- 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 12:08 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:08 pm to Darth_Vader
Later in ww1 these were not career soldiers, those fellas were decimated in the early battles. They were civilians, conscripts, and imports from across the globe.
1
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:13 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, trenches got very sophisticated, especially the Germans'. Hell, their command bunkers were up to 30 ft deep
True. The Germans were very adept at constructing trench systems. The British learned quickly, but never really matched the Germans in sophistication when it came to trenches.
The French though were downright pathetic when it came to their trenches. In fact when either British or German troops came across French trenches they'd usually compare them to little better than roadside ditches.
The French for their part actually constructed their trenches like this on purpose. The French "spirit of the Offensive" was so strong that French officers reasoned French troops need not waste time on elaborate trench systems because they would soon be moving on to capture the enemy trenches.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:17 pm to ninthward
quote:
Later in ww1 these were not career soldiers, those fellas were decimated in the early battles. They were civilians, conscripts, and imports from across the globe.
Actually, if you consider the number of reserves called up at the start of the war by virtually ever major power except Great Britain, from the very start of the war, WWI was fought mostly by other than professional soldiers.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:18 pm to DavidTheGnome
I would rather be a soldier in the pacific theater of WW2, than a soldier in the European theater of ww1.
You had months long battles that resulted in just feet of territory being taken. Gas non stop and the diseases from being in the trenches.
You had months long battles that resulted in just feet of territory being taken. Gas non stop and the diseases from being in the trenches.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:19 pm to Darth_Vader
Early on, the British had a similar attitude, especially when it came to use of machine guns. Commander of the BEF thought 2 Vickers per battalion was more than enough because he didn't want his troops getting a sense of feeling that setting up defensive positions was acceptable. The Boer War vet commanders got a lot of men killed with their stubborn attitudes and refusal to adapt.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:21 pm to Napoleon
quote:
I would rather be a soldier in the pacific theater of WW2, than a soldier in the European theater of ww1
I'd rethink that if I were you. If you look at the Japanese army of WWII, you'll see an army built, equipped, and trained to fight a WWI style war. Furthermore, if you look at the battles fought in the Pacific in WWII, you'll see that the battles fought there was not very dissimilar to those fought a generation before in France.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 12:39 pm to DavidTheGnome
I recommend "blueprint for Armageddon" hardcore history by Dan Carlin. It's 5 part series on ww1. Think it's available on Spotify for free. It was insanely brutal.
Also the eastern front in ww2 doesn't get enough press here, but made the western front look like absolute child's play.
Also the eastern front in ww2 doesn't get enough press here, but made the western front look like absolute child's play.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 2:55 pm to St Augustine
Carlin's podcast are absolutely great.
WWI was not in total numbers more brutal than WWII but it was without question the most important war of the 20th century.
But for WW1 there would not have been WW2, no USSR, no partitioning of the Middle East that is the root of a lot of trouble there today, no Hitler coming to power, ect.
(Once you get started on Carlin listen to his podcast on Genghis Khan and a short one "Prophets of Doom" about Martin Luther, the siege of Munster, Germany and the Catholic Church's actions. LINK
WWI was not in total numbers more brutal than WWII but it was without question the most important war of the 20th century.
But for WW1 there would not have been WW2, no USSR, no partitioning of the Middle East that is the root of a lot of trouble there today, no Hitler coming to power, ect.
(Once you get started on Carlin listen to his podcast on Genghis Khan and a short one "Prophets of Doom" about Martin Luther, the siege of Munster, Germany and the Catholic Church's actions. LINK
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 9/18/16 at 4:27 pm to I B Freeman
If you get AHC, there's an 'Apocalypse WWI' marathon going on. Pretty cool footage
Posted on 9/18/16 at 4:49 pm to DavidTheGnome
The casualty rates among combatants were roughly comparably in both wars. The trenches were dirty, wet, cold, and unhygienic, but they were relatively safe, as long as you stayed under cover (emphasis on relatively). Most WWI casualties occurred when one side or the other came out in the open to fight.
There's a Western Front Association Youtube channel. Nothing but lectures by historians about WWI. As the name implies, mostly about the Western Front, but also some lectures on the Eastern Front and the naval war. Highly recommend.
There's a Western Front Association Youtube channel. Nothing but lectures by historians about WWI. As the name implies, mostly about the Western Front, but also some lectures on the Eastern Front and the naval war. Highly recommend.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 4:51 pm to HeadChange
quote:
If you get AHC, there's an 'Apocalypse WWI' marathon going on. Pretty cool footage
That's a great series
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:29 pm to ninthward
quote:
ww1 17 million deaths
ww2 50 million people+
WW1 was basically Europe. WW2 was a true global war. I'd like to see deaths per square foot because total casualties don't tell the whole story here.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:32 pm to jonboy
WW1 was in the middle east and all across Africa. Hell, even the Japanese were involved. Part of the reason for their rise in WW2 was because they were basically ignored during the armistice negotiations in WW1.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:39 pm to DavidTheGnome
2 definitely.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 5:40 pm to DavidTheGnome
Let's not forget disease. In the first WW it was a leading if not the leading killer of soldiers.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:21 pm to DavidTheGnome
Absolutely, although the Japanese were the most brutal opponents by a long shot. Just the trenches make me want to serve in that war the least than any war since the Renaissance. Only Leningrad and Stalingrad was a fair comparison to the misery of the trenches.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:26 pm to Switzerland
quote:
soldiers - wwi was worse
civilians - wwii was worse
Yeah, I wouldn't go far as to say that WWI had a complete lack of human decency that the Germans, Russians, and Japanese had during WWII. I also won't say either side on WWI was morally justifiable for what was occurring, when the Axis is the most clearly defined "good vs evil" in modern human history, maybe he most since the Mongols brutal worldwide invasion.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:35 pm to jonboy
quote:I went with the lower side of the quota, it could be as high as 80 million for ww2.
WW1 was basically Europe. WW2 was a true global war. I'd like to see deaths per square foot because total casualties don't tell the whole story here.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:40 pm to ninthward
I would rather fight in Europe in either conflict, I'd bypass the Pacific(even though I am enamored by the Marine 1st Division) because the prospect of being captured by the Germans was much more positive than the Japanese.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:47 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
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.
I disagree with this. Yes clearly dividing up the Middle East was an awful imperialistic idea, but WWII has had far longer and more devastating effects than WWI.
60% of Jews worldwide were murdered, and from the remains they formed their own country which really pissed them off. WWII formed the Iron Curtain. WWII saw the rise of Mao and Kim Il Sung. WWII saw the nuclear bomb, which forever changed the world. WWII created the rocket, which would lead us to the Moon. WWII made the world turn on fascism. WWII turned Japan from a brutal militaristic society into a futuristic technological utopia.
Yes, jihadism might not exist in its current form, but I blame the creation of Israel and the effects of the Cold War on the ME's state going into 9/11.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News