Verdun or Stalingrad?

I can't say which was more cruel and hellish, but Verdun is just depressing because at least there was a clear victor at Stalingrad. Verdun just seemed pointless for everyone involved.

I rather be in an open city than trenches desu

>>1441619
Imma say stalingrad

Leningrad

Stalingrad

Either you have to fight Russians or you ARE Russian

Imagine the smell of millions of rotten bodies

>>1441683

I live in Malmo, so I don't have to imagine

>Verdun
>Spend months in the same front, going back and forth between tranches. Leaving the trenches and attacking will most likely result in your death. You can't sleep a single night without hearing mortars and fearing for your life. All your friends are probably dead or invalid. You don't even know what you're fighting for.

>Stalingrad
>Most likely going to die within the first 24 hours you arrive, so who cares.

>>1441619
>muh war is le hell

why are people still interested in these boring questions

I never understood these sufferingboner threads. At least in Verdun if you don't die from artillery or going over the top, you could at least look forward to being rotated away from the front after a few weeks.

>>1441653
Why? Trenches provide a lot of cover and clearly mark where the enemy lines. At Stalingrad, there could be enemies hiding behind any bit of rubble and the front was rapidly shifting. There were times when the German and Soviet lines were only a few meters apart.

>>1441712
because people who have never been to war have this weird heroism epic fight fetish mostly gun wielding murricans that weigh 400pounds.

>>1441734
>verdun
>flatland since the dirt gets thrown in the air every few seconds
>constant fog due to gas and smoke
>what defines your line is a crudely made open tunnel filled with corpses and people still alive yet dead beyond dead
>you're supposed to take the ennemy trench only to get killed or kicked out of it moments later
>shits are so pointless it's scary
>so much deads in here that when the it's raining the soils regurgitate the fallen's blood and the whole place turns into a red, dead, swamp

But I agree with you. Stalingrad was a fast moving conflict, where everyone must have gotten paranoid at some point and opened fire on mere shadows. Wheread verdun was slow as shit moving and pointless in manyway. Just a killin field. In that way I find it more depressing and hellish.

>>1441703
>Leaving the trenches and attacking will most likely result in your death.
>All your friends are probably dead or invalid. You
>You don't even know what you're fighting for.
what bullshit is this

>>1442303
I take it you've never read anything on the subject beside highschool history class, right ?

File: On_Ne_Passe_Pas_1918[1].jpg (28KB, 266x375px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 266x375px

>>1441703
>You don't even know what you're fighting for.
I want this meme to end. If you were German, you knew you were fighting for the glory of the Kaiser. Das Vaterland muss grösser sein and all that. If you were French, you were fighting to defend the country against. Read this poster: that's literally the entire French war effort summarized into four words. If a child can comprehend it, what makes you think a soldier cannot?

Lefties hate WW1 because where WW2 had a clear bad guy (and another clear bad guy on the "good" side, and Churchill was a massive asshole too but let's conveniently ignore that) WW1 was simply a burst of nationalism. Toxic German nationalism exploded into expansive desire, and French nationalism united the entire country as one to defend their soil.

Lefties hate that, so they make out Verdun to be "meaningless" rather than the culmination of French civic identity: a citizen army fighting tooth and nail to defend themselves against a marauding enemy.

Entire epics could be written on Verdun, but that relies on the premise that the modern Frenchman isn't a spineless coward that pisses on the graves of his ancestors and gives away his lands to foreigners because they asked for it.

File: village-peronne.jpg (171KB, 1114x756px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1114x756px

>>1442367
Thats um like ur opinion man

I'm french and at least a little versed in that part of our history, and the consensus, all political parties aside, was that wwII and verdun fucking sucked. No one would want to write epics about a motherfucking slaughterhouse. So please keep your fantasies of epic battles and honors for yourself. If there is one thing this whole thing has taught us, it's that nationalism bears many faces and almost none of them is pretty to look at.

>>1442388
>and the consensus, all political parties aside, was that wwII and verdun fucking sucked.
Welcome to literally every war ever fought. And yet patriots managed to glorify all of them. Hell, even the Americans managed to turn the bloody and horribly planned mess that's the Normandy invasion into a symbol of heroism. The French could've done the same with Verdun but alas, they're spineless cowards undeserving of even their own history.

France truly died with De Gaulle.

>>1442388
What a nicely well-formatted product of the French education system you are.

Let's repeat together: Nationalism bad! France bad! Globalism and the EU good for destroying evil nationalism!

>>1442401
And what would have been the point of turning verdun into le glorious battle ?

