- 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 7:53 pm to TxTiger82
Posted on 9/18/16 at 7:53 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
On the Eastern Front, WW2 was BY FAR the most brutal war in human history.
The Japanese were more brutal than the Russians and Nazis were. Seriously look up Nanking. Nazi officers present were sick from it and allied themselves with other European nations that were their enemies to save some innocent civilians. Think about it: the Japanese were too brutal for the Nazis. For the Nazis!
Also look up the Mongols. They were brutal as frick and showed hardly any mercy at all with their enemies. The Siege of Baghdad was an asskicking so epic the city still hasn't recovered.
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 7:57 pm
0
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:22 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Was WWI more brutal than WWII?
Not even close. Apples to oranges.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:24 pm to genuineLSUtiger
quote:
Not even close. Apples to oranges.
Those are two completely different statements
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
WWI worse for troops. Stalingrad not withstanding.
WWII by far more brutal for civilians.
WWII by far more brutal for civilians.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:33 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Answer those questions and you answer the question posed in the OP.
War is hell on earth, irrespective of the means. Also agree the genocides are casualties of the war, no way you can delineate those souls.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:34 pm to DavidTheGnome
I think what made World War I so brutal is that there wasn't much point to the slaughter. It wasn't a war of conquest or even of ideology. It was a war of ego. The rulers of Europe were essentially engaged in a bloody dick-measuring contest to see whose military was the best.
In World War II every major power involved, with the exception of the United States, stood to lose everything if they lost the war. Their country, their freedoms, their way of life, their economy. Everything would have collapsed if they lost. And millions would lose their lives in the aftermath.
In World War II every major power involved, with the exception of the United States, stood to lose everything if they lost the war. Their country, their freedoms, their way of life, their economy. Everything would have collapsed if they lost. And millions would lose their lives in the aftermath.
Posted on 9/18/16 at 8:52 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Answer those questions and you answer the question posed in the OP.
Certainly can't answer that. One thing I might add though is that the WWI examples of that you give, may in large part, be met by similar/same occurrences in WWII. If for no other reason the larger number of total lost.
My great grandfather on one side fought in France and all I remember personally is what my grandfather told me of him. Spoke of his breathing problems and sleeping maybe two hours/night from the time he came back. He lived to...I think over 80.
My dad's was on a battleship in WWII/Pacific and relative at Normandy second wave as I recall. You are right that much of this is purely subjective. With me it is like trying to balance brutal suffering/# of casualties/WWI vs almost as brutal suffering/># of casualties/WWII.
Mu uncle once answered a similar question with "dead is dead".
This post was edited on 9/18/16 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 9/18/16 at 9:03 pm to jlntiger
quote:
can't imagine what the troops in WW1 thought before they charged a oppositions trench.
It's subjective as Darth stated. Do you think waiting for the ramp to drop on a landing craft on Omaha beach on 6/6/45. Jumping off into cross fire of German automatic weapons, crossing 50-60 yds+ in 4' deep cold water, then another 200 yds to the cliff.
During trench advances, many soldiers dropped in fear then rejoined the forward move. You were not afforded that opportunity on Omaha.
As I have read and understand it.
Posted on 9/19/16 at 9:57 am to larry289
quote:
You were not afforded that opportunity on Omaha.
Kinda sorta. The Belgian hedgehogs and other obstacles on the shoreline provided some cover from the machine gun fire. And the bloodiness of that particular day is comparatively overrated. All told, Allied forces suffered a combined 10,000 casualties on June 6, 1944. Of that number, about 2,500 were killed in action that day. That stat is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the other battles going on in the East and the Pacific during that same time period.
You compare those numbers with the first day of the Battle of the Somme (July 1, 1916) where 60,000 British soldiers were made casualties in the first 24 hours (including nearly 20,000 killed in action).
This post was edited on 9/19/16 at 10:00 am
Posted on 9/19/16 at 10:28 am to DavidTheGnome
One of the main differences was time away from the battlefront.
In WW1 you did not go to the front for a few days/weeks and the. Stay away. Rotation was a much different thing.
You also spent years battling with the body parts of friends and unknowns hanging out around you.
Neither was good - but for the average combatant - I think WW1 was a more horrifying experience.
In WW1 you did not go to the front for a few days/weeks and the. Stay away. Rotation was a much different thing.
You also spent years battling with the body parts of friends and unknowns hanging out around you.
Neither was good - but for the average combatant - I think WW1 was a more horrifying experience.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News