Eastern front in WW2 was brutal and cold in winter but otherwise normal combat. No mustard gas, no being trapped in the mud, no running out over barbed wire straight into machine gun and mortar fire and getting mowed down by the thousands every day or getting your face blown off by a shell.
>>566801 WW2. While a ww1 soldier could at least anknowledge the fact that his family and friends would be relatively safe from civilian attacks, Russian, German, Hungarian, Slovak, and Romanian soldiers alike in ww2 would almost certainly have a civilian they know slaughtered, their women raped, and their cities reduced to burnt husks.
>>567112 >I could surrender And there would be almost nothing stopping them from shooting you on the spot. Sure, sometimes they would take you prisoner. A lot of times they didn't want to spend time feeding you and walking you miles back to be held. And even if they did start walking you back, they might get fed up or decide to take some revenge.
>you only spent 2 or 3 weeks If you got lucky. Only the Germans really kept a proper schedule for this
>>567598 >>567599 >muh swamps In WWI it was a common experience to see men slowly sinking into the mud. Just because it happened on the Eastern Front doesn't mean it was nearly as big of a problem or casualty causer.
Also people die traversing swamps in AND out of war
>>567599 > plus communication and better tactics make it possible to overcome statically entrenched forces. Plus logistics. Tactically, it was very easy to overcome fortified positions in WWI. Turning that into operational and strategic success was the trick.
>>567636 >And I said I can't give them to you, because there is literally no way to count how many men did. Modern statistics were already invented. We could count, or at least approximate, how many men died from artillery fire, from gas, from disease, from particular diseases, why not mud?
>I mean, i can go back and try to reread every memoir and count them all OK, I'll make this simple. How many thousands of memoirs have you read?
It's extremely common, if not universal, that the soldier as an individual fears maiming and dismemberment over death. WW1 was unique in that casualties due to fragments (artillery and mortars) was as high as 70 to 95 percent.
It was the horrible culmination of technological advancements in artillery and ballistic science that worked to ensure maximum damage to the enemy while advancements in medicine prevented what was surely a merciful, welcomed death.
>>567643 >Modern statistics were already invente Because you can't make guesses. Modern =/= reliable. They could be counted as missing, blown apart, deserted, or captured. To even estimate would be a fools errand. Not to mention just general laziness and men who STILL haven't been found. If you go through records and they know who did actually did die in the mud, they would write it down, but still no reliable statistic has been published. To even ask that just seems to me you don't understand how record keeping and the military work
>OK, I'll make this simple. How many thousands of memoirs have you read? That will prove literally nothing you WWII fanboy. Go masturbate to pictures of the Battle of Leningrad or something
>>567651 > To even estimate would be a fools errand. Not to mention just general laziness and men who STILL haven't been found. >I don't know how statistics work. OK, so following this methodology, it is impossible to know that more people died of drowning in mud on the western front of WWI than the Eastern Front of WWII.
Hell, it's impossible to tell that more people died of drowning in mud in either of these than in the Africa theater of WWII, or the China campaign of WWI.
>To even ask that just seems to me you don't understand how record keeping and the military work Generally speaking, militaries take some interest in what removes men from action. See, they want to win wars, and to do that, it's usually a good idea to make sure as many of the enemy dies as possible, and as few of your men die as possible.
Now, the fact that you think that the military gathers its statistics by gathering every single instance of something, and counting exactly that, tells me YOU don't understand how record keeping and the military work.
Do you think before the Battle of Passchendaele, they went up to each individual soldier, counted him up, and asked him how many bullets he would need for the battle?
And if they didn't, do you think they labeled that laziness. Do you think they decided to even estimate how many bullets would be required would be a fools errand?
>That will prove literally nothing It is the entire basis of your methodology. Your entire argument is "Every memoir I've read contains a reference to it." So how many memoirs have you fucking read. Because I can think of some pretty prominent ones you haven't.
>WWII fanboy. Go masturbate to pictures of the Battle of Leningrad or something You are so emotionally invested in this topic, that you cannot believe anyone would even have a reason to question this narrative except for emotive reasons.
Thread replies: 25 Thread images: 3
Thread DB ID: 432134
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.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.