Why is WW2 discussed so much more than WW1?

Plus, everyone came home after WW2 to education, housing and a car and fridge.

Well, in North America, anyway.

Not at the levels it did in WW1, even with the massive improvements in artillery guns, munitions, and tactics.

It was a gradual replacement, obviously different for each combatant. Not to mention stupid ideas about national identity resulting in the rejection of superior helmet designs because they looked "too German."

Canada's finest WWI moment: shovels with fucking holes in them.

Doesn't take that much to stop low velocity fragments. And if they were responsible for upwards of 95% of WW1 casualties you can see why some wanted more encompassing body armor.

oy vey

>Not at the levels it did in WW1, even with the massive improvements in artillery guns, munitions, and tactics.
Artillery caused about 70% of KIA in WW2.

>Artillery caused about 70% of KIA in WW2.

But that includes blast and shock casualties as well.

It's not perfect but those making the WW1 body armor argument use WW2 flak casualties as a comparison as flak was still fragmentary, and how the introduction of flak jackets immediately dropped fragment casualties by 58%.

history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter11.htm

Because there wasnt a glorious triumph for either side in WW1, making it way harder to exploit for patriotism today. WW2 is covered way more, at least here in America, because it supports our narrative that we are the saviors and liberators whereas we were largely ineffective in WW1. Obviously America did not win WW2 on its own, and probably could not have, but America was crucial in allied success so we like it better.
Im sure in Europe the French are far more proud of WW1 than they are of WW2.

>Not to mention stupid ideas about national identity resulting in the rejection of superior helmet designs because they looked "too German."

That's not all that absurd. A similar profile could increase the likelihood of friendly fire incidents.

Armenian genocide

This is the fault of the jews.

Also, recency bias, more clear good guys/bad guys narrative, better, more extensive propaganda campaign and media apparatus to drill it into the heads of the people who lived during that time.

that one didn't happen tho

there's the edge

Erdogan please leave.

>That's not all that absurd. A similar profile could increase the likelihood of friendly fire incidents.

I'm sure that's part of the reason. But the "national identity" was also political, as some of Dean's helmets were rejected for not being different enough from the British.

ww1 essentially ended with nothing really resolved....sure it helped to precipitate ww2....and thats exactly why it isnt discussed as much....it didnt change things like WW2. The world paradigm changed completely after WW2, also these

Except German helmets weren't significantly more effective than British ones as combat showed.

There were, dumbass
Bigger and more recent. Plus it's the active originator of the modern political conflicts

This post is just dead wrong.

Everyone tried to avoid WW2 for the longest time, because they knew exactly what a "heroic glorious struggle" war is in reality; a hellish mass grave.

>Everyone tried to avoid WW2 for the longest time, because they knew exactly what a "heroic glorious struggle" war is in reality; a hellish mass grave

I'm confused at your post. WW2 is treated something like a victorious crusade here in America. It's the subject of numerous glorifying books, films, cartoons, painting etc... It's held in the light of a tremendous struggle of good vs evil. Superior American democracy triumphing over Fascism.

In Britain the war is considered with something of pride in their defiant stand against Germany & Fascism.

There is a glorifying aspect in the way WW2 is portrayed that you find mostly absent from WW1.

Got a source?

Kind of hard to do statistical comparisons as it depends on hospital records from each side but there is evidence behind criticism of the brodie helmet, not just from the military but from physicians, especially the lack of neck or temple protection and vulnerable to fragments traveling horizontally. Even the French wanted a helmet that better protected the temples and had several deeper prototypes.

The only favorable comparisons I've read are about the quality of metals used.

Because the Jews who infest academia and the media can't build a narrative around WWI.

USA vs. Japan and Germany
This would be an interesting war.

that looks like an imperial guard from warhammer 40k

In case it hasn't been said, because the Jooz

World War 1 was just hey lets fight the Germans and Turks, hey lets take the Turks empire

Meanwhile World War 2 basically destroyed every western empire, destroyed Fascism, destroyed a lot of economies, national identities, etc

A little bit off topic but why is the Korean war not really talked about at all I mean literally no one ever talks about not even on here really.

It was quick, and ended in a stalemate.

, Gee, maybe that's because the way the two wars were fought were pretty vastly different? The speed at which frontlines changed in ww2 was drastic compared to ww1, and setting up static artillery was just more practical. It had more to do with hordes of stationary men, not that that didn't happen in ww2 a ton, but not to the same extent. The blitzkrieg was literally all about bumrushing.

