Generally speaking.

I hate to nit pick here, but where did I imply it did?

I like to think I would have had the courage not to take part in it.

You had made a comment a few posts back about the US being late in both World Wars. My comment was in response to that, the rest was just lost in translation (from english to american) I guess.

U.S. involvement in both world wars was inevitable, necessary and in your interest. And your government knew it.
From a British point of view, we'd been trying to involve you sooner than later.
Had you been involved earlier on both counts, both wars would have ended much sooner and for the betterment of all.
This isn't a serious criticism btw. Just a factual and historical observation.

No offence intended.

Hm, that's a good question. I guess the answer is no. For example, I find the American Revolutionary War to be very boring and know practically nothing about it, even though it's arguably, or not so arguably, the most important war in my nation's history. On the other hand, I find the 100 Years War to be fascinating, and now a great deal more about it than the Revolutionary War.

Erm... what?

:laughing:

Actually, what the British do really does affect us. At least in terms of modern foreign policy.

I'd say the opposite applies more, these days.

What I find 'interesting' about WWI (if I can indulge myself in using this term) is the politics of great powers that led to it and the shaping of modern Europe after it. I mean, it started because of the clashing imperialistic interests of great empires which, ironically, led to their crash by the time the war was over.