- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was WWI more brutal than WWII?
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:48 am to athenslife101
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:48 am to athenslife101
quote:
It's not correct to consider the Holocaust a part of World War 2. It was a crime of the German empire. Trying to attribute it to a war Is faulting in attribution.
That's not really true. The Holocaust was a strategic objective of the Third Reich; since it was a direct war aim, it's impossible to separate it from the overall war. I mean, it played a massive role in how the German war was conducted - directly negated their chance to find an alliance with the Ukrainians, which would have drastically strengthened their effort on the Eastern Front. Then there are other facts. Jewish (and other minorities) slave labor fueled the German war machine, yet the Holocaust itself was a massive drain on Germany's limited resources, however they were willing to sacrifice other strategic war aims to continue killing the Jews.
Any way you want to look at it, you can't separate it from the war anymore than you can separate, for instance, Japanese atrocities committed in the Pacific; everything from Unit 731, to using human shields & civilians strapped with suicide bombs used as tactics against our forces. You also have their use of POW concentration camps & slave labor. Hell, scorched earth, which the Germans employed as they began their retreat back to Germany was also a war crime, yet was done primarily for military reasons.
1
Posted on 9/18/16 at 6:05 am to DavidTheGnome
Well, this is a very subjective question. If we are just looking at the numbers of killed, wounded, and missing, then WWII was a hell no other conflict in human history can match, including WWI.
However, if we resist the temptation of taking such a simplistic view of the comparative question at hand, and instead look deeper at the overall experiences of the people who lived through these two wars, then it becomes quite possible to declare WWI the more horrible of the world wars.
But again, this is a subjective matter. How can one quantify the misery of Stalingrad vs. The Somme? How can we measure the suffering of the British troops fighting in mud in passchendaele and say it was any more or less than the misery of the Marines fighting in sauna of Guadalcanal? Was it worse for the German civilians in WWII when death came quick in the form of allied bombs? Or was was it worse for the German civilians in WWI when death came slowly in the form disease and starvation thanks to the British blockade?
Answer those questions and you answer the question posed in the OP.
However, if we resist the temptation of taking such a simplistic view of the comparative question at hand, and instead look deeper at the overall experiences of the people who lived through these two wars, then it becomes quite possible to declare WWI the more horrible of the world wars.
But again, this is a subjective matter. How can one quantify the misery of Stalingrad vs. The Somme? How can we measure the suffering of the British troops fighting in mud in passchendaele and say it was any more or less than the misery of the Marines fighting in sauna of Guadalcanal? Was it worse for the German civilians in WWII when death came quick in the form of allied bombs? Or was was it worse for the German civilians in WWI when death came slowly in the form disease and starvation thanks to the British blockade?
Answer those questions and you answer the question posed in the OP.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 6:51 am to Darth_Vader
I was reading this thread thinking "blah blah blah... when's Darth gonna come in and set this bitch straight?" nobody on the OT knows war stuff like you. 
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 6:53 am
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:10 am to DavidTheGnome
Tough to answer. WW1 had armies meeting technological advancements that really nobody had a clue about. It took them forever to figure out you should not charge right at a machine gun nest. There were probably a lot less troop rotations so the psychological affect may have been worse.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 8:57 am
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:11 am to mikelbr
quote:
nobody on the OT knows war stuff like you.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:15 am to DavidTheGnome
I think WWI had the biggest consequences between the two wars. Prior to WWI, the middle East was peaceful- there were no countries called Syria, Iraq Israel, Lebanon... etc.
It was only after the Europeans carved it up following WWII that the vicinity went downhill.
There's an argument to be made that if the Ottomans were still in charge that jihadism wouldn't exist.
It was only after the Europeans carved it up following WWII that the vicinity went downhill.
There's an argument to be made that if the Ottomans were still in charge that jihadism wouldn't exist.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:55 am to fr33manator
I love this chart simply to refute the "French are pussies" comments.
Modern America cannot fathom such death.
Modern America cannot fathom such death.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:31 am to DavidTheGnome
For soldiers on the western front, WWI. Pacific theatre in WWII and citizens probably had it worse.
Now, WWI is a more "important" war than WWII, if I'm gonna do a world war hot take.
Now, WWI is a more "important" war than WWII, if I'm gonna do a world war hot take.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:33 am to 9Fiddy
quote:I agree with this. WWI was indiscriminate - gas, etc. Seems the more we slide down the timeline, the more "civil" and surgical war becomes.
