• lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m reading a book from the 30s and it has phrases like: “in the time after the war”. It’s written in 1937 and hits differently in hindsight.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yes, the “second war to end all wars” and the “cold war that only gets hot in the periphery”

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nukes are about the only reason we haven’t made it a trilogy.

        It’ll be the last one in the franchise if they do.

      • devfuuu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Typical holywood and their sequels. Just pray they don’t remember to retrofit a prequel in there.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        WWII wasn’t even really a sequel - it’s more of a classic reboot. It’s almost exactly the same story as the first one, just with a few twists like Japan and the atomic bomb ending thrown in.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I think you’re underplaying the sequel aspects. Russia was one of the antagonists in the first installment, began as an antagonist in the second, but flipped to protagonist ally in the first act. Also in the first installment the Ottoman Empire was an antagonist ally, where Turkey was neutral through all of WWII. Finally, China was an ally in WWII and huge victim of the Japanese , but underwent a revolution joining with Russia to become the primary antagonists in the third installment “Cold War”.

      • lugal@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        He also talks about unemployment rates in Britain and “unless a war is coming soon” many people will stay underfed. Maybe the British proletariat is behind WWII?

        Edit: Since I’m downvoted: the last sentence was a joke, obviously

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    6 months ago

    Pro tip for time travelers, ask what year it is instead. So much easier. It’s weird to ask, or be asked, but it’s less weird tham giving spoilers.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 months ago

      They did still have trenches and other fortifications in WW2. That said…

      1. Do you see any tanks traveling faster than 15mph? Any planes with less than four wings?
      • WW2
      1. Mustaches? Waxed?
      • WW1
      1. Folks with gas masks on their belts are definitely a tell.
    • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ground so dangerous you couldn’t walk offinto the fields. So many shells fired it turn the soil into quick sand. Stick to the boards. If you slip and fall your compatriots dare not try and save you or their fate will be sealed as well.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        So many shells fired it turn the soil into quick sand.

        An interesting stat is that the major combatants fired approximately 300 artillery shells for every soldier that was killed - and 75mm shells (the most common caliber) are not trivial industrial products to produce. It’s hard to even conceive of an industrial society devoting that much productive capacity to the task of killing somebody.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think I saw on QI that WWI was already being called that before the war had ended.

    People at the time knew there would probably be another one someday.

    Which isn’t that odd, really. We use the Term WWIII at times. It’s not that we know it will definitely happen but it’s not something that’s unfathomable either.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        You heard correct. I have never heard any contemporary account from the time call it “WW1” - they did call it “the war to end all wars,” though.

        • Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I found this citation referring to a book published in 1920, though I couldn’t find the text of the book itself online.

          What I find more interesting is the use of the phrase “millenial folk”.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Good point. Of course, with the number of nuclear war-heads we’ve built, I would feel pretty confident referring to it as “World War Final”.

      I actually usually just refer to it as “our extinction event”. But I’ll acknowledge I’m going out on a limb - there’s plenty of other ways we could finish ourselves off.