World War II

[Frodo]

Personally for me, the war in Southeast Asia and in the Pacific interests me more, relative to all the others, especially the doomed effort by the defending Americans and Filipinos to hold back the Japanese invaders at Bataan and Corregidor (which I have visited on more than one occasion) in early 1942. 

[JSojourner]

Europe, for me.  But I find myself vastly more interested in lesser-known aspects of the European war than in, say, Operation Overlord or The Battle of the Bulge.  Not that those were not momentous and pivotal.  It's just that they have been exhausted as the subjects of documentaries, movies, books and so forth.

I'd would love to read detailed histories of the combat experience of Bulgarian, Finnish and other combatants from less-recognized beliigerants. This sort of thing has always fascinated me.  And other things -- like what was life like for British residents of the occupied Channel Islands...what combat stories (if any) are there to tell from the initial German invasions of Denmark and Luxembourg.  (We know about fierce, but futile, Polish and Belgian resistance for example...but we have heard so little about Norwegian tactics at the outset of the war.  I speak not of the post-occupation resistance, but of armed resistance by military, police and civilians upon invasion.)

As to the other theaters, it's all fascinating.  China has long gotten short-shrift in the history books as a major combatant.  Imagine what the Japanese might have done had they no dreams of expansion there?  The Chinese tied down millions of Japanese to the bitter end, in spite of having their own internal war to fight.  Few people know that Siamese troops fought alongside the Japanese in Burma. The bloody fights in New Guinea don't get a lot of play...compared to Midway and the island hopping.

But bottom line, it's all good.  I'll take a WW 2 movie, documentary or book over just about any other...except possibly the Civil War.

[The Mikado]

I selected Pacific, North African, European, and Mediterranean, but that's no slight to the other ones.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Europe is the only one that interests me.

[12th Doctor]

I only marked Europe.  Not that I have no interest in the others, but even the Allies at the time felt that the Pacific was a side show.

[TeePee4Prez]

BRTD will laugh, but Ireland's role in it.  From reading, it's confusing as hell as to what side the people and the leadership were really on.  I know the President of Ireland at the time was chummy with Franco in Spain who was.. yeah chummy with Mussolini and Hitler and the Nazis tried a few covert operations (Lobster, Seagull) to win Ireland over.  Yet at the same time they lent Britain and America their ports. 

I would also add as honorable mention Switzerland's role with banking interests and hidden Nazi money. 

Question, were European neutrals just scared covert Nazi supporters?  In Ireland and Spain's cases, it maybe a possibility due to their geographies.

[RosettaStoned]

Europe; particularly the Eastern Front.

[J. J.]

I'm becoming more interested in the Pacific and SE Asian theaters.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Europe (Western only) & the Pacific.

[Lief 🗽]

All of the above.

[Hash]

Europe (in particular, Western Europe and Italy), Mediterranean/North Africa (also extends to the conflict between Vichy and Free France in the AOF-AEF), Indochina (for family reasons).

Also a particular interest in neutral states (Spain, Ireland, Sweden and Portugal in particular), 'minor' players (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Ustaše Croatia, Serbian Chetniks, Greece, Albania, Finland, Slovakia) and the Vichy regime.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Europe and particularly the Eastern Front.

The Battle of Stalingrand is for me the most dramatic moment of the war. It baffles me to no end that an event with such characters, drama and theatricality has failed to produce a memorable movie.

[JSojourner]

BRTD will laugh, but Ireland's role in it.  From reading, it's confusing as hell as to what side the people and the leadership were really on.  I know the President of Ireland at the time was chummy with Franco in Spain who was.. yeah chummy with Mussolini and Hitler and the Nazis tried a few covert operations (Lobster, Seagull) to win Ireland over.  Yet at the same time they lent Britain and America their ports. 

I would also add as honorable mention Switzerland's role with banking interests and hidden Nazi money. 

Question, were European neutrals just scared covert Nazi supporters?  In Ireland and Spain's cases, it maybe a possibility due to their geographies.

