giving you support, having to worry about having a cavalry regiment smash into your lines, cannon-fire being directed from gunners who can actually see your colours across their gunsights and bayonet combat - which is downright terrifying even today - as a normal part of warfare, and on top of that the training was relatively non-existant next to what we do today: I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who could go into battle in those days.
 
The OP is the best trolling I've seen in a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom