I think World War 2 was better than World War 1. There was more plot development, more twists, more characters, more killing & drama. While it was still mostly in black & white it was much better quality. The bad guys owned too. Pure evil. And what about the good guy who turned out to be bad??? Stalin?? AMAZING stuff. I was at the edge of my seat.
I can't wait until World War 3 comes out.
I found this on another forum and I thought it pretty funny! [;)]
WW2 vs. WW1
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
ilovestrategy
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
WW2 vs. WW1
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
WWI could have kicked WWII's arse. The upper lips were stiffer, the uniforms were starchier and the mustaches were bushier. Nuff said.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
In my opinion both wars are overated............
-
doktorblood
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:40 am
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
I think WWI wins on style points ... handlebar mustaches and pointy helmits are the schnitz.
-
wild_Willie2
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
I think WWI wins on style points ... handlebar mustaches and pointy helmits are the schnitz.
You just GOT to love those nice navy blue French uniforms with the red piping. Why didn't they just hang a big bullseye arround their neck with a big sign "SHOOT ME" ......
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
-
DuckofTindalos
- Posts: 39781
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
If we want to look at silly uniform choices, any British colonial war featuring red coats is an obvious choice.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
i don't know i actually think the red coats look spiffy...but why did all those german soldiers have pikes on top of their helmets? To better headbutt the french in a charge? However nothing beats the well trimmed uniform of an SS...
"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
ORIGINAL: BossGnome
i don't know i actually think the red coats look spiffy...but why did all those german soldiers have pikes on top of their helmets? To better headbutt the french in a charge? However nothing beats the well trimmed uniform of an SS...
I like the Luftwaffe officers uni myself...very chic. The spike were for carrying extra knockwurst rations into the field.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
You do know that Hugo Boss dressed the Nazis.........on style alone they should have won the war hands down.ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: BossGnome
i don't know i actually think the red coats look spiffy...but why did all those german soldiers have pikes on top of their helmets? To better headbutt the french in a charge? However nothing beats the well trimmed uniform of an SS...
I like the Luftwaffe officers uni myself...very chic. The spike were for carrying extra knockwurst rations into the field.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
why am i suddenly reminded of the Monty Python skit about the art of remaining......unseen ????
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
Hmmmmmm.....can you run me through the skit please........ORIGINAL: Nikademus
why am i suddenly reminded of the Monty Python skit about the art of remaining......unseen ????
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
I think World War 2 was better than World War 1. There was more plot development, more twists, more characters, more killing & drama. While it was still mostly in black & white it was much better quality. The bad guys owned too. Pure evil. And what about the good guy who turned out to be bad??? Stalin?? AMAZING stuff. I was at the edge of my seat.
I can't wait until World War 3 comes out.
I found this on another forum and I thought it pretty funny! [;)]
Stalin ??? good guy ????
what kind of history is taught in USA ???
-
DuckofTindalos
- Posts: 39781
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
He's joking... Comparing WW1 and WW2 to films...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
ORIGINAL: fabertong
Hmmmmmm.....can you run me through the skit please........
Setting: Typical English/European field......announcer off screen discussing the art of remaining unseen. If the actor on screen was "seen" he was immediately blown up. Best part was the last......actor remained "unseen" Then the announcer said something like "Jolly good show old man...you have perfected the art of remaining unseen.....please now stand up" As he does, he in turn is also blown up with the announcer commenting on how it's not a good idea to reveal oneself even when prompted to do so.....
classic.
-
DuckofTindalos
- Posts: 39781
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
"This demonstrates the value of not being seen!" [:D]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
Many thanks.......Now, I remember it well......[&o]ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: fabertong
Hmmmmmm.....can you run me through the skit please........
Setting: Typical English/European field......announcer off screen discussing the art of remaining unseen. If the actor on screen was "seen" he was immediately blown up. Best part was the last......actor remained "unseen" Then the announcer said something like "Jolly good show old man...you have perfected the art of remaining unseen.....please now stand up" As he does, he in turn is also blown up with the announcer commenting on how it's not a good idea to reveal oneself even when prompted to do so.....
classic.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
You must look at it through the course of war, e.g with a british view:ORIGINAL: Sneer
...
Stalin ??? good guy ????
what kind of history is taught in USA ???
- ignorant after the german attack against Poland and the english+french declaration of war
- alienate when splitting up Poland after german victory
- bad guy with the attack against Finland (Brits and French considered to land an expedition in March '40 to fight against the Russians - now that could have caused some twisted situations...)
- second best friend (after the USA of course) from 22nd June '41
- statements like the promise to attack Japan after Germany is defeated made him even a better friend
Alienation started again when victory was just a matter of time and the discussions about post-war setups started in '43. And even then, Churchill in his WWII memoires (just read the short ~1100 pages version; great read) sometimes depicts Stalin as a (potential) victim of politburo pressure behind the scenes. Of course, that got worse and worse over the following years, esp. because of the treatment of the Poles, installation of a puppet government (ignoring the supposed to be official one in London), not supporting the Warszaw uprising in Sept. '44, political and ethnical cleansing (not just in Poland), ...
No he definatly was never really a good guy, but for the affairs of war against Germany he was for the other allies...
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
stalin has been preparing troops to attack hitler on his own terms in 42/43 he was not ready in 41 and needed help from allies
meanwhile he starved Ukraine , annexed baltic states and half of poland , tried same with Finland and was not fast enough to take europe from hitler
later tricked both Churchill and Roosvelt and claimed half of europe as his empire
I have no words on it
stalin was good only because hitler was faster in annexing european countries ???
meanwhile he starved Ukraine , annexed baltic states and half of poland , tried same with Finland and was not fast enough to take europe from hitler
later tricked both Churchill and Roosvelt and claimed half of europe as his empire
I have no words on it
stalin was good only because hitler was faster in annexing european countries ???
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
WWI was a war which nobody could have predicted. It was a war conducted after a "bluff" was called.
All of the principle monarchs were first cousins, and all shared the same grandmother, (Queen Victoria).
WWI was proof Europe had learned NOTHING from the American Civil War in how to conduct warfare by the avoidance of trench warfare.
WWI was a charnel house which devoured an entire generation of men. (For this reason, Britain went into WW2 with soldiers approx 10 years older than the U.S., on the average.)
France fought heroically in that war, but was grossly misfought by its' leaders.
France has yet to recover from its' inability to commit to armed warfare of any duration, and no longer places an importance on "military traditions within the family unit", (as in other nations, posturing be damned.)
Since German territory was never devastated as was France, they never truly felt "defeated", and this allowed many German vets to ponder "what-ifs", and believe they were "sold out on the homefront."(As a VietNam vet, I can understand this feeling entirely.)
Too, uncalled for war reperations demands made against Germany during a time of world financial failure provoked further need for Germany to bring itself out of its' misery, and of only a couple of offered means, the popular (and perhaps easiest) means was accepted.
The actual losses in the trenches of WWI were so horrific, entire DIVISIONS were never recovered, and became part of the clay of those trenches.
As in all wars, WWI possibly was a greater catalyst of furthering mans ability to conduct warfare more "efficiently" than any other war.
Certainly the airplane and submarine were only 2 of the most noticeable advances.For their day, I would deem these two alone as being more significant than even the atomic bomb of WW2.
Lest we forget.
All of the principle monarchs were first cousins, and all shared the same grandmother, (Queen Victoria).
WWI was proof Europe had learned NOTHING from the American Civil War in how to conduct warfare by the avoidance of trench warfare.
WWI was a charnel house which devoured an entire generation of men. (For this reason, Britain went into WW2 with soldiers approx 10 years older than the U.S., on the average.)
France fought heroically in that war, but was grossly misfought by its' leaders.
France has yet to recover from its' inability to commit to armed warfare of any duration, and no longer places an importance on "military traditions within the family unit", (as in other nations, posturing be damned.)
Since German territory was never devastated as was France, they never truly felt "defeated", and this allowed many German vets to ponder "what-ifs", and believe they were "sold out on the homefront."(As a VietNam vet, I can understand this feeling entirely.)
Too, uncalled for war reperations demands made against Germany during a time of world financial failure provoked further need for Germany to bring itself out of its' misery, and of only a couple of offered means, the popular (and perhaps easiest) means was accepted.
The actual losses in the trenches of WWI were so horrific, entire DIVISIONS were never recovered, and became part of the clay of those trenches.
As in all wars, WWI possibly was a greater catalyst of furthering mans ability to conduct warfare more "efficiently" than any other war.
Certainly the airplane and submarine were only 2 of the most noticeable advances.For their day, I would deem these two alone as being more significant than even the atomic bomb of WW2.
Lest we forget.
RE: WW2 vs. WW1
WhoCares,
I'll take your word for it that it is your interpretation that Churchill thought Stalin was a "victim".
I've also got Churchill's memoirs, and that's not what I read. Granted, I haven't READ them. I've "skimmed interesting parts", so I'm sure you've gotten more out them. But the impression I've gotten was that Churhill very much thought Stalin was an egomaniacal glutton for power. He very much considered Stalin a post-war threat. However, he understood the necissity of Stalin's war-time contribution.
But I don't think Winston cared much Stalin.
(* shrug *)
-F-
I'll take your word for it that it is your interpretation that Churchill thought Stalin was a "victim".
I've also got Churchill's memoirs, and that's not what I read. Granted, I haven't READ them. I've "skimmed interesting parts", so I'm sure you've gotten more out them. But the impression I've gotten was that Churhill very much thought Stalin was an egomaniacal glutton for power. He very much considered Stalin a post-war threat. However, he understood the necissity of Stalin's war-time contribution.
But I don't think Winston cared much Stalin.
(* shrug *)
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