Well, if Spain had not just endured a bloody civil war, I think Franco might have been sorely tempted to join the Axis.  They could finally have seized Gibraltar, taken more French territory in North Africa and -- if everything worked out for the Axis -- perhaps added a few islands or ports to their "empire". 

Ireland was sympathetic...not so much to Hitler and the Nazis...but to anyone who gave the British hell.  The Irish have never had international aspirations, though, and are decidedly not militaristic. I suspect they'd have been content to take back Northern Ireland and dispatch the Brits once and for all. Once America had decided its allegiances, though, Ireland was not going to join any alliance against us.  The ties are just too strong.  I do note, however, that Ireland flew her flags at half-staff when Hitler's suicide was announced.  I find that interesting but not indicative of much.

Portugal is a curious case.  Salazar was Fascist.  Portugal had been at peace a long while and was hardly war-weary, like Spain.  They were involved in the First World War as an Allied State, and some Portugese felt (as did the Japanese) that their contribution to the war against the Central Powers was unappreciated. Joining the Axis might also have assured the Portugese of Japanese good will and allowed them to maintain control over Macau and Timor. From what little I have read, however, Salazar loathed Hitler and was no fan of Germans in general.  At least, unofficially.

[paul718]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

[Scam of God]

Portugal is a curious case.  Salazar was Fascist.

Not quite. You should read Bill Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism; he seems to think that Salazar was "merely" an authoritarian, and he responded very negatively to the Movimento Nacional-Sindicalista, eventually dissolving it in 1934.

[Rowan]

None.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

I two am slightly more interested in the WW1. Especially the Eastern front. Many don't realise the contribution to the Allies Russia made in the Outset by losing Tannenburg they basically allowed France to win the battle of the Marne and hold Paris. Without Tannenburg the war could have been won in 1914 by Germany. Also in 1916 many don't realise how close the Russians came to knocking Austria-Hungary out of the War, had Nicholas not halter his advance b/c of indecision and pressure from Rasputin through his wife, the Russians might have been able to penetrate to the DAnubian Plane, capture Budapest, and possibly Vienna; all before the Germans arrived to secure the lines and assume Military control over Austria-Hungary.

As to the question I picked Europe, Mediterranean, North Africa, Atlanic, and the Pacific. I also am fascinated by the Chinese front. How they could sustain the fight for 8 years longer then any other nation.

[Хahar 🤔]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

WWI is much easier to understand, given that the observer really only has to deal with the aims and feelings of the rulers. WWII was the first, last, and greatest modern war. Every state relied on the masses, which makes it far more faceted.

[Scam of God]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

WWI is much easier to understand, given that the observer really only has to deal with the aims and feelings of the rulers

Really? I'd have thought just the opposite: that the interwoven fabric of European alliances dating back, in some instances, to the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars that caused World War I to cascade out of control would make it more difficult for a novice student of history to fully grasp the underlying causes. World War II, at least in the European theater, is much simpler: Germany's resentment against Versailles, France's bellicosity towards Germany, and England's desire to play referee over Eastern Europe are all basically the result of the First World War, and hence by nature are less complicated.

[12th Doctor]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

WWI is much easier to understand, given that the observer really only has to deal with the aims and feelings of the rulers

Really? I'd have thought just the opposite: that the interwoven fabric of European alliances dating back, in some instances, to the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars that caused World War I to cascade out of control would make it more difficult for a novice student of history to fully grasp the underlying causes. World War II, at least in the European theater, is much simpler: Germany's resentment against Versailles, France's bellicosity towards Germany, and England's desire to play referee over Eastern Europe are all basically the result of the First World War, and hence by nature are less complicated.

I highly disagree.  The forces at work in the Second World War were vastly more complex.  WWI was just your standard European conflict, writ large.  WWII was a massive battle over ideologies and cultural issues that were at the very heart of the last 500 years (if not more) of Western civilization.  The complexities are often difficult to grasp, and easily misunderstood by laymen who often fall victim to a number of misconceptions about the war.