Stop with the memes lad

>>1442406
Nice assumptions there. In turn, glorifying the EU is nothing but advanced nationalism, which sucks as much. How hard is it to understand that nationalism leads nowhere ? Let people live their lives where they feel great and stop pushing onto them your autistic spooks.

>"CAREFULL! THE ENEMY IS ADVANCING ! THEY WANT TO RAPE YOUR WOMEN AND KILL YOUR SONS!"

Nice monkey mentality

>>1442388
>le nationalism bad bad !!!!!

Verdun was definitely worse. Maybe chance of death was a little higher in Stalingrad but for pure horror Verdun takes it.

>>1442388
And how exactly was Verdun pointless ? It stopped a german advance, and if the german forces had managed to break through, France might have lost the war.

I still can't understand when people say Verdun, or WWI, was pointless. It wasn't, and it's insulting for all of those who died in that war.

>>1442468
Of course WW1 was pointless. There was no bad guys or good guys and nothing was gained. It was just killing for killings sake.

>>1442424
I really hope all you turbocuckold nu-male pieces of shit will be forcibly removed from my country soon and left to fend for yourselves.

>>1442468
Sorry for bad wording. Verdun FELT pointless to those fighting it. There was no end in sight, no advance, nothing to keep your moral up. Just the same shit over and over with no side particularly getting the advantage until the end.

Of course it did stop the germ advance, but to answer the OP, Verdun probably was worse in the sense thag it felt pointless to those who fought.

>>1442474
>oh god why can't I choke on all this German cock, please fuck my gf Herr Preuße!

>>1442474
>>1442424
>surrender monkeying this hard

>>1442474
>nothing was gained
Well, it depends for which side. Some nations, that still exist, were formed by the treaty of Versailles. If France had been defeated in WW1, I'm not sure the conditions Germany would have imposed would have been generous.

>>1442474
Yeah, the country that invaded France out of fucking nowhere while raping neutral Belgium wasn't a bad guy, in fact France was kind of the bad guy for defending itself, what a dick.

File: 800px-Soupir_(Aisne)_nach_den_April-Angriffen_1917.jpg (116KB, 800x562px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x562px

>>1442477
>>1442483

Get fucked you imbecile. I'm in no way a liberal or even a right winger, and I'm fucking tired if you "redpilled" mongrels shitting up their pants every time they spot their holy nationalism getting bashed. I hope you'll die on the next war you'll promote.


It's incredible how you people reduce everything to just memes. God gave you speech, how about you use it well for once ? Try to justify your love of nationalism with pure reason rather than resulting to emotional appeal, I fucking dare you.


You people are a fucking joke. You act like tough shits while you've never seen actual war or a dead corpse. And then go on to have useless and totally not biased "debates" on le intellectual history board. Kiddies playing with sandcastles and little plastic army men is all you'll ever be.

>>1442490
>or even a right winger

That's exactly what he's implying, anti-nationalism crybaby

Vote PS et fais pas chier

>>1442481
>>1442483
>>1442489
All these mad war mongerers.

Millions of death is totally worth some silly dynastic and alliance disputes.

>>1442490
Your faggy pacifism won't prevent wars you dumb fuck. It'll just ensure you're the one getting raped by someone stronger.

People like you are the reason France fell under Nazi rule. You probably think we should just surrender to Islam as well.

>>1442511
Of course not, we should have just surrendered to the Kaiser, I'm sure that would put an end to all wars right?

>>1442514
>>1442518
Thinking WW1 was pointless and could have been solved in other ways does not equal being a pacific or liberal or whatever you morons think.

why do liberals support nationalism when it is a north vietnamese dictatorship invading south vietnam while opposing domestic nationalism with genuinely good goals like opposing corruption in the EU

>>1442523
So tell, what exactly should France have done in 1914, if it hadn't been so evil nationalistic?

(lol >14-18)

>>1442528
>if it hadn't been so evil nationalistic?
Stop
>So tell, what exactly should France have done in 1914
I don't know, again, saying the war is pointless is not the same as saying unavoidable, or saying i have some genius solution. Stop getting your panties in a twist.

What Europe should have done is been less eager for war and more ready to talk rather than be all full of pride and killing fervour.

>>1442321
have you?
you are literally implying that a maximum of roughly one fifth of the soldiers involved in the battle ever left the trench to attack,
because only then could your points be possibly true, given the number of deaths in the battle
furthermore the above only applies if you also assume that literally every death suffered happened in the attack, which obviously it was not
as for
>You don't even know what you're fighting for.
that would imply you are the one who does not know much

>>1442474
how was ww1 pointless?
at its core it was about expansion and power
literally the same "point" as in what, most wars ever fought?
incidentally literally the same core issues as ww2, although admittedly those were spiced up with a stronger dose of ideology

>>1442523
>Thinking WW1 was pointless and could have been solved in other ways
What ways? Germany on the whole wanted war. Actively pursued it. They might not have wanted the war they got, but they wanted a war. Basically the same goes for Austria.

