[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: maxresdefault.jpg (109 KB, 1762x1049)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
I'm curious do you think that ww1 was more brutal than ww1? I think that being stuck in the trenches with trench foot and constantly being shelled at would be a nightmare. But I'm curious as to what you think, do you think that WW1 was more brutal than WW2?
>>
Yeah the First World War was far more brutal than the First World War
>>
WW2 was brutal, WW1 was just insane
>>
No, the brutality of WW2 is just overshadowed by the "heroic" image of it. When people think of WW1 they think of trench warfare and men being slaughtered for no reason other than some silly political alliances. When they think of WW2 on the other hand, they think of muh D-Day landings and liberating Europe from the evil Nazis and freeing Jews from concentration camps.

But all the "brutal" aspects of WWI occurred in WWII many times over. It's just that the climax of it all made it much more meaningful. Also, it doesn't help that the Eastern Front, which is exactly what made the war become so extreme, is largely forgotten, perhaps due to the Cold War.
>>
>>4988586
>it doesn't help that the Eastern Front, which is exactly what made the war become so extreme, is largely forgotten, perhaps due to the Cold War
Can you tell me How?
>>
>>4988607
Not him, but if you're living in the west, you probably hear much more about your own country's exploits during the war than what was going on in the Eastern Front or in China (which was also horrifically savage, maybe as bad as the German-Soviet stuff).

That's complicated by the fact that being on the other side of the iron curtain made it hard to access information that the other side possessed. Most of the wehraboo myths started because western writers only had access to memoirs of German soldiers and officers to write about the Eastern Front, instead of actual archival material.
>>
>>4988439
WW2 was tragic, WW1 was a massacre
>>
WWI was way worse than wwii simply due to it being way more trench based and honestly its all about the trenches,

why do you think that there were more trench wars after WWI? because of how terrible the conditions were
>>
>>4988702
>Muh trenches

Compare it to the brutality of Dresden, Hiroshima, Stalingrad, Omaha, Monte Cassino, or Iwo Jima.
>>
>>4988439
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMhemzN7sTc
idk it dependers where you were i guess?>>4988448
??
>>
>>4988448
XD u r so clever anon
>>
>>4988439
Combat was more brutal. But the rest was much less brutal.
For example a prisoner would be well treated German prisoners in France and vice versa enjoyed a death rate less than 3%, taking into account wounded prisoners. Even Russian prisoners in Germany were at least correctly treated.

This highly differs from ww2 where the Germans killed / let die 3.5 million soviet prisoners and where about 0.4 million Germans died at the hands of the Soviets.
>>
>>4988702
As I said, it's the trench meme that make people think WW1 was somehow worse. First of all, for all the urban and mobile fighting that happened in WW2, there was just as much trench fighting. Second, even if WW1 was nothing but trenches compared to WW2, it doesn't matter if you die of frostbite or starvation or disease or shrapnel in a trench or not. WW2 had much more of this either way. If you actually think WW1 was worse, you're a retard who gets his history from pop culture rather than what actually went on in history.
>>
>>4988719
they actually planned those in ww1 but the airships weren´t advanced,but imagine ww1 with plain and radar technology from the 30´s
>>
>>4988762
>history from pop culture
what in the fuck are you talking about?
if anything there are 4x more WWII movies than there are WWI
>>
>>4988762
Soldiers in WW1 would often fight with bayonet, be targeted with poison gas, etc., which is more traumatizing than getting shot at by Mp40
>>
>>4988769
Yes and those movies about WWI portray soldiers getting mowed down by machine guns and being stabbed to death in trenches, while the ones about WWII are almost always action flicks where heroic soldiers go on a fun journey to slay Nazi supervillians.

>>4988791
And soldiers in WW2 would do the same thing if you replace poison gas with flamethrowers or white phosphorus.
>>
id be fucking terrified of going over the top in a place like Verdun..
>>
It's just that at least in WW2, you generally felt like you were fighting and dying for something. What was worth dying for in WW1 aside from saving your fellow soldiers?
>>
>>4988439
WWII is far more worse due to the ideological autism.

WWI still resembled the old """"friendly"""" Clash of Empires. But ideologue autism was rearing its ugly head in Russia and Turkey.

Trenches are a fucking meme compared to WWII's penchant for killing civilians and levelling cities.
>>
>>4988832
not on the western front. On the western front it was a clean war for both the Axis and the Allies
>>
>>4988871
>Clean war.

