Just how horrific was WWI? Was it the single most traumatic

/pol/ thread in disguise?

Also I'm pretty sure WW2 was more traumatizing to humanity over all

>>29784
millions of men, women and children dead
millions with PTSD
millions of grieving families
millions homeless
millions starving
millions of refugees

pretty horrific

>>29822
Holocaust was horrible, 6 million jews died

>>29822
back to Reddit Colony of /int/, lad.

>>29822
in what way was WW2 worse?

it was a more widespread war if that's what you mean, but I don't think the horrors of it were nearly so acute as in WW1.

pls don't say fucking jews

>>29959
well far more people were killed in general, for one thing

>I don't think the horrors of it were nearly so acute as in WW1.
what horrors are you referring to precisely?

>>29959
No I'm not even talking about the Jews. I meant
>terror bombings against civililians on all sides.
>higher death toll than WW1
>more widespread war which meant more people came in contact
>horrific slave labour (like what the Japanese did to pacific islanders and east asians) employed mainly by the axis but by both sides
>finishing with nukes which must have been the most shocking thing anyone had ever seen

>>29784
muh religion

>>29784
WW1 was absolutely horrendous because tons of people were looking forward to it - "oh it's an adventure" "back by christmas" all that shit.

Then it happened and the actual reality and atrocities of what war actually is were shown to pretty much everyone.

Compare that to the feeling of most countries ahead of WW2 and it's easy to see how bad WW1 was.

>>29985
>>30027
the manner of fighting in WW1.
Trench warfare, chemical warfare. Just waves of people being slaughtered at a time with almost zero strategic significance, and in between living in pretty unimaginable conditions in trenches surrounded by your friend's corpses being eaten by rats, not able to bury anyone.
The manner in which the war was waged totally changed the attitude towards war forever, whereas in WW2 only really the nukes did this, which while horrible were not prolonged.

and at the end of it, it was one of the most meaningless wars ever waged. There wasn't really much at all to justify the conflict, and it ended up being one of the most bloody ever.

WW1 started the decline of the western countries and I find it much more horrific than WW2.

>>30242
There was an awful lot of civilian deaths that aren't really touched upon too much in the official records the artillery really made a mess of the landscape, Tolkien based fukin mordor on the western front.

>>30242
I do get your point.
Do you also think people were more mentally ready for the horrors of WW2 than 1?

Idk I still feel like WW2 left a more lasting scar in humanity on so many different continents. After 1 we had another war 20 years later but after 2 the UN was formed permanently and people refuse to risk such a conflict in europe ever again

>>30453
Yeah didn't a lot of civies starve to death in 1? Mainly in Germany i Believe

>>30242
Most soldiers spent little actual time in trenches, instead being stationed in various camps close to the front. Every time that the trucks came rolling along they knew they'd return a smaller unit than they once were. Trenches were a shit place, but the bulk of time spent in camps was super depressing because it boiled down to counting days before going back to being shelled.

>>30946
To be fair the flailing predecessor to the UN was formed a year after WW1 and everyone insisted they would never let this happen again

>>30946
>After 1 we had another war 20 years later but after 2 the UN
there was the league of nations.

Also after the first people were like "well that sucks that wouldnt happen again" and after the second it was like "holy shit we can do that again we need to make work of it rather than just assume it"

>>29784
>Was it the single most traumatic and damaging event in history?
Possibly. It might be the first conflict to show just how destructive technology can be.

>>29784
Imagine being told constantly for months, while you are in the trench, about those guys on the other side that want to kill you.

Now you dont know how they look, everytime you are attacking you dont see any sign of the enemy.

then one day the enemy shells your position for 2 hours straight, uses chems and then attacks in force.

They finaly come close to you to see them running in the mad like the devil, with those terrible masks, seeming like untouchable demons.

You shit your pants and die.

>>31004
>>31020
Wew lads. I know about the League of Nations. That's why I specified that we had a permanent UN after 2 which actively worked to prevent another world war.

As one of you said after 1 people went "oh that'll never happen again" after 2 people said "holy shit we are a violent species and another war might end us. This shut can never happen again!"