Also let's try to keep it realistic. France giving up their border forts just because Germany asked and promised they wouldn't do anything is not a viable, realistic solution.

It is a suspect one for the issue of Franco-German relations, and it is a far cry from ever solving the entire premise of a conflict with Russia.

>>1442528
>>1442547
Probably France should have just handed over the four or five cities the Germans demanded in exchange for peace.

And then when the Germans demanded something more, France should have done that too.

>>1442547
But what are you even saying? That every war is pointless? "Gee folks Hitler should have been less eager for war." No shit, Sherlock. How does the fact that he wasn't make WW2 pointless? What the fuck does that even mean? Do you think the powers involved in WW1 woke up one day and suddenly found they were shelling each other and slaughtering each others' armies? "Oops we don't know what happened!" Do you think they waged war just because for no reason? "Gee let's have a war, P.S. we got no objectives at all." Is that what you are saying?

What the fuck is going on in this thread seriously.

>>1442564
Most wars result in a change in the balance of power, a new empire arises, something is gained. Not for WW1, just millions of deaths, and possibly the collapse of the Tsar can be blamed on it. So we get WW2 and Soviets, it's worse than pointless.

>>1442579
>you think the powers involved in WW1 woke up one day and suddenly found they were shelling each other and slaughtering each others' armies? "Oops we don't know what happened!" Do you think they waged war just because for no reason? "
Yes. The complex alliance system meant that all of Europe was at war overnight.

Tell me, what were the reasons for the war then, real reasons. WW2 had real reasons, to stop the Nazis conquering Europe and murdering millions, to stop the Japanese building an Asian empire. What good reasons did WW1 have to be fought.

>>1442586
>Yes. The complex alliance system meant that all of Europe was at war overnight.
Literally no.

>Tell me, what were the reasons for the war then, real reasons.
Austria wishing to establish dominance in the Balkans and wishing to subdue Serbia.

Germany deciding to tackle Russia and wage a war before the latter could finish its rearmament programme.

Russia having an issue with point no. 1 as the Balkans were one of the few places where it could actively promote its sphere of influence.

>WW2 had real reasons, to stop the Nazis conquering Europe and murdering millions

Jesus fuck what about the Belgians defending themselves from Germans trying to conquer a huge chunk of them? What about the French trying to defend against an invasion? What about the British honoring a treaty to defend Belgium against the Germans?

Are you fucking retarded?

File: 52fd0928a2b2e176b5b3b34b3d7fbeb3.jpg (47KB, 564x391px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 564x391px

Suomussalmi

>>1442582
u wot? how did ww1 not end with a MASSIVE change in the balance of power, with a complete restructuring of central and eastern europe etc

>random idiots who are chafing for a race war are projecting their views onto a war that was seen as pointless slaughter even by the generation that believed wholeheartedly that chauvinistic nationalism was the way of the future.

>>1442597
Well, within 1 week of the first declaration all of Europe was at war.

None of those points are worth all the deaths and destruction, none of those are worthy of a world war. They should have stayed as localised wars but they didn't. That is why it's pointless, why do Frenchmen die for something about Serbia or Russia?

The Germans didn't begin with the intention of conquering Belgium, they wanted to pass and weren't allowed so declared war. It was for no good reason, simply alliances. You're trying to make our Germany as the bad guy but there are no bad guys in WW1.

>>1442601
What massive change? Russia had a new system of government, but by WW2 the scene was very much the same.
>>1442609
This, the sooner people start claiming WW1 was a great patriotic war like these idiots the sooner we'll all be at war again in Europe.

>>1442616
Austria was out of the picture for good.
France took a serious beating and just about won.
Germany took a serious beating too but unlike France they lost.
Russia was an absolute shitshow that in a completely unprecedented turn had a successful communist revolution.
America was starting to be relevant in European politics.

WW1 totally changed the game in Europe.

>>1442630
I really don't think so, not so dramatically. WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1 after a pause.

>>1442634
To an extent, but even then WW2 still displayed a different balance of power on the count France got absolutely crushed and Germany wasn't just at war with Russia but a serious existential threat to Russia's continued existence.

It should tell you all you need to know that for Britain the war wasn't fought in fields in Europe like in WW1, rather for the majority of the war they were basically under siege.

WW2 was more or less the first time since the Napoleonic wars when the balance of power was so upset that total hegemony was the goal from one side.