>The Blitz.
>SS Spergs depopulating whole villages.
>Both sides killing each others' POWs.
>>
File: doctor.jpg (39 KB, 639x650)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>4988791

The doc who did that deserved a medal.
>>
>>4988439
It was more brutal for combatants
They say that stalingrad is worse than hell but Verdun is much more hellish
But for civilians it was terrible
You could be one of those Slavs getting your shit burned or a jap getting rained down by bombs or a Jew asked to go to a temporary holiday camp
>>
>>4988897
The Germans depopulated only 1 village, Oradour in 1944. They killed some shot some hundreds civilians in 1944 as punishment for sabotage and officer assassinations but that's all. So yeah pretty clean.
>>
>>4988439
WW1. Far more incompetent generals on both sides, worse living conditions, more usage of chemical weapons in warfare, and a bunch of other traumatizing shit.
>>
>>4988439
If a war is so brutal that you eventually develop an "new" disorder (shell shock) then yes, I think it is more brutal than ww2
>>
File: 1479506144252.gif (3.86 MB, 1511x1600)
3.86 MB
3.86 MB GIF
Life as a soldier in WWI was more horrendous by a long shot. A German soldier in Verdun, lets say, would spend entire consecutive months in the trenches. Every couple days they would get earth(and brain)-shattering barrages that would go all day and all night for usually about 1-2 weeks. Imagine sitting under a dark dugout for 2 weeks feeling your body being jolted like it was struck with electricity multiple times a second, with rats crawling all over you all the while. Many would go insane. Offensive barrages liked to have one piece of artillery for every few yards of front, with literally millions of shells being unleashed over the area of a couple miles. Then think of when it rained (and rain it did) - imagine the bottom third of your body being underwater (more so under a combination of feces, decomposing bodies, and mud) for the better part of a year, and the horrible affliction of trench foot that came with it. There are accounts of soldiers drinking from puddles of water containing dead bodies because they were so thirsty in Verdun, and men drowning under two feet of water in Pashendale. Doctors didn't care about you, officers unnecessarily forced you into uncomfortable and dangerous situations daily, and you had nowhere to go. Every once in a while you'd go up top, where you would most likely get stuck in barbed wire or get funneled towards machine gun nests like cattle. The majority of casualties of the war were through artillery - at any moment a shell could come down and make your entire body splat, and the soldiers were forever helpless. In WWII you were often moving, there were a variety of different interesting positions, and you at least felt like you could do something and had a purpose.
>>
File: 1503709864724.jpg (108 KB, 800x651)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
I have lots of pics too I'll take any requests
>>
File: 1508265370284.jpg (689 KB, 2048x1536)
689 KB
689 KB JPG
>>
File: 1509167100976.jpg (1.58 MB, 2200x1728)
1.58 MB
1.58 MB JPG
>>
File: 1508313409325.jpg (266 KB, 1692x1227)
266 KB
266 KB JPG
>>
File: 1508872569844.jpg (335 KB, 1953x1335)
335 KB
335 KB JPG
>>
File: 1488248158758.jpg (130 KB, 760x556)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
Oh yeah and trenches were also annoyingly narrow - it was rarely possible to fully stretch your arms from wall to wall
>>
File: 1508237791427.jpg (966 KB, 1417x996)
966 KB
966 KB JPG
>>
File: main_900-10.jpg (278 KB, 900x591)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
>>
File: 1525667172834.jpg (748 KB, 3158x2576)
748 KB
748 KB JPG
>>
File: 1495730788384.jpg (163 KB, 1397x1003)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
>>
>>4988439
In terms of sheer scale of depravity, WW2. It was just a vastly larger war in every way, with far more collateral damage to civilians. Gassing soldiers was horrible, gas chambers for civilians is cruelty taken to a whole new level.

WW1 does take the cake for the sheer senselessness of it all. But WW2 was a far more bitter, personal fight.