[Scam of God]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

WWI is much easier to understand, given that the observer really only has to deal with the aims and feelings of the rulers

Really? I'd have thought just the opposite: that the interwoven fabric of European alliances dating back, in some instances, to the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars that caused World War I to cascade out of control would make it more difficult for a novice student of history to fully grasp the underlying causes. World War II, at least in the European theater, is much simpler: Germany's resentment against Versailles, France's bellicosity towards Germany, and England's desire to play referee over Eastern Europe are all basically the result of the First World War, and hence by nature are less complicated.

I highly disagree.  The forces at work in the Second World War were vastly more complex.  WWI was just your standard European conflict, writ large.  WWII was a massive battle over ideologies and cultural issues that were at the very heart of the last 500 years (if not more) of Western civilization.  The complexities are often difficult to grasp, and easily misunderstood by laymen who often fall victim to a number of misconceptions about the war.

But here's the thing: neither German Nazism nor Russian Communism are particularly difficult to fathom. Taking Nazism as my example, one could trace back throughout Germany's cultural history strains of anti-Semitism - back to Jews and their Lies and before - and call it a day. But if one wants to understand the precise circumstances that permitted that ideology to rise to prominence, one has to have a basic understanding of the world order that had been cemented in place by the end of the First World War, and the particular political and economic conditions that befell Germany in its aftermath. And these, in turn, have to be traced as far back as the Unification and before.

The history leading up to the First World War is a tangled spiderweb of intrigue. In turn, it's quite easy to view World War Two as a simplistic clash of total good versus total evil, because, being far more ideologically driven than its predecessor, that's essentially just what it is.

[AkSaber]

I'm a WWII buff, so all of it interests me.

But the Pacific War and the Eastern Front in Europe are the ones I look at the most.

[k-onmmunist]

The Pacific, China, and North Africa/Mid East

[12th Doctor]

Europe. 

Am I the only one who finds WWI more interesting than WWII?  WWII was more complex, but I suppose I'm attracted to the mystery of The Great War, being that it gets so little attention.

WWI is much easier to understand, given that the observer really only has to deal with the aims and feelings of the rulers

Really? I'd have thought just the opposite: that the interwoven fabric of European alliances dating back, in some instances, to the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars that caused World War I to cascade out of control would make it more difficult for a novice student of history to fully grasp the underlying causes. World War II, at least in the European theater, is much simpler: Germany's resentment against Versailles, France's bellicosity towards Germany, and England's desire to play referee over Eastern Europe are all basically the result of the First World War, and hence by nature are less complicated.

I highly disagree.  The forces at work in the Second World War were vastly more complex.  WWI was just your standard European conflict, writ large.  WWII was a massive battle over ideologies and cultural issues that were at the very heart of the last 500 years (if not more) of Western civilization.  The complexities are often difficult to grasp, and easily misunderstood by laymen who often fall victim to a number of misconceptions about the war.

But here's the thing: neither German Nazism nor Russian Communism are particularly difficult to fathom. Taking Nazism as my example, one could trace back throughout Germany's cultural history strains of anti-Semitism - back to Jews and their Lies and before - and call it a day. But if one wants to understand the precise circumstances that permitted that ideology to rise to prominence, one has to have a basic understanding of the world order that had been cemented in place by the end of the First World War, and the particular political and economic conditions that befell Germany in its aftermath. And these, in turn, have to be traced as far back as the Unification and before.

The history leading up to the First World War is a tangled spiderweb of intrigue. In turn, it's quite easy to view World War Two as a simplistic clash of total good versus total evil, because, being far more ideologically driven than its predecessor, that's essentially just what it is.

The argument you just gave doesn't even begin to scratch the surface if you want to really understand what was going on.  What about the clash of Liberalism vs Authoritarianism, the nature of being, the nature of the human soul, the nature of morality, the destiny of humanity, the relation of the person to the society, how do we define the "nation".  These are the key arguments that have defined Western civilization since Socrates.

[12th Doctor]

And even to describe the immediate situation as "simple" is a joke.  If you went back in time to 1930 and asked the average German if the Nazis had any hope of ever seizing power, they would have laughed at you.