>>1441619
French soldier in Verdun > Soviet soldier in Stalingrad = German soldier in Verdun > German soldier in Stalingrad

That's how I would rank it. The French rotated their forces immensely, and by the end of the battle, the majority of all French soldiers had been deployed to Verdun at some point. Of course the battlefield itself was pure hell, but not everyone was deployed in the first line. And nobody had to fight longer than 1-2 weeks, since the nature of the battle ground down unit morale insanely fast.

The same cannot be said for the German soldiers, who were rotated far less than their French counterparts.

Stalingrad was shit for everyone involved, but the Soviet forces were supplied relatively well, while the Germans were encircled, had no hope of escape and starved to death.

>>1442609
I want /pol/ to leave. Their "arguments" might work in their circlejerk of a board, but don't add anything of value to /his/.

Stalingrad

>city completely destroyed
>starvation
>snow, cold af
>millions of dead civilians
>millions of dead soldiers
>constant fighting
>close quarters at times
>constant air bombings

>>1442474
>There was no bad guys or good guys

As opposed to in other wars?
Retard

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1071x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1071x485px

>>1442474
>There was no bad guys

I see someone has been taugh the German apologist version of WW1

>>1442490
Thank you for speaking sense on this board

>>1442613
>That is why it's pointless, why do Frenchmen die for something about Serbia or Russia?
BECAUSE GERMANY ATTACKED THEM.

WHY DO AMERICANS DIE BECAUSE HITLER ATTACKED POLAND???? PLZ EXPLAIN xDD

I'M GETTING MAD ON THE INTERNET AGAIN.

>>1442650
yes, WW2 had some pretty obvious bad guys

>>1442547
>rather than be all full of pride and killing fervour.
You're a fucking imbecile. War wasn't done without an ulterior motive, and usually was done as a last resource.

Germany wanted a war because it was pretty much politically isolated, France and Russia, their biggest neighbours, were allied together, and while they thought they could deal with France on their own, Russia was the game changer. A fully industrialised Russia that could quickly mobilise their infinite number of troops is something terrifying on its own. AH wanted a local war with Serbia to assert it's local dominance, they were also scared shitless of Russia.

>>1442678
>BECAUSE GERMANY ATTACKED THEM.
why, because pointless alliance system
,not because actually wanting to invade

>>1442613
Frenchmen died because Germany invaded France you stupid shit.

>>1442616
>What massive change? Russia had a new system of government, but by WW2 the scene was very much the same.
And Germany. And Austria-Hungary (was gone for good and replaced by constituent indepedent countries). And the Ottoman Empire. And Italy saw itself from a cautiously-pro-allied view shift to the opposite side. And then there was the civil war in Russia.

How can anyone even argue massive political changes on the continent did not follow WW1 is beyond me.

>>1442684
Why did Germany invade France you stupid shit

>>1442679
Dunno man
How many US civilians died from Japanese bombings?
And now how many Japanese civilians died from US bombing

>but Japan attacked first!!!

So did Germany in WW1

>>1442682
So the existence of political alliances, treaties and the like makes a war "pointless"? What the fuck.

WW2 was pointless because Germany didn't want a war with the allies, they only wanted to invade Poland.

What the fuck is going on in this thread like seriously.

>>1442692
Because "the time was right for a general war"

>On 2 July, the Saxon Ambassador in Berlin wrote back to his king that the German Army wanted Austria to attack Serbia as quickly as possible because the time was right for a general war since Germany was more prepared for war than either Russia or France.[42] On 3 July, the Saxon military attaché in Berlin reported that the German General Staff "would be pleased if war were to come about now".[43]

>>1442655
>They declared war so they're eeebul!
France was allied with Russia, it's obvious you'd honour your call to arms, considering it had all reasons to want a weaker Germany

>>1442692
Because Wilhelm fucking wanted clay and glory.

>>1442701
The war was pointless because it was fought over nothing but an alliance system. It was like a war by default.

Sorry but what was the point of WW1 then? And don't say Germany invading France because that was only the result of the alliance system, not because they had some evil preplanned plan to invade and conquer France.

What did those millions of men die for then? Tell me

>>1442655
>German chancellor replies that the treaty is just a chiffon de papier
>United Kingdom declares war on Germany

wew

>>1442715
>And don't say Germany invading France because that was only the result of the alliance system, not because they had some evil preplanned plan to invade and conquer France.

You're a fucking retard if you think that
Germany gave little shit about Austria and zero shit about Serbia
They used alliances as a pretext because they wanted war
That's why they pressured Austria into attacking Serbia so the whole shit could finally start

And obviously they didnt want to annex France or anything, they wanted to beat it (and Russia) 1871-style so they could assert their unrivaled dominance over Continental Europe

>>1442715
>The war was pointless because it was fought over nothing but an alliance system. It was like a war by default.
The war was chiefly fought because Germany wanted a war against Russia and Austria wanted one against Serbia, while Russia backed Serbia instead.