Trench warfare is horrible and filthy, yes, but urban combat is much worse. In urban combat there is no “there” where the enemy is, he is invisible and all around you, and death can come at any moment. There’s so many hiding spots and secret passages that it is a fluid mazelike nightmare difficult to make sense of. And after a few weeks of fighting, cities get reduced to really defensible piles of rubble where disease, ruin, death by exposure, and starvation are an even bigger threat than they are in the trenches because nobody is safe, the fighting is happening in their backyards and inside their office buildings.
>>
File: 1459755625917.jpg (668 KB, 1000x1555)
668 KB
668 KB JPG
Considering the scale and diversity of both wars, particularly WWII, I don't think it's necessarily fair to put them side by side and rank one above the other in terms of brutalness. It would be better to divide it along civilian experience, life behind the front, particular campaigns/battles, etc. For example I'd rather be in the battle of the Bulge than Verdun, but I'd sure as hell rather be in the Isonzo rather than Stalingrad.

That being said I think very few combat experiences can compete in terribleness with being under an artillery barrage of the likes that were in WWI
>>
>>4988439
It depends how you look at it.
WW1 was the stage of a lot of crazy shit at the time. Weapons humans had never used before, and in a massive scale which imo makes it far more brutal than WW2. If you have said destructive instead of brutal, I would say WW2 was of course much more destructive.
The main difference between the two wars is that in WW2 all major powers considered it legit to target civilians. But for the soldiers WW1 was definitely a much more brutal experience.
>>
>>4989202
this is an excellent description which solidifies my post here: >>4989357
there is simply no comparison
WW1 was much much worse
>>
>>4989301
>It was just a vastly larger war in every way, with far more collateral damage to civilians.

The firebombing was pretty horrific. Nowhere else do you see massive fire vortexes across cities or civilians pulled down burning streets by the intense gusts of wind generated by the intense heat.
>>
>>4989373
Or if you're a chink having your city bombed with gas and lices
And then having a dam blown up and your city flooded
>>
>>4989301
Civilians were not collateral damage in WW2. They were legit military objectives.
Still, for the soldier WW1 was far more hellish.
>>
>>4988439
Yes, WWI was much more brutal. I wouldn't want to drown in a mud pool desu.
>>
>>4988897
>The Blitz
Reaction to the UK bombing everythig to shit. Hitler even waited 19 attacks later to attack, fucking brainlet.
>SS Spergs depopulating whole villages
Oradour and it was justified due to sabotage.
>Both sides killing each others' POWs
Ok
To add some points
>Rape
>Bombing cities to dust like Caen
>>
>>4989411
RATHER
CHILDISH
DELUSION
>>
>>4989436
Stop talking in memes, autist.
>>
>>4989152

>one village

Fuck off kraut.
>>
>>4989411
>Reaction to the UK bombing everythig to shit. Hitler even waited 19 attacks later to attack, fucking brainlet.
>Oradour and it was justified due to sabotage

This ain't even a wehraboo. This is a RSHAboo. Wtf Hans...
>>
>>4989506
? and nice argument.
>>
To agree with most posts.
WWI was more brutal for the combatants, the constant shelling, debilitating fear of gas and being sent over the top to get mowed down by the thousands is probably as horrid as it can get
For civilians WWII is by far worse. The Eastern front was one of rape, plunder and murder by both sides. China was just as bad. And the western and Italian fronts were at least not that bad, but still civilians were a valid target
That all being said, I feel that the personality of WWII makes it come very close to WWI in brutality for the combatants. The sheer hatred that existed between the sides made them capable of the worst kind of atrocities with no remorse whatsoever. Which is one of the reasons why civilians and pow's had it so bad
>>
>>4988439
For Britain and Italy it was much better until 1943 since it was mostly a naval war to supply some tanks in N.Africa
For Germany,Russia,Japan and America it was much more brutal
>>
>>4988439
For the soldiers WWI
For the population WWII
>>
>>4989205
>I'll take any requests
Sharpy in pooper
>>
All I know is that if I had a choice to join one war as a soldier, I'd choose WW2.
>>
Of course
>>
What an idiotic question to ask.
>>
>>4988702
Tanks killed trench warfare not hindsight

>>4988762
The point is in WWI you stayed in that soggy, shit and filth filled trench for months. In WWII it was for some days at most
>>
>>4989694
What an idiotic comment to post.
>>
>>4989542
>? and nice argument.
Ok.

The first one simply isn't true. The Nazi's started bombing cities way before that. Even before the war. WhatisGuernica.jpg

Secondly: depopulating an entire village including women children and the elderly is justified because someone blew up your railway.