While both were extremely horrific, I have to say WWI was worse.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:39 am to LSUfan20005
quote:
Modern America cannot fathom such death.
Today, Americans cannot stand the sight of coffins coming off airplanes singularly from the Middle East.
The late 1960's early 1970's daily 5:30 evening news showed Viet Nam war footage. The flame throwers spewing into tunnel openings and out run the commies on fire, tanks rolling over bodies in the mud, insects covering the mangled remains of both enemy and US soldiers, MASH units full of mangled bodies in bloody bandages, and conveyor belts of body bags filled with US soldiers coming off dedicated casualty flights of C130's.
War is hell. Respect what each and every veteran has and will go through.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:58 am to Sidicous
If you are ever in KC, I highly suggest visiting the WWI memorial and museum, one of the best in the country.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:00 am to Sidicous
What the soviets did to the civilians before, during, and after wwii is one of the biggest tragedy in human history (the Mongols beat them). You don't read about it much because they were our "allies". Let's not forget, Stalin and hitler invaded Poland together.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 9:04 am
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:00 am to DavidTheGnome
In Europe it was. However, I'd say the Pacific theater was on a par with the Great War
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:01 am to DavidTheGnome
Brutal....
I think WWI was NOT as brutal. You had the Christmas intermingling of opposing armies. While WWI was a nightmarish meat grinder of poor tactics meeting superior technology (trench warfare, over the top, charge of the light brigade, tanks gaining ground but no infantry to hold said ground) there was the HATRED that was lacking which leads to the brutality of war.
WWII had Hitler laying down the genocide of Jews, the Japanese wholesale rape of Nanking, the Americans hardly taking prisoners in the Pacific islands, and then the Russians paying the Germans back in spades.
I think WWI was the last of a Gentlemanly type of warfare but it sewed and birthed the idea of modern Total War where the citizens of countrysides, major cities, and entire countries bore the burden and danger of War. WWII perfected Total War. Firebombings of entire cities and then you have the nukes.
I think WWI was NOT as brutal. You had the Christmas intermingling of opposing armies. While WWI was a nightmarish meat grinder of poor tactics meeting superior technology (trench warfare, over the top, charge of the light brigade, tanks gaining ground but no infantry to hold said ground) there was the HATRED that was lacking which leads to the brutality of war.
WWII had Hitler laying down the genocide of Jews, the Japanese wholesale rape of Nanking, the Americans hardly taking prisoners in the Pacific islands, and then the Russians paying the Germans back in spades.
I think WWI was the last of a Gentlemanly type of warfare but it sewed and birthed the idea of modern Total War where the citizens of countrysides, major cities, and entire countries bore the burden and danger of War. WWII perfected Total War. Firebombings of entire cities and then you have the nukes.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:04 am to DavidTheGnome
WW2 Eastern Front winner
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:04 am to Jobu93
I would say The War for southern independence was where total war was birthed.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:13 am to prplhze2000
I guess I should have clarified my modern Total War.
You're absolutely right about the Civil War.
I was leaning more towards today's idea of air power's strategic bombing along with the ground forces. The Civil War just didn't have the air component yet.
You're absolutely right about the Civil War.
I was leaning more towards today's idea of air power's strategic bombing along with the ground forces. The Civil War just didn't have the air component yet.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:18 am to DavidTheGnome
Each war was different. WW1 battlefields were relatively static in nature. If you were 50 miles away from an active WW1 battlefield, you might not know you were at war. The battles themselves were horrific. Within 5 weeks of The Archduke being shot there were a million casualties in the war. With something like 250,000 KIA. In these battlefields they couldn't clear the dead and they had to sit there. Sometimes for weeks.
WW2 covered a larger area and had dynamic battlefields that were constantly moving. Civilians were trapped in all of this and became victims of it.
As far as the combat. WW1 hands down. As far as overall cost WW2.
WW2 covered a larger area and had dynamic battlefields that were constantly moving. Civilians were trapped in all of this and became victims of it.
As far as the combat. WW1 hands down. As far as overall cost WW2.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:23 am to Junky
quote:
What the soviets did to the civilians before, during, and after wwii is one of the biggest tragedy in human history (the Mongols beat them). You don't read about it much because they were our "allies". Let's not forget, Stalin and hitler invaded Poland together.
Pol Pot is no longer often mentioned either. From Wikipedia: "The combined effects of executions, strenuous working conditions, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.[7][8][9][10] In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership"
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:27 am to dawgfan24348
Nukes made world safer. Saved lives.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News