 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
$user_title
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I'm probably closer to Hellcat and Ole, in that I'm not sure I can pin down any one thing. It's a bit like asking me why I became interested in the war to begin with. I know the "when" and "where," but the "why" is more elusive for some reason. Same thing here. I've been drawn to different aspects of the war at different times, and there doesn't seem to be any set pattern.
One thing that might come the closest though, and maybe tie everything together, is the incredible uncertainty about it all. Things only happened in one way, but the different possibilities beforehand can sometimes take your breath away. As can realizing just how unlikely the *actual* outcome was, in many cases. Or at least, how unlikely it seemed to be ahead of time.
A lot like real life.
Perry
Well said. I agree. My "favorite" part is always evolving. I seem to always come back to the naval aspect of the war and just about all my "favorite" parts are tied to the western theatre. For a long time I focused only on the military aspect of the war but gravitated to the political side and now I seem to be focused on the social aspects of the war. You start looking at the people more closely, you really see how "uncertain" everything really was. For every "fact" the media and academia love to spout about the war, there is an outlier. And in some instances so many outliers and anomolies that one has to question if what is considered "the norm" by academia, really is the norm. I love it !