Wanna know how I know you're autistic and desensitized from humanity?
>>
WW2 was brutal
WW1 was just inhuman

Imagine being a soldier sitting for weeks on end in the same trench, the unbearable sound of artillery shelling doesn't let you sleep, getting an hour's nap is lucky, you see your comrades get blown to bits, get trench foot from the horrid conditions of the trench, then you are sent out to charge at the enemy and if lucky, you get slaughtered like cattle by a machine gunner, if not you get to choke on chlorine gas and die in one of the most excruciating ways known to man.

Yeah, CQC in Stalingrad would be brutal as fuck, you'd probably shit your pants and get shot or blown to shit, but at least you felt like you're a human before dying
>>
About the only way to survive the ww1 western front was to get badly wounded in a way that made you unfit for duty. There are stories of soldiers deliberately shooting themselves in the leg or committing suicide. Those who did get wounded legitimately would be laughing as they were carried out.
>>
>>4988439
It's relative. When WW1 happened the world had never seen anything like it, in comparison to WW2 which we then familiar with large-scale total war, it didnt seem as bad even though its was much worse.
>>
>>4988439
>I'm curious do you think that ww1 was more brutal than ww1?
Yes, except for places like Stalingrad.
>>
>>4988607
name me 5 hollywood movies about eastern front
>>
>>4988439
Many of the leading french surrealists served in WW1, and this was the grist to their otherworldly mill. Guillaume Apollinaire was, for instance, wounded in action; his head, still bandaged, was just about the only thing to soften the hearts of the disgusted crowd when Diaghilev’s radical ballet Parade was finally staged in 1917

The poet Louis Aragon, who worked as a medic, was buried three times in one day by grenade explosions; André Breton, the writer who would give Objet its alternative title, Le Déjeuner en Fourrure, worked as an orderly among the shell-shocked; Cocteau was an ambulance driver.

What they had witnessed effectively separated them, by choice or not, from the social order (hence their powerful need for the Montparnasse cafes – Les Deux Magots, the Cafe de la Rotonde, La Closerie des Lilas – that became, in effect, their meeting places, their libraries, their bustling “theatres of the new”).
>>
>>4989708

Soldiers in WW1 trenches rotated to rear trenches and camps behind the lines every few weeks.
>>
>>4989791
https://www.thoughtco.com/top-ww2-dvd-and-video-eastern-front-1221220
Here are ten.
>>
>>4988439
On western front? Yes.
>>
>>4989888

>Stalingrad

German

>Come and See

Russian

>Cross of Iron

British and German

>The Winter War

Finnish

>Kanal

Polish

>Mein Kreig

German and a documentary

>My Name is Ivan

Russian

>Ballad of a Soldier

Russian

>Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever?

German

>Enemy at the Gates

American

1 out of 10...
>>
File: gaston julia.jpg (10 KB, 260x188)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
>>4989804
Gaston Julia, a French mathematician, had also lost a part of his face while fighting in ww1
>>
>>4989411
>Oradour and it was justified due to sabotage.
It had nothing to do with sabotage but with the kidnapping of a German colonel by the resistance. And most of the 600 civilians that perished had absolutely nothing to do with it. When will Krautniggers learn ?
>>
File: ''Aryans''.jpg (111 KB, 1000x667)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>4989438
THEY SAW THE WIND.
>>
>>4989747
Oh shut the fuck up. Eastern front of WW2 fucking dwarfs everything WW1 had, you dumb fuck. It literally killed over 30 million people, and fighting was MUCH more brutal.
>>
>>4990535
> Eastern front of WW2 fucking dwarfs everything WW1 had
>fighting was MUCH more brutal.

explain please
>>
No, the seige of Leningrad waws worse than any battle of WW1 even Verdun
>>
>>4989747
Part of the Russian strategy to nuteralize German air superiority at Stalingrad was to literally "hug" the German lines so that bombing could no longer be precise enough as to not kill the germans as well. Just imagine that, add to that the horrors of Nanking or Leningrad and it far outweighs anything WW1 had.
>>
>>4989222
German trenches were bigger, since they knew the trench battles would last months.
>>
File: 1525416258127.jpg (1.42 MB, 3000x2240)
1.42 MB
1.42 MB JPG
>>4989811
That was the case for the French, but not so much for others, and frequently not at all for the Germans. Life behind lines was mostly spent marching all day and then sleeping anywhere on the ground that provided the most protection from the elements - usually a ex-house turned to rubble.
>>
>>4989939
>what is the eastern front
>>
>>4989747
>magine being a soldier sitting for weeks on end in the same trench

