Which war do you like better, WWI or WWII?

Which World War was better?

  • WWI

    Votes: 22 25.0%
  • WWII

    Votes: 51 58.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 15 17.0%

  • Total voters
    88
Are we talking about the whole 'squeeze Germany until the pips squeak' thing? I wouldn't call that genocide per se; since the intent was to recouperate losses from a less-than-popular defeated enemy, not to wipe them out: that was a - probably - un-intended consequence.
Nope, widespread starvation was a totally intended consequence of the blockade - its primary intended consequence! Fewer Jerries and weaker Jerries means Jerry can't kill good upstanding nun-rescuing Tommies, wot wot
 
Western front never really moved for three years, was basically a standstill. When Russia dropped out then Germany made some ground into France, but were driven back to Germany around the time the USA joined.

EDIT: Dramatic x-post.
 
By "German front" I assume you mean "Western Front". Silly objection. The Western Front didn't move at all for four years in the Second World War (with the sole exception of Dieppe, which is less of an exception than virtually any offensive in the First World War) but I don't see any criticism of the Second World War on those grounds! And of course the Eastern, Balkan, and African fronts moved a great deal

Of course, fluid front lines being a Good Thing is rather subjective, but that is what this whole thread is about
 
Nope, widespread starvation was a totally intended consequence of the blockade - its primary intended consequence! Fewer Jerries and weaker Jerries means Jerry can't kill good upstanding nun-rescuing Tommies, wot wot

Oh, the wartime sea blockade? Standard procedure I'm afraid; not nice but a feature of most wars up to modern times. Denying your enemy supply has always been a vital part of warfare; although whether they would have, given the means to stop only militarily-useful supplies from entering the country, allowed civillian supplies through is dubious. To use terrible ethics, at least it worked.

I was, for the record, talking about the reparations of the Treaty of Versailles - the quote was an election slogan from our PM.
 
No, the blockade after the armistice, you loon. Can't you read?
 
No, the blockade after the armistice, you loon. Can't you read?

Steady on! I had assumed that the blockade stopped when the war ended, but apparently you're right - Wikipedia says that they continued it until the Treaty of Versailles was signed, in order to make sure that the Germans agreed to it. Again, not nice, and rather questionable ethically, but at least it worked and gave the allies some leverage in persuading the Germans to sign a very difficult treaty. It does also say, by the way, that few people actually starved to death, although the country as a whole did go hungry - sounds rather like another blockade I could mention!
 
I don't think you can really qualify one as "better", but I find WWII more interesting.
 
On the gaming standpoint, yes. There's a reason Call of Duty didn't start out as a WWI game.
The main reason Call of Duty didn't start out as a WWI game is because WWII is more popular. This is basically circular logic.

World War II had a metric crapton of trench warfare, too, but nobody ever talks about how it made the war supposedly boring.
 
Hmm... call of duty: world war I :think: Considering their last 3-4 games, I can just imagine it:

Germans running around in their helmets sniping French from across the map with ridiculously OP submachine gun that has a WWI version of red dot sight on it. Someone gets 3 kill streak and calls in gas attack! It kills 2 players, because the noobs didn't use the mask perk. 5 kill streak! Airstrike! Ah dammit some noob on the French team just teleported 20 meters away and knifed him with ninjacommandorambo perk. Damn noob! Oh, man someone deployed radio controlled dolphins with explosives! Damn idiots, only noobs use that killstreak!
 
At least three-quarters of the missions in any given CoD WWII game could be easily transplanted to a WWI setting with minimal adjustments, honestly.
 
At least three-quarters of the missions in any given CoD WWII game could be easily transplanted to a WWI setting with minimal adjustments, honestly.

This. And it would be ostensibly more interesting by simple fact that it's not boring WWII or MW poop.
 
Nope, widespread starvation was a totally intended consequence of the blockade - its primary intended consequence! Fewer Jerries and weaker Jerries means Jerry can't kill good upstanding nun-rescuing Tommies, wot wot

There is an important difference between genocide and doing harm unto enemy civilians in enemy territory. There may not be an ethical difference but the two are certainly distinct.
 
WW2 is overly romanticized. The Great War makes it harder to ignore war's futilities. It is war at its essence, at its ugliest, and that is why I study it.
 
World War 2 had tanks and a clear bad guys and good guys.
At the time many Europeans would have disagreed. If you substract racism and revanchism a fair chunk of the bad guys' motivation is left that can be summed up as "fighting communism".
Particularly if we are talking about the vast majority of the volunteers the Wehrmacht recruited in the occupied nations all accross Europe.
Unfortunatly there is nuance even to the - apparently - most black and white scenarios.
What is that, Dresden? Yeah, maybe beautifuls not the right term... perhaps satisfying?
That's Hamburg. I don't even have to click the pic info for that.

And it doesn't matter. The RAF did a pretty wholesome job of "dehousing the population" everywhere.
This seems to be remarkably underappreciated in Britain. Even though the RAF droped more roughly ten times the tonnage on bombs on Germany than Britain recieved during the Blitz there are still those headlines about "The Huns who bombed us!" whenever a world cup is coming up.
On the same page: Note that Dresden didn't suffer significantly more damage than other cities. On the contrary. It mostly came to fame cause it was cosidered relatively save before the RAF managed to destroy a sizeable part of the city within days.
On the bottom line there was a fair number of cities that suffered bigger destruction from British air raids. Hamburg for starters.

Yet on the same page: As i have noted in the thread that made me pick that avatar: Both Americans and Brits usually fail miserably when it comes to appreciating that - regarding WWII - being the lucky and largely unharmed winner and actually defeating the bad guys (and sacrificing to that end) are two very different things.
The U.S. and the U.K. did most of the one, Poland, the USSR and the Republic of China did most of the other.
As a result American and British mocking of Polish (or any eastern European) nationalism (as recently observable on this forum) is - sufficient cynicism provided - rather hilarious.

I don't want to presume that but i have at least some suspicion that said failure is also the origin of statements like this:
Whichever one caused the least loss of life.

So WWII.
Since it is apparently that much of a problem this should have been fixed via wikipedia usage as soon as deaths as a measure for badness of a war came up:
Spoiler :
WWI:

5.7 million military deaths


4.0 million military deaths


Yeah i know: The graph is bad. By that scale The Blitz would have actually justified some orange pixels. I note that not as a mockery but - on the contrary - to make clear that i am aware of that and don't want to ignore or belittle that.


As a further sidenote: Dear Americans, Brits, please don't participate in that nonsensical the French are sissies who don't know how to win a war meme. It only serves to lower any continental European's opinion of you.
 
The defining struggle of human civilization, World War Two.
 
I'm a WWI man myself since I think it was one of the last beautiful wars

well, if you think WW1 was beautifull, then I'd recommend you watching the video 'Verdun- Shell Shock' on youtube.

But that video is really nothing for children.



As a further sidenote: Dear Americans, Brits, please don't participate in that nonsensical the French are sissies who don't know how to win a war meme. It only serves to lower any continental European's opinion of you.

Agreed. Comming from a country with an 'Axis - past', I am proud to be able to consider the French my allies today.
They honoured their alliance when others did not, and that with the goddamn nazis at their border.
 
Which war was "better"? *cringe*

Which do I "like" better? *cringe again*

You have a real way with words! For the record, both of them entailed horrific suffering, so I can't say either was good, let alone "better", nor should anyone "like" them!

Assuming you meant: "Which do I find more interesting?" I voted for WWII.
 
Top Bottom