>Sorry but what was the point of WW1 then?
To achieve the aforementioned goals. In addition, for other combatants, it was to prevent that from happening.

>What did those millions of men die for then? Tell me.
To achieve those goals.
Why did have France an alliance with Russia?

Precisely because it was afraid of an attack by Germany.

The preceding couple of decades left France diplomatically isolated and in a disadvantageous position. Hence it jumped on a chance to achieve greater security when Germany dropped any desire to have their partnership with Russia continue.

>>1442723
Nah dude. Germany was literally obliged by their alliance to declare war on France. Trying to make our Germany as the big bad guy is just political revisionism. All the nations of Europe were eager for war, Germany is no exception, France wanted a fight just as much.

>>1442715
>The war was pointless because it was fought over nothing but an alliance system
No allied country was happy with a strong Germany
Britain was seeing itself challenged by Germany's industrial expansion
France had lost territory and saw itself weaker than their eastern neighbour, of course they wanted a weaker Germany
Russia saw its prestige shattered in 1905, it didn't want to become a laughing stock and lose its influence in the Balkans like they already did with Bosnia
Serbia was ISIS tier
I've already talked about Germany and A-H

>>1442730
>All the nations of Europe were eager for war, Germany is no exception, France wanted a fight just as much.
That's simply untrue. The French elected an anti-war government that actively stifled the military. Even at the height of the July crisis, they outright told Russia not to escalate, they prevented the military from mobilizing, they even pulled back the troops further away from the border with Germany.

>>1442727
>>1442731
So WW1 is all Germany's fault and Europe had to unite to stop her taking over Europe.

Got it.

>>1442733
They wanted Alscae Lorraine back, the people wanted war.

>>1442730
You completely forgot the part when Germany expressly asked Austria to attack Serbia so the general war could start
They werent dragged in that war, they instigated it

>>1442734
No one is saying exactly that you raging autist. However, the largest contributing factor to the conflict spilling out to the sheer size it had was Germany.

>>1442736
If they wanted the war so much, they had not shown that in the elections. In which they elected anti-revanchist socialists.

>>1442740
That's precisely what people are saying. WW1 wasn't pointless because Europe had to stop an expansionist warmongering Germany.

>>1442736
If next week Britain attacks Spain and Spain wins, they'll take back Gibraltar
Does that mean Spain wanted the war?

>>1442743
>That's precisely what people are saying.
My gripe is with the "WW1 is all Germany's fault". That clearly is not the case. It's not all Germany's fault. Austrian shenanigans in the Balkans are also to blame (though to a lesser degree, as you will note I said Germany was "the biggest factor").

>>1442734
Germany was the only country that wanted a global war yes, but it's naive to believe the other belligerents didn't have their own selfish reasons to join the war on the first place, stop simplifying things.

>>1442744
Spain wants Gibraltar back so yes.

>>1442751
u r dum

>>1442682
>because pointless alliance
That's pretty naive senpai.
Countries only respect treaties because their conditions are acceptable, Germany wanted war.
Or was the German empire compelled by Austria?

>>1442638
>I want /pol/ to leave. Their "arguments" might work in their circlejerk of a board, but don't add anything of value to /his/.
what was /pol/ about my post?

>>1442750
I'm still unconvinced that it wasn't pointless.

>>1442655
>people are still posting this edited screenshot of a wikipedia page
wew

>>1442773
All the declarations of war are here

>>1442758
It wasn't pointles because it was the result of empires and countries trying to "defend" themselves from other empires.

You said the alliances were pointless, but let's pretend that France now has no alliances. Your big neighbour has a bigger population, a bigger standing army and also a bigger industrial output, what's stopping them from making you their bitch? Same goes for Russia, the difference is that Russia had a bigger population, but shit infrastructure and a shit industry when compared to Germany, reason why Germany itself didn't want Russia to achieve that.

>>1442774
It's conveniently edited out parts like for example the Russian mobilisation from the original wikipedia article.

>>1442775
There was no reason for the wars in the first place. It was just dick waving.

>>1442779
Austria wanted to assert their local dominance in the Balkans, thinking the blank cheque would be enough to fend off Russia
Germany wanted to beat Russia while it still could, not to mention their political isolation because Willy was a moron
Russia didn't want to look weak in the eyes of the the other empires, they had to defend Serbia
France would be politically isolated against a more powerful Germany had it not honoured their alliance
UK's foreign policy was always marked by muh balance of power in the continent, it saw itself challenged by Germany's naval expansion again because Willy is a retard

Everyone had their own interest at risk.