They knew how to rotate troops you know?
>>
File: 1484755023717.jpg (195 KB, 991x628)
195 KB
195 KB JPG
>>4992176
>>4992182

Also during the battles (which usually lasted a month or two) rotating troops happened infrequently because of the danger of artillery and the need to maintain a well manned front line.
>>
>>4988439

Nah, The Eastern Front had Einsatzgruppen executing whole towns for the perceived issues of a few, the holocaust, saturation bombing of cities and shit, The Pacific theatre was a green nighmare. It aint even a question that WWII was far worse than WWI, it's just WWII had a good ending so people tend to forget about all the horrible shit. But like the axis forces were like an IRL dark army from a shitty sci fi show
>>
Being in the midst of real WWI combat was terrible, but lets not forget that there were quite a few portions of the front that were pretty comfy. Both sides would adopt a live and let live attitude, where they wouldn't really bother attacking at each other and shoot off one or two artillery shells onto the same place at the same time every day.

>"At one point we had a regular routine. The Boche would throw a particularly noisy trench-mortar bomb into our trenches just as our men were having their afternoon siesta. One of our field batteries would reply with half a dozen salvos of shrapnel over their trenches. They replied with ten-centimetre 'Universal’ in the direction of our observation posts.
>This would be my cue, and I would be ordered to drop a few rounds o high explosives into a communication trench that the enemy were very proud of. Within minutes an equal number of corresponding shells would fall into the square of an unfortunate village a little way behind our lines. So the fun would continue, until we all got tired of wasting ammunition, and went to sleep again.”
>— Cecil, J Street, The Making of a Gunner, 1916.
>>
>>4992228
the generals called it "the disease of peace"

Soldiers going through the motions of soldiering just to get out of actually soldiering.
>>
>>4988586
No armies used chemical weapons in ww2.
Artillery was less frequently used in constant repetition. Also medicine was much better (morphine, penicillin, etc)
Ww1 was just meaningless hell.
>>
>>4993864
Not him, but the Japanese did use chemical weapons in China.
>>
>>4988586
What made WW1 so much more brutal was that they applied old thinking to modern warfare. So many charges where men were massacered. So much land traded back and forth with no result but death. The old romantic ideals of warfare died in WW1. It just took officers and politicians a long fucking time to figure it out. Also fucking gas. I can think of no worse way to go that gas. Only aspect ww2 may have been more brutal was for civilians. Due to bombings and such.
>>
>>4989727
The Mongols would destroy entire city's for similar transgressions. It was quite the effective tool for them. Look at the u.s. in the middle East. The only sure way to victory is to be much more brutal. I'm not saying that should happen I'm saying people should be fucking realistic when they wage war and ask if it's worth the terrible shit required.
>>4989791 hardly any Americans fought on that front so of course there are less movies. There are many
>USSR APPROVED
Russian ones
>>
File: asdd.jpg (170 KB, 999x859)
170 KB
170 KB JPG
>>4988439
>Do you think that WW1 was more brutal than WW2

It's a crass question, but i'll say when the Soviets had been pushed back at Stalingrad to a tiny strip of land on the Volga and then have to cross the Volga to mount an assualt under constant day/night artillary, sweeping machinegun fire and air bombardment, it's the closest thing to Verdun you could possibly get in WW2
>>
>>4988719
That’s like a force of nature. Hiroshima was awful but at most the real bodily horrors with melting skin and severe burns only lasted for a few days. It was quick, traumatic and brutally effective. But it wasn’t an endless four year nightmare. You could walk out of Dresden or Hiroshima horrified and forever changed, but you’d never get used to Dresden or Hiroshima.
>>
>>4989202
>>
>>4991619
A lot of the men on the eastern front of WW2 didn’t have guns. Sometimes a few rifles.
>>
>>4989939
the winter war is not ww2
>>
>>4994015
Exactly. People ITT are only thinking about how things are on specific fronts at specific times. Everything that happened in WWI happened in WWII to a similar extent or more. The stalemate on the Eastern Front in 42-43 was practically a repeat of the Western Front stalemate, but even worse.

