I don't agree. Part of the issue is that World War II is a vastly more complex situation than the Russo-Ukrainian war; it's really not so much a war as it is a

I don't agree. Part of the issue is that World War II is a vastly more complex situation than the Russo-Ukrainian war; it's really not so much a war as it is an overlapping mess of several smaller wars, with a large amount of rapid geographical alterations in a short timeframe. To explain to people in September 1939 what's going on, you have to bring up the Saarland, Sudetenland, Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the dismemberment of Austria and Czechoslovakia... and that's before Germany actually invades Poland. For the Russo-Ukrainian war, you need to bring up... Crimea, the Donbass, and maaaaybe Transdnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia if you're trying to build a wider geopolitical picture. And most maps you see do highlight Crimea and the Donbass! As the war progresses, World War II grows in massive scale, so that places like Tobruk became important locations for the strategic aspect of the war, and even a well-informed individual would have been hard-pressed to locate Tobruk before then. So you need to highlight this town in North Africa, and then explicate why a town in North Africa is important in the context of a literal world-wide war. By contrast, Ukraine is far smaller than the entire world, and even an important linchpin like Vuhledar has only the significance of, say, Bastogne in WW2.