>>1442779
Austria-Hungary had its heir murdered and then the perpetrators defended by a foreign country
Serbia wanted to free the Yugoslavs from the Austro-Hungarian yoke and defend itself from Austro-Hungarian aggression
Russia wanted to defend its ally Serbia and not repeat the embarrassment of 1908
Germany wanted to defend its ally as well as break out of its encirclement by the Entente before the balance of power shifted further in the latter's favour
France wanted to defend its own interests, its ally Russia and regain Alsace-Lorraine
The UK had obligations to defend France and Belgium and wanted to maintain the balance of power in its favour against rising Germany
The Ottoman Empire was threatened by her traditional rival Russia
Italy, Bulgaria and Romania wanted some clay or free their people or whatever

They all had some reason to fight basically. Though for a lot of soldiers it did feel pointless to be frank. Which is why you did see massive desertions and mutinies, especially when it became clear they were losing or their lives were being wasted.

>>1442478
On the contrary, contemporary written accounts indicate that the French combatants felt that it was vitally important that they win at any costs, even in the midst of senseless bloodbaths like Douaumont. The Germans were more likely to see the futility, but this had to do as much with exhaustion (Germans kept units in the field until they were depleted and kept topping up with replacements, unlike the French who rotated units in and out) and the fact that they were losing.

The French public was lied to on a massive scale than Verdun was vitally significant when it was not. The French army did reach the point you described which you claim they did, but at the Chemin des Dames, not Verdun.

Fuckboy. Piece of shit.

File: 1387494970891.jpg (47KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x600px

>>1441619
i know very little about stalingrad, but verdun was probably the worst part of any campaign in the history of warfare - to the soldiers involved at least
although probably millions of bullets were fired in that stupid fight, most of them die from chemical warfare, trench diseases and other awful and macabre ways to die

>pic related: in stalingrad you could die with a smile knowing you were doing probably the right thing, while in verdun you probably had no idea why you were there in first place

>>1443145
>most of them die from chemical warfare, trench diseases and other awful and macabre ways to die
no, most of them died because of artillery

>while in verdun you probably had no idea why you were there in first place
"jacques what are we doing here?"
"mon ami I don't know!"
"it is a mystery why we frenchmen are fighting against the boche, non?"
"oui mon frere, I hope a hundred years from now on people on a laplandic basketweaving forum realize what we are doing is literally pointless and there is no reason for us to defend our country!"

>>1442367
nothing was born in verdun - france was always the tampon protecting europe from the germanic suicidal bloodthirsty urges to destroy everyone around them
hence why the europen union is literally falling apart now that france elected a saint bernard as prime-minister, rendering the country completely useless to do something useful for the world and changing their state to "AFK" in brussels.

>>1442406
>>1442401
>>1442451
nice debating skills - if someone has a different opinion he's obviously an extremist following the exact ideology that you hate the most

File: 4124_xl.jpg (156KB, 795x795px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 795x795px

>>1443164
>no, most of them died because of artillery
you know that's how most chemical weapons were used, right?

and defending their land is what the defending side always does in every single war ever fought
the attacking side attacks to conquer and the defending side defends to live - but i'm pretty sure those aren't actual reason to start a war but a result of war itself.

>>1443195
very well let me rephrase for those slower among us:
no, most of them died because of regular artillery shelling
gas was not a big killer in ww1 and only acounted for a single digit percentage of war deaths

>>1443207
>deaths
not deaths, just casualties even

>"Every German soldier must be made to feel that he is living under the muzzle of a Russian gun. "

Leaning towards Stalingrad but it's probably Verdun.

>>1443207
well, like i said before "regular artillery shells" had chemicals components among them so people didn't die just from the impact but also to affect anyone in the non-lethal blast radius.

also, battles aren't won by who kills the most but who puts more men out of action and that's exactly why artillery was so important in the battlefield - it didn't have to hit anyone directly to put them "out of order"; it had enough impact on moral to put a man out of action without him ever being hit.
this with vapours that could melt your face did more damage to anyone than any simple artillery barrage with "simple" explosive shells

>>1443255
very well, let me expand it even further:
less than 1%, as in less than one in a hundred, of all world war 1 military deaths were caused by gas regardless of its method of delivery

>>1442799
Wow someone who actually knows history on /his/?!? Refreshing

>>1442715
>not because they had some evil preplanned plan to invade and conquer France.
>what is schlieffen plan

>>1442736
The people elected an anti-war government, they literally didn't want a war. You can't be this dumb.

Stalingrad. At least if you survived Verdun, you'd get to go home.