It's just that in history class/media the horror of WWI is emphasized while in WWII it's the glory that's emphasized, this being from the perspective of the Western Allies of course. If you look at each war as a whole you'll see they weren't that different. Both started with rapid advance, ended up in stalemate, and after years of struggle of total war were once again became a rapid advance in the opposite direction. The difference is that the total war aspect in WW2 was much more extreme, because it became a war of annihilation.
>>
File: 1505988131698.png (50 KB, 645x729)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>4994062
>>
If there is one war you shouldn’t pick to fight in if you somehow were magically condemned to, WW1 would be at or near the top of the fucking list to avoid.
>>
>>4994071
Say what you want, but when you are talking about the eastern front, the winter war is a seperate thing. The continuation war is a part of the eastern front tho.
>>
>>4994066
>The difference is that the total war aspect in WW2 was much more extreme, because it became a war of annihilation.

Pretty much, you get the impression atleast in WW1 that each soldier on average still sees the enemy as human and if one side or the other won that would have (and was) the end of the barbarism, but as you say in WW2 it was complete and total ethnic and ideolical elimination and if the Germans had won the barbarism would have continued until completion.

With regards to battlefield conditions, Paulus's encirclement alone was little different and in some ways worse than those of WW1, the desparation, the frostbite, the starvation, the lice, the typhus, the dysentry, the dehydration, the dead, the lack of sanitation, the lack of medical equipment, amputations with no anesthetic, the denial of sleep via purposeful daytime arty and nightime airaids for the sole reason of denying sleep, so much so that people were dropping dead through exhaustion, just dropping dead; then if you survived that it was off to the Gulag, if you were lucky/unlucky depending on how you look at it.

As you know people tend to look at absolutes and care little for the details.

tl;dr they were both shit
>>
File: 1516586163493.jpg (982 KB, 1600x1060)
982 KB
982 KB JPG
>>4994066
>If you look at each war as a whole you'll see they weren't that different. Both started with rapid advance, ended up in stalemate, and after years of struggle of total war were once again became a rapid advance in the opposite direction.

If you broaden the comparison using as vague language as possible, yeah, it's not hard to say two things are pretty similar.
>rapid advance
First off the "rapid advance" was of entirely different nature. WWI saw armies marching as armies marched in the Napoleonic era and well before that, the only difference being the guns and the numbers. The blitzkrieg was air and land vehicle based, and a completely different style of warfare. The different in combat was so great that a officer from 1914 would be totally lost in a 1918 battlefield, but an officer from 1918 would be easily acquainted with a battle going on Today. The logistics of heavy reliance on tight rail schedules was an essential competent to the advance (and the war as a whole) unlike in WWII as well.
>stalemate
The western front in WWI was the first and only time in which there existed a continuous line over the entire hospitable area of conflict (i.e. sea to mountains). If you think about it the whole concept of what happened it's quite peculiar. It was a symptom of a old ways paired with new weapons - the front was a test tube of fire which crafted the way we fight today. There's nothing ever been quite like it, and it's totally incomparable with a slow in the fighting that happened because of the barrier of sea. Even after the Brits were pushed off Dunkirk a mobile battle continued elsewhere, in Africa and in the air.

1/2
>>
File: 1508237062720.jpg (3.83 MB, 4078x2915)
3.83 MB
3.83 MB JPG
>>4994066

>rapid advance in the other direction
I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but the way the war ended was entirely different as well. WWII ended with the allies walking through the streets of Berlin amongst decimation. WWI ended without a single allied troop entering German soil. The blockade, the clash of the military civilian, the tanks, the influx of Americans - historians still debate why Germany was pushed to surrender when it did.

>It's just that in history class/media the horror of WWI is emphasized
And it has that legacy for a reason. You can see it in the literature, the art, and elsewhere - the horror of WWI left a psychological dent in Europe of which's extent is still hard to grasp. Just look at what it gave rise to.

2/2
>>
>>4992180
>>4994062

Those are films that anon is claiming to be Hollywood depictions of the eastern front...
>>
>>4994231
>WWI ended without a single allied troop entering German soil.
You say that likes it's a bad thing, it goes to show there was atleast some humility in how WW1 was fought, the military had been quashed there was little need to push into Germany, the war was over. It was quite the opposite in WW2, and would certainly had been moreso had Germany won.
>>
>>4994015
Still under Leningrad was a position war as in the First World War

Eventually, Leonid Govorov proposed two operations to the Stavka, called the Shlisselburg Operation and the Uritsk Operation, which became the basis of the planning for Operation Iskra. The intention was for the 2nd Shock Army of the Volkhov Front and the 67th Army of the Leningrad Front to destroy the German troops in the Shlisselburg - Siniavino sector, thereby restoring the land communications and raising the siege. They were supported in this by the 13th Air Army and some units of the Long Range Aviation.[4]