WW1 was the true empire destroyer. Ottomans, Russia, Germany, Austria and the beginning of the end for the French and British empires.

>maybe that's because the way the two wars were fought were pretty vastly different?

I'm not the one who tried to compare them. Also why I mentioned flak being the only decent WW2 analogous to the shrapnel shells of WW1.

>WW2 is treated something like a victorious crusade here in America
kek is this real

it was just nazis racing the consequences of their last fuckup with something even more retarded before you even got involved

Gas fucking sucked though

>Gas fucking sucked though

It was awful, it just wasn't the killer it's made out to be.

bbc.com/news/magazine-31042472

>implying anyone gives a shit about armenians

>implying I will ever leave
>Implying I'm not growing stronger

don't worry battlefield 1 will "teach" the younger generation

That's the media.
At least in my school it was pretty unbiased delivering the German justifications for war and the war itself giving examples of atrocities on both sides

Carried out between Sept. 26, 1918, and the November 11 Armistice, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive was the last great campaign fought by the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I.

Although largely overshadowed in the national consciousness by the battles of the Civil War, World War II and other modern-era conflicts, the Meuse-Argonne was the costliest engagement ever fought by U.S. troops, who incurred a staggering 122,000 casualties.

The battle had started with a shouting match between General John J. Pershing and his immediate commander, French Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch.

Field Marshal Douglas Haig, the British commander, had convinced Foch that it was time to launch a massive assault further north. Foch wanted Pershing to reduce the American offensive to little more than a demonstration and give him two-thirds of the First Army’s troops,
Pershing absolutely refused to comply. ‘Do you wish to take part in the battle?’ Foch shrilled, his mustaches vibrating.

‘As an American army and in no other way!’ Pershing roared.

In their mutual fury, neither general was thinking coherently. With a totally untried staff, Pershing had committed the American First Army to fighting two major battles 60 miles apart within 10 days. He had also accepted responsibility for attacking up the huge, tunnel-like Argonne Valley, bounded on the west by a dense forest and on the east by the unfordable Meuse River

It was a Europe only war and did not involve the then-master of Mass Media, the USA- until much later.

Also WWII had the whole of fucking E/SE Asia involved so a lot of people there do not give a shit about some Pan-European butchering either in WWI.

More american propaganda, thus more pop culture references.

The British expeditionary forces are now racially inclusive.
God bless those African brothers who made the ultimate sacrifice with our great grandfathers. Dog bless Sweden for reeducating us.

>the greatest conflict in history
>still in living memory
>created modern world order - eg all permanent members of security council are winning powers
>only European war Americans remember

I can't wait to be schooled by 9gaggers on how France and Russia were inconsequential to the war.

"Well BF1 told me so! *le smug face*"

Of what, battlefield 1 is so unhistoric it hurts. >muh diversity

How unprogressive. Bedouin women were the key to Monty's success fighting Rommel. Good god man. Don't you read any Swedish history books?

First, because WW2 shaped the world while WW1 was sort of a late attempt at imperialism.

Second, because USA participated in WW2 and USA is currently the major media exporter.

WW1 gets discussed a lot here but it's mostly stupid and misinformed. People here think soldiers never left the frontlines, got shelled every second of the day, and only ever left the trench to walk into a machine gun nest because lions lead by donkeys lol!!!

t. DICE marketing.

I'm not marketing dice.

>female Bedouin warrior.
>member of a group that founded the single most misogynistic nation in the history of the modern world
gg dice.

yeah people downplay this

looks fun though just because of all the obscure experimental weapons, and ware games set in older periods are more enjoyable.

Cause its consequences were global, unlike those of the 1st one.

>newer
>USA was more active during it
>atomic bomb
>higher number of belligerents, thus easier to relate to
>its end sparked the cold war
>it's much easier to paint the Axis as the evil guys than the Central Powers

The question is why the war is remembered. He's clearly referring to the current popular perception rather than the historical reality

>i wonder who's behind these posts

Well hey Hitler declaring war on 2/3rds of the planet was obviously not going to end well for the Axis, but that is only something that is relevant with both hindsight and a serious desire to study the events of the conflict in question on a deeper level then is really necessary for any practical purpose.

Because WWII was literally good vs evil. And i'm not going to say which was it, that is for everyone to fill as they please.