If you're a German soldier and survive Stalingrad, as it gets surrounded, besieged, where you can't even escape through the airfield because Soviet AA will shot you right out of the sky the instant you leave the runway. You'll be captured, and forced to march through the snow, tired, underfed, after all that intense fighting with no sleep. If you don't march you'll be shot or left to freeze. If you do march, it'll be to a camp to work yourself to death. Help isn't coming, help can't come but even if it could, your stand is better suited as a delaying force to the larger Soviet force.

The wounded have no medical supplies, the doctors are trying their best, working underground with very little light, peeling the lice off you, hundreds of them, and they pop once thrown onto the fire.

And when the Luftwaffe finally manage to drop some supplies to you. What is it you get? Food? Ammo? Medication?
No, the only supply drop that made it through is condoms and ground pepper.

>>1442490
>God gave you speech

God?

File: even_stevens_season_1_screencaps_ZYC9prB.sized.jpg (30KB, 576x384px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 576x384px

>>1443418
>that made it through is condoms and ground pepper.

ah, the making of a good party

File: 1439293939910.png (97KB, 276x238px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 276x238px

>>1442715
>evil preplanned plan
One of the issues leading up to WW1 was that every country had very strict plans for mobilisation and the start of the war.

i hate ww1fags

>>1441619
Verdun by far.

>>1442388
Nope you're a cuck, and you will most likely die in the next terrorist attack while blaming the FN in your last moment.

PS : I'm also French.

>>1441668
That was more of a siege than a battle, but yeah it was pretty fucked.

>>1442367
t. literal subhuman who has no idea what he's talking about

>>1442747
Both Germany and Austria were in the right.

Russia had no business meddling in the backyard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who had all right of the right to flush out the terrorists that were operating in their vicinity and murdered their heir to the throne.
The republic of France had no business aiding the most backwards authoritarian Monarchy that was Russia in their imperialistic games.

>>1442708
>it's obvious you'd honour your call to arms
fucking Italy...

>>1442367
Lmao your fucking retarded. Soliders offten revolted because they didnt see the point of fighting. In Italy there was a whole division that said "Lol fuck you Cadorna" and had to be escorted to the front under abd armed guard. In France they executed tons of soldiers daily for not fallowing orders, and in Germany the people and soldiers revolted and toppled the monarchy. So much for nationalism and fatherland. In the first month of the war there was some patriotism with Soldiers volunteering left and right, but that quickly vanished.
>But muh evil leftist!
It wasnt people that were hyped for a war, it was the leadership, you degenerate fuck.

>>1441619
umm...maybe both.

>>1441619
Verdun. All those poor innocent Saxons.

File: KermGrover5Blocks.jpg (41KB, 649x484px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 649x484px

>>1442367
>>1443832
And the Russians revolted twice, TWICE, against two different governments because they didn't want to be in the fucking war anymore. Stop your memeing you inbred autist

Kirsk

>>1442468

The Germans never meant to advance at Verdun. Faulkenhein meant to bait the French and Brits into a meat grinder.

Then he got some minor success and sunk in his own retarded amount of troops to keep what he gained.

Stalingrad was probably worse overall if you were German (lack of rotation), but Verdun had a worse battlefield.

Being a sapper or fighting in the fortress tunnels has got to be the worst.

Impossible choice.

Both were murderous infernos.

Recommended reading for Verdun.

Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War by Paul Jankowski.

German Strategy Path Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870-1916 by Robert Foley

Germany encountered numerous problems with their attacks at Verdun. Falkenhayn was known for wanting complete control of situations and not allowing his subordinates to act instinctively. Combined with the fact that the Germans failed to take both banks of the Meuse at the outset of the battle. This meant they spent the next 3 months wasting manpower and materiel in trying to accomplish this goal.

You also have the fact that Falkenhayn brought into the hype of a "attritional" battle. He thought French casualties were signifcantly higher and therefore the cost to the Germans was justifiable. Although French casualties were higher, the margin wasn't that big. Verdun exhausted both sides.

Also have to add in the rotation system implemented by the French. The Noria system enabled France to keeps its divisions fresh and rotate them in/out of Verdun. In contrast, the Germans did not have this luxury. Pressure exerted by the Brusilov and Somme Offensives eventually forced Germany into a defensive posture.

>>1442388
>>1442424
>>1442490
Nationalism helped remove the ancient regime, helped create clean and manageable borders and also serves as societal glue

The "nationalism kills ppl" meme is literally "communsim kills ppl"-tier

Ideology doesn't kill people, fanaticism does, regardless of said ideology.