Although the south-eastern perimeter of the siege was temporarily penetrated, Soviet forces only managed to open a 10–12 km wide corridor, meaning all traffic passed under the fire of German guns. German casualties for the duration of the struggle for the bridgehead, estimated to be 1 km by 1.5 km in area, were some 160,000 (combat and combat-related).[5]

These, and other operations conducted until 10 May 1943, resulted in Red Army casualties estimated at 260,000 in this sector of the front.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevsky_Pyatachok
>>
>>4989202
No worse than spending months in a bunker with frostbite fending off countless attacks day and night whilst the lubricating oil in your rifle froze.
>Felt like you had a purpose
Yeah, falling back all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin must have felt awfully purposeful.
>>4989357
Really, we had experience with all the weapons used in the first world war plus senselessly walking into rifle and artillery fire had already been done in the US.
>>4994258
It was a bad thing, the Germans never felt like they'd lost 'properly' with predictable problems in the 1930's....
>>
>>4988719
Do it again bomber harris
>>
>>4994645
>It was a bad thing, the Germans never felt like they'd lost 'properly' with predictable problems in the 1930's....

what would you have proposed, the slaughtering of civillians, the razing of cities, increasing even more resentement and post-war aid

also you're relying on hindsight
>>
>>4994671
I'd have proposed occupying them militarily.
>>
>>4995250
He does have a point about hindsight though. We could have saved more lives if the allies had simply genocided the Krauts out of existence, but nobody in the West realized in 1918 that the Krauts would resort to such bad faith tactics in the 1930’s
>>
>>4994053
>A lot of the men on the eastern front of WW2 didn’t have guns
proofs?
>>
>>4994204
>The blitzkrieg was air and land vehicle based

Mostly executed ba a small, sepcially equipped advance force. 90% of the German army were still moving on Horsecart/foot during that time.

The logistics of heavy reliance on tight rail schedules was an essential competent to the advance (and the war as a whole) unlike in WWII as well.

Exactly like WWII. Rails were immensely important, and abolutely necessary in Russia. They were even used to regularly transport tanks, as a WWII tank is slow as fuck ing comparison to a train.

>The western front in WWI was the first and only time in which there existed a continuous line over the entire hospitable area of conflict

Similar lines existed in WWII as well - see again the Eastern front, wich was a continous line spanning the whole of the Ural at some point.
>>
File: 1502252132905.jpg (718 KB, 2352x1655)
718 KB
718 KB JPG
>>4998220

I was talking about the first line of attack - an air bombardment accompanied by a rapid tank advance with units of infantry following behind was a type of coordinated warfare completely different to massive blocks of armies advancing in formation. And they obviously relied on trains in WWII but in no way was it exactly like WWI. The use of armored vehicles was a big portion of logistics in WWII, expediting troop movement and mobilization. In WWI there was simply no other form of that kind of transport, and the whole manner in which the war began was in large part due to the train's logistics. see: "war by timetable" http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm
>>
File: your_post.gif (3.43 MB, 480x270)
3.43 MB
3.43 MB GIF
WWI was pretty much strictly limited to soldiers at the front, for the most part. This is why you have aerial footage of a devastated front while like 50 yards over there is a woodland still standing. Civilians were for the most part sheltered from the fighting. World War II brought the war to civilians and cities, not just to the front and the soldiers.

Both wars were brutal in their own ways. WWII has the deaths of millions of Chinese, Polish Jews, Poles, Belarussians, Russians, Germans, etc., on top of soldiers. The systematic deaths of innocent peoples and the dismissive murder of people between the Soviets and Nazis is nothing short of ghastly. These fall short to the atrocities of the Japanese without mentioning their fight to the death as they got more desperate, ending with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Relative to this, WWI was the literal meat grinder everyone attributes it as, as thousands of soldiers died almost everyday. These men were exposed to the full potential of the latest technological/industrial machinery of the day, fighting with severly outdated military tactics of old, incompetent generals. The killings were so brutal, that you have soldiers on both sides even stopping firing to allow the soldiers to get their dead or dying out of No-Man's Land, like in the Somme. When you think of rules in the present day as to why they are there, it is because someone most likely died and because of it, got the rule implemented, and thus these men were the first to get the full brunt of technology, long periods of sustained combat, gas and trench warfare, lack of compassion from the removed upper military staff, etc. It was so bad that even Hitler himself did not resort to certain types of warfare (like gas) during the Second World War.

