• partial_accumen
    link
    fedilink
    1091 month ago

    They called WWI “the war to end all wars”. Then humanity developed its interest in sequels.

    • @lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      301 month 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
      201 month 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.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        It is possible to engage in global warfare without deploying the nukes. Don’t undersell their creativity.

    • @ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        11 month 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”.