Imma say Verdun. "We'll be back home by Christmas"

File: stalingradbattlemap.png (3MB, 1463x1843px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1463x1843px

>>1441619

Most of the fighting at Stalingrad wasn't the urban warfare seen in 'Enemy at the Gates', only about a third of the 6th Army was ever in the actual city. I'd still say Stalingrad though, as I don't remember ever reading about both sides being reduced to cannibalism at Verdun.

File: 50-Raatteen-tie.jpg (2MB, 2283x1281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2283x1281px

>>1442600
Tää :D

>>1441734
In manstein book he is talking how officer's were going on a leave and coming back to stalingrad while the city was encircled, still can't wrap my mind over that shit. They've even made a list of all essential staff to be airlifted.

>>1446401
>"We'll be back home by Christmas"
... was not a particularly widespread belief (and in fact the phrase uttered by the Kaiser was "before the fall") at the onset of WW1 at all.

>>1441672
kek

>>1446576

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsg8Zak6W68&feature=youtu.be&t=900

>>1446451
>I don't remember ever reading about both sides being reduced to cannibalism at Verdun.

Not direct cannibalism at least, but most of the water sources were filled with human remains so they sure knew the taste of it

My great grandpa fought in Stalingrad and told me a bunch of stories! AMA

>>1447472
go on.

>>1447510
Okay so he grew up in a small village, kinda along the border of Azerbaijan and Dagestan. When he was really young, Dashnak rebels broke into his house, and slaughtered his entire family.

His mother told him to essentially play dead, before she was gunned down by the Armenian terrorists. So he played dead until he escaped through a window and ran away. He fled North, and since he didn't have a family, he got caught up in a bunch of illegal stuff, which he didn't like talking about. I do know that he started smuggling weapons to Ukrainians at one point, but again he didn't talk much about that.

Anyway, World War II comes around. He's already married at this point in time, when he's drafted and taken to a camp to train and wait to be called into service. He writes a letter to his wife, where he offhand mentions supplies being low. So his wife literally walks and hitchhiked miles to the camp from their home, to bring him stuff like food, blankets, shoes, etc. because Soviet supplies were spread thin. I always thought this was pretty cool.

So anyway, him and his regiment get called into Stalingrad and apparently it was like absolutely miserable there. Like there was no food or anything. Most people were eating things like rats, and sometimes he said even human bodies. He described this one scene, that I don't recall fully, but it stuck with me:

>>1447590
At one point in the battle, a large group of Soviet Officers suddenly made a decision to leave for some reason. I don't think they were retreating, maybe just getting supplies. But they didn't want the soldiers to know, because it would cause like panic and stuff, so they tried moving at night by taking boats on the river. Anyway, the soldiers ended up finding out, and all assumed that the officers were retreating and leaving the soldiers to die. So the soldiers pretty much ran and desperately tried to board the ships. Keep in mind that this was in the middle of the Winter. So there were just hundreds of soldiers clinging onto the edge of the ship as it sailed away, and if they lost grip they fell into the river and died.

But yeah the battle went on, but he didn't see the end of it because he was taken POW by the Nazis:

>>1443451

>being this autistic

>>1447595
So he was taken to a POW camp ((not a concentration camp)). But, the Nazis did begin sifting through the ranks of the POWs in search of "undesirables" for forced labor and presumably to be taken to legit concentration camps. But of course the Nazis didn't say this out loud, but it was well known.

But again he was Azerbaijani, which is closely related to Persia. And the Nazis were huge Persiaboos, so he actually lived in decent conditions as a POW. He actually said that the POW camp was much, much better than both being in Stalingrad, and the Soviet military camp.

Anyway there were some Jews within the Soviet ranks and they began being taken away by the Nazis. So, because he was Muslim, he taught some Jews how to pray in Arabic, so they could pretend to be Arabs, who the Nazis also didn't have anything against and generally left alone.

But yeah he was in the POV camp, which had better conditions than like the entirety of the USSR at the time. BUT they wouldn't let the POWs write letters home for obvious reasons, and he had a wife he was desperate to return to.

So he ends up collaborating with other people in the camp to start a prison riot, which then leads into a mass exodus. He was shot twice but managed to escape the camp with a few others. So yeah, obviously he didn't want to return to Stalingrad after that, so he kinda just went home. He became a merchant somewhere just North of the Caspian Sea for a while until he was just assumed to have died in action, by the Soviet military. Of course he wrote home to let people know he was alive. And then he came home.

>>1441703
>You don't even know what you're fighting for

Something like 25% of the entire population of France lived in areas occupied by Germany during WW1.

Now I'm just guessing, but it might have had something to do with that

>>1447644
nice story

what happened when he came back after the war?

>>1441672
this is all that needs to be said

>>1447590
>>1447595
>>1447644
thanks for sharing anon.

File: image.png (564KB, 719x719px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 719x719px

>>1442424