If anything it was the Americans who had no clue about what was going on. Which led to the worst peace treaty of all time and the cause of WW2.
No argument from me there, Wilson was a right bastard all around.
War in 1914 had nothing glamorous about it. It consisted of fielding as much men as possible and packing them together in a giant advancing meatwall while the artillery stood behind and fired anything lethal at the enemy's meatwall. There's a reason why you have more games on the Napoleonic Wars than World War 1.
Wtf was glamorous about WWII?
The only difference in the two is that technology restored maneuver warfare on the Western Front and broke the stalemated conditions there.
Worst armed conflict? One of the worst, but WWII takes the cake.
If you just look at the casualties numbers and don't look at the fighting conditions. I'll give you that the eastern German-Soviet front was probably just as bad.
Conditions which were not as endemic as popularly thought. A good eye opener is findings books of the panorama's the belligerents took to aid in planning and get a feel for what the front look like every few months. The majority of them were pastoral farmland spotted with craters up until late-1916 to mid-1917 when artillery doctrine changed.
Hell holes like the Ypres salient existed before that, but men were regularly rotated out of those areas to rest and relax on more quiet areas of the front and the trenches near the Swiss border effectively had an unspoken rule on both sides of the trenches that shit wouldn't be done without warning so people could hide so that part of the front remained quiet and everyone could relax.
Soldiers made gardens, both vegetable and flower right behind their lines in many areas that were low intensity while the sedate nature of the Western Front meant civilization was right behind it where soldiers got regular shipments of any items they needed from family, while in the quiet parts they had pubs and other places to relax miles behind the lines.
Not saying it was a paradise and swinging in the other direction, but the more fluid nature of fronts in WWII meant being more on the move and less supplies being near at hand, where many Americans and British at the end of the war were still wearing articles of clothing they'd first put on for D-Day.
If you can find it near you, I highly recommend reading this book. It's largely from the British perspective, but has panorama's along the French held areas of the front as well as highlights of famous/unusual areas along it, like where men fought on, over and under slag heaps at Loos:
http://www.amazon.com/Battlefields-First-World-War-Panoramas/dp/1841197459
I wouldn't say that Australians lack the 'maudlin' view of the war. ANZAC Memorial Day is still a widely respected event in both Australia and New Zealand, and talk of the First World War is seldom, if ever on whatever 'good' was done with it, and more on the horrific loss of life in places like Gallipoli and the Somme on both sides, and was a pretty important stepping-stone for the founding of both countries national identity. Even more people have a quite blistering contempt for figures like Winston Churchill for allowing the former to be botched so badly (which I think is unfair. The guy's plan was definitely flawed, but it failed for reasons that were basically out of his control).
Issue though is you find something in it besides picturing just dead bodies in mud.
A war game is a war game. It has absolutely no say in if they war was "right" "wrong" or whatever the fuck. Just play it for fun. Pew pew, tanks, bazookas, gas etc. Making a wargame is not "glorifying" the horrific stuff that happend during that time, it just tries to involve the player in some of the action that the people went through.
You're half right. The issue is the stark contrast between the dry, matter of fact way the early BF games were and the way the CoD series consciously struck a balance between gameplay being fun, but presenting a somber look at war as much as they could without dragging things down.
Today that completely is lacking and the line is blurred which evokes disgust from everyone who isn't a ignorant teenager.
AFAIK the americans pushed for a reasonable peace treaty but the British and French wouldn't have it. That's even cited as one of the major reasons as to why the US pulled out of the League of Nations.
You're perhaps focusing more on the Holocaust and less on the armed conflict itself
What they wanted wasn't anywhere worse than what Germany placed upon France after the Francp-Prussian War, which despite Bismarck's desire to not produce linger antagonism with France so they might one day be a potential ally, if only a neutral, Germans pushed to punish them that produced a strong desire for vengeance in the French. But instead of sitting around bitch about it, the French largely focused on paying off their indemnity (expected to take decades, they did it lightning quick) and working to undermine future German expansion.
Holocaust doesn't involve what happened in the Pacific War, which is what makes me sick when Japanese and weebos bitch about being nuked while the Holocaust blends together with the merciless way the Eastern Front was prosecuted by both sides.
You don't need to look to death camps and such to find things darker in the Second than the First.
It's a very British and European view that is puzzling to Americans, Canadians and Australians. We lack the maudlin view of WWI and are able to better see the reasons and good that was done, namely as I mention, stopping a Germany that had suddenly found itself very much liking the idea of running all over Europe once things got started.
The Germans were only "running all over Europe" because Britain and France wouldn't let them run all over the Third World, like they were doing.
Aw, boo hoo. Germany was the economic powerhouse of the age, and once America took over they still would have remained a strong second. They didn't need a bloody empire let alone in an age when they were ceasing to be economic or desirable.
Germany having both their powerbase in Europe and a widespread empire would have made them a proto-superpower - wtf would everyone else sit back and let that happen, especially Britain who'd spent the last 400 years preventing Continentals from doing just that.
Believe me, I'm quite sympathetic towards Imperial Germany before the war, despite their idiotic diplomatic bungling and idiocy that made them become the Hapsburg's bitch in their spat with the Serbs instead of having it the other way around, but once they burned down Leuvens' library for the fun of it the beginnings of the dark demon fought in WWII began and they needed to be shut down. The only problem was war weariness in the inter-war led to an unwillingness to wage war that just wound up helping create a worse situation then if France, Britain, Poland and the Czech's had attacked and clamped down on the German's getting uppity once the Rhineland was reoccupied.
From then right up until the last few months before the beginning of WWII the German military was shit and had just gotten the bare minimum of equipment and experience needed to do what they'd done, but wounded minds and soft hearts led to the worst event in human history.
why are you idiots discussing story in a Battlefield game?
I never understood why they even have it.
BF42 was fine with MP and SP to test the game out and get a feel for it before playing against others.