Meanwhile WWI everybody was evil as they were simply fighting for retarded reasons and because Germany was butthurt due to "muh we have less colonies in Africa than the everyone else".

Besides WWI was fought with state of the art gun with old tactics.
How did Germany lost WWI btw? Berlin wasn't even conquered.

>How did Germany lost WWI btw? Berlin wasn't even conquered.
Wat

I forgot to add. Even the way USA entered WWI seemed forced as hell. They knew damn well Germany would bomb every ship in the ocean, why they allowed the Lusitania to sail?
They knew damn well what was going to happen.

Probably because the Murican homeland didn't turn into a bombed out ruin.

Reminds me of the pretense to the Spanish-American war

Sail shitty ship with the powder magazine right above the boilers, blame Spain for it exploding.
One of the first American false flags

>Because WWII was literally good vs evil

>implying fascist germany, italy and japan are better then the united states, france and britain.

no 6 million megashoah fire sale everything must go

WW1 was fucking stupid and had no good reasons to have even happened, that's why we only venerate the dead and meme a sense of global unifying tragedy that was inevitable and unstoppable, whilst ignoring that millions of people died for no reason in a preventable conflict started by inbred cousins and managed by inept morons

It's more recent, more people are alive who remember it, plus

Because it shows global incompetence of overarching powers

>WW1 was fucking stupid and had no good reasons to have even happened
why not

>Meanwhile WWI everybody was evil as they were simply fighting for retarded reasons
yeah those damn belgians and french with their moustache twirling evil plans of trying to repel a german invasion

I'll base this off of America, ease the US can effect a lot of perceptions
>US postwar boom
>Vets return home from successful campaigns and can settle nice family, benefit from GI Bill and employment programs
>Some catalogue experiences in books, memoirs
>Meanwhile, Hollywood and motion pictures are all and rage
>Heroic stories from important battles and memories transitioned into more media for consumption
>Meanwhile, US is a force for good again the evils of communism
>Peoples immigrate to American communities and thank their Yankee liberators
>Also, medical sciences are advanced and the veterans are not tossed aside like rabble, so vets live longer to tell their tales

I Think WW1 needed to happen in order for WW2 to be a thing pop-culturally. WW1 grounded public perceptions on war away from the 'glory' of 19th century battle; you wouldn't hear anything at all about soldiers like Audie Murphy had it not been for Sgt. York and the increased importance of enlisted initiative.

Also ww1 created archetypes such as the flying ace or the maverick soldier whom rose through the ranks, neither would have happened if the nobility worship of old Europe hadn't been shattered by the Great War.

>and more recent
Nail on the head

don't forget dressing up as indians and tossing tea into the ocean

So, had the Germans not invaded France, what would French have done once they went to war against Germany on behalf of Russia?

I'm somewhat knowledgeable in WW1, so, here's a brief summary:

In 1870, Prussia defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War. Prussia formed the German Empire, and in the process, "took" the Alsace region from France. From 1870-1914, pretty much the entire French military worshiped the idea of retaking Alsace. Their military mind drafted plans for, in any future wars, to attack through Alsace. Why did France want Alsace? Because not having it, in their minds, "put them in a constant defensive position."

From 1870, 1914, Germany suspected a French attack sooner or later. In the German minds, it was better to strike France before France could strike them. They planned the invasion by overwhelming the neutral Belgium.

But, there were two problems for Germany.

1. France was allied with Russia, which would put Germany in a two way war.

2. Belgium was neutral, and Great Britain pledged to defend Belgium.

Imagine the German military in ten parts. The German's decided the best option was to put 9/10th of the army moving into Belgium, and 1/10th on the Eastern Frontier fighting the Russians, who would inevitably join.

The German planned relied on Russia's slow mobility, and Germany being the first to attack.

So, when Russia began to mobilize against Austria, Germany decided to preemptively launch the attack, so it could beat Russia to France.

Russia had lost against the Japanese in 1904, so the French were already incredibly worried about Russia's supposed "invincibility" that many European general's thought. Russia, while weak militarily, boasted incredibly numbers.

The French would have struck through Alsace

Without US support the Nazis would have won.

t.turkroach

they were unable to beat britain or succeed in barbarossa without meaningful us support to the allies, why do you think they would have won?

>One of the first American false flags

And Mexican-American war was the first. Americans shot Mexicans on the Mexican side of the border and claimed they had come to American side so war would be declared.