So it is all relative, but in terms of overall scope, WWII was more brutal, but if I had to choose, I would go with WWI just because of the exposure to the full potential of destructive technology.
>>
>>4988439
I view ww2 as worse, you had children being shot in ww2 and actual propaganda that fueled such behavior.
>>
File: At207+Makeyevka_5.jpg (133 KB, 925x629)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>5000039
>>
>>4999717
>I would go with WWI just because of the exposure to the full potential of destructive technology.

I think that's one of the things also with WW1 is how warefare had changed so abruptly from pre-WW1, machineguns, submachineguns, flamethrowers, tanks, gas, air combat/bombing/zeppelins, submarine warefare etc etc; disregarding Nuclear weapons people in WW2 kinda had an idea of what to expect from war, in WW1 all manner of new horrors were unleashed, not to mention a taste of the old world with trench clubs and bayonet charges
>>
File: nazi atrocities 1.png (1.56 MB, 460x3122)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB PNG
>>5000039
>>
File: nazi atrocities 2.png (1.44 MB, 460x2787)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB PNG
>>5000039
>>
>>4988439
On the western front, clearly.

WWI had trenches, rain of steel and gas attacks, WWII was like tourism.

On the eastern front, no.
>>
This thread is proof that the majority of people have never heard of a genocide of Armenians and Christians in WWI. I don't think it's been brought up once. Nice history board.
>>
>>5000000
>>4999999
>>
>>5000128
So rather than bringing it up yourself for us to discuss, you decide to make the wild and baseless accusation that nobody here has heard of one of history's best-known genocides, one that we have threads on all the time and which is widely referenced? Nice shitpost.
>>
>>4988439
WW2. More people killed, much more destructive.
>>
>Sometimes also foreign reports, whose reception is forbidden, are like a dazzling flashlight. The whip lashes, however, come from the own camp/from the own Wehrmacht sector, and one of the most horrible is the doctor’s report from Szepetowka POW camp. The doctor reports that famine has become unbearable, that cases of cannibalism occur because prisoners overpower their comrades in order to consume human flesh, that inside the camp human excrement has become a coveted delicacy, and that in the face of these unsustainable conditions he asks for the only solution possible: to shoot the starving so as to free them from their suffering.
>In order to prove cannibalism to the commandant the doctor sends a film with photos that we develop, and indeed the pictures show a number of dead whose thigh flesh is missing, while in other victims the abdominal cavity was opened because in this way the perpetrators took out the inner organs.
Sounds pretty bad.
>>
>>5000173
>Unbearable hunger, constant mistreatment and torture, a painful death – this reigned in the camps for the Soviet prisoners of war in the city of Rovno. There were three such camps in Rovno. These were small areas surrounded by high barbed-wire fences. On the camp area there was a barracks, which could accommodate only a part of the prisoners of war. The majority of the prisoners were forced to live all day in the open, regardless of the cold and the weather. An eyewitness of the horrible conditions reigning in the Rovno prisoner of war camps, the Director of the Rovno City Museum of History and Applied Geography, I. I. Dubowskij, reports the following: »The situation in the camps was terrible. The prisoners were very badly fed. Only once a day food was handed out. It consisted of a small plate of soup that had been cooked from kitchen refuse (from potato peels), or from bran or buckwheat not ground. … In order to save their lives the people at everything: there were cases of cannibalism, both German guards and deceased comrades were torn apart. Hunger forced the unfortunate people to eat grass, bark and the shrubs growing in the camp.
At least 3 million POWs died that way.
>>
File: gestapo atrocity.jpg (418 KB, 460x1854)
418 KB
418 KB JPG
Also the screenshots are from a Soviet documentary film shown at the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal on 19 February 1946 called "The Atrocities committed by German Fascists in the USSR."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/04/atrocities-committed-by-german-fascists.html
>>
>>5000197
>from a Soviet documentary film
I don't deny the holocost and the other atrocities, but I would believe infowar and salon before official Soviet propaganda
>>
>>5000233
You can always watch American movies. There were quite a lot of bodies in camps they discovered. Non-Soviet sources corroborate Soviet stories.
>>
What i think is interesting is how the first world war instilled in the United Kingdom a tradition of dark and black humour. At least, it was a notable definition of pre-existing dark humour.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.