right-track

WW1
The Western Front: Britain & France Vs Germany
The Eastern Front: Germany & Austro/Hungary Vs Russia
The Italian Front: Austro/Hungary Vs Italy
The Balkan Front: Britain & Commonwealth Vs Turkey (Gallipoli landings)
Not to mention Palestine and Iraq where the British fought the Turks.

Total British dead (not including the commonwealth countries) 1,663,435

James

I find both wars to be fascinating, in terms of the types of warfare and things. But WWII definetly has more interesting figures, people that are really interesting to study. I also think they both had an interesting impact culturally, economically and the like, where they are both equally important.

In terms of war fiction. I also think they are about on par, All Quiet On The Western Front may be the greatest war book ever written. There's something about trench warfare that makes for interesting stories, the conditions would have been a lot worse than the actual fighting in my opinion. But WWII has good stories too like Sophie's Choice.

I think that overall other less popular wars are sometimes more interesting to study for me, because I don't know as much about them from the media and everyday conversations.

right-track

Compare that to 450,700 British casualties for WW2 and to us it was a bar brawl.

zachsd

Ok, if you look at where there was fighting during WWII:

Western Europe: France, Britain, Germany
Eastern Europe: Soviet Union, Poland, Germany
Northern Europe: Germany, Denmark, Norway
Balkans: Greece, ****load of small Balkan countries, Italy, Germany
Southern Europe: Italy, U.S., Britain
North Africa: Germany, U.S., Britain, Italy
Burma/India: Britain, Japan
The Rest of the entire pacific theater

I don't know how you can even argue this. World War 2 was a much larger war, being fought over a much larger geographic region, between more nations, with a greater number of men, etc. There really is no argument.

__________________

right-track

I'm not debating the fronts of WW2.
It was you who said WW1 didn't have many.

crash_override

Common trend I've picked up on is that WWI is bigger (historically speaking) with the Brits and WWII is bigger in the US. I think it boils down to the number of families that were directly affected by each war on each side.

__________________
My MB music journal

zachsd

This could be true. WWII was definitely the bigger war though.

I did?

edit: oh wait, I see, I misunderstood you're bar brawl analogy. I thought you were trying to say WWI had more fronts or something.

__________________

right-track

You quoted me; There were many fronts during WW1.
The Great War made WW2 look like a bar brawl.

And replied with this;

right-track

Yeah. I think I misunderstood your reply too.

right-track

Triple post...shoot me!
The point I was making, was that to the British WW1 was a massive sacrifice compared to our losses during WW2.
As much as 35% losses of armed forces mobilised.