Define "better".
Define "better".
Asking which war was "better" is asking which disease between the Spanish Flu or the Black Death was "better".
I think the OP meant "more interesting" instead of "better". At least, that's how I answered the question.
I'm a WWI man myself since I think it was one of the last beautiful wars, with trenches, mustard gas, artillery shock, and mud everywhere
You have a coin that has the world wars on each side?That's beautiful?
Both are interesting in their own ways. The coin said World War I so that's what I voted.
You have a coin that has the world wars on each side?
There are many things that are semi-objectionable about this post, but what confuses me the most is your assertion that the First World War was the "last war of it's [sic] kind". Uh, what kind would that be? Modern, all-out, balls-to-the-wall industrialized war?In that case it's a toss-up. World War 1 had airships (sorta), trenches, and pretty much was the last war of it's kind. World War 2 had tanks and a clear bad guys and good guys. Something sorely missing from World War 1....
Of course, since it's because of how the first one ended that caused the second one in the first place, I would vote for the Second.
Asking which war was "better" is asking which disease between the Spanish Flu or the Black Death was "better".
I'm a WWI man myself since I think it was one of the last beautiful wars, with trenches, mustard gas, artillery shock, and mud everywhere.
You think the first one was pointless?WWII. The first world war was just so pointless.