Admittedly "MAD" played a huge part in a WW3 not happening imo

>>31035
>It might be the first conflict to show just how destructive technology can be.
Wait wasn't that the Murican Civil War?
I heard that European war observers were horrified by the extreme casualty rates in the battles

>>31380
>Murican Civil War
There was nothing special, or anything that hasnt been done at least 30 times already in American civil war battles.

>>31380
Warfare had improved between these two wars.
The Civil War might have been one of the first to field artillery and have both rifles and moving positions, but WW1 saw the first grenades, automatic weapons with high firing speed, airplanes, the first tanks, flamethrowers. All of this while a lot of the soldiers and officers still thought and planned with the strategies and mindset of the previous century. Combine this with static positions, month if not year long battles, thousands of severely wounded and you have a traumatic experience.
The other war hat could be seen as a similar trauma would be Viet Nam sine it was the first to be widely mediatized and immediatly documented.

daily reminder that on average, british soldiers spent roughly five days a month in the trenches
the remaining 25 would be rotated out

>>30127
>because tons of people were looking forward to it - "oh it's an adventure" "back by christmas" all that shit.
this just isn't true
on the whole, people expected a protracted, seveeral years long war

WW1 was no walk in the park but I'd rather be in it than the Eastern Front in WW2 desu.

>>31576
Not all of them that's for sure, but most of the conscripts in France had this in mind, mostly because their idea of war and battles was not really up to date.
That said, the germans knew exactly what they were getting into.

>>29822
fuck off back to your reddit hugbox.

>>30242
>Just waves of people being slaughtered at a time with almost zero strategic significance
The concept of attrition is not of 'almost zero strategic significance'. It is not pretty, but it is very strategically significant. In fact, it, together with the blockade, is what won the war for the allies.

Also it is not like attrition was the only objective. Territory changed hands, objectives were taken or retaken. Remember that the Germans were occupying highly defensible positions in some of the most important French economic regions. The allies didn't send men over the top 'just because' but to dislodge this enemy.

>>31628
Read the thread, manchild before assuming I mean jews you insecure fuck

>>29784
>Was it the single most traumatic and damaging event in history?

Yes. I would even argue that not only was WW2 just a continuation of WW1, and does not deserve being considered a "separate" war, but that WW1 was the beginning of the slow slide into chaos for Western Civilization, much as happened to the late Roman Empire.

>>30127
>Then it happened and the actual reality and atrocities of what war actually is were shown to pretty much everyone.
Meh, there's a hell of a lot of literature written by people having a good time and wishing they were back on the front line after being injured.

>>29959
look at the pacific theater and eastern front
WWII is more than the western front, those two fronts were beyond brutal. I get what you are saying here>>30242, but the fighting on those two fronts was just as bad, minus the chemical gas.

>>29822

Jesus fuck man

>post thread about WW1 on a history board.
>hurrr /pol/ thread guys

You guys are more fucking annoying then the actual /pol/fags

>>31686
WW2 and 1 being the same war is a separate discussion but I don't see how you see similarites between WW2 and the slow death and decline that was the end of the WRE

>>31826
Hey man, be cool. We've waited a long time for this board, let's not fuck up our chance.

>>31821
Same movement that changed the balance of powers in the world.

shitposters out, this is a ww1 thread

>>29822
Every single thread has some utter cunt shitposting about /pol/ can we fucking stop this meme.

>>31821
>>31890
> I don't see how you see similarites between WW1/2 and the slow death and decline that was the end of the WRE

I did not say that WW1/2 was the same as the whole of the "slow death and decline" - I said it was the beginning of it.

Kind of how Quintilius Varius' disaster in the Teutoburgwald finally killed off the Roman expansion northwards, WW1&2 killed off Western Civilization's hopeful, pre-WW1 zeitgeist, and replaced it with an undercurrent of nihilism and hedonism.

>>31890
Okay I see how you mean then. But I wouldn't compare most european countries to how bad the WRE was in the end. Europe is still pretty dominant in the world and it's citizens enjoy the highest standard of living in the world

File: bob.jpg (22KB, 479x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 479x360px

>>31137
This got me more aware of ww1 than countless hours of learning it in school

>>32009
>Europe is still pretty dominant in the world and it's citizens enjoy the highest standard of living in the world
This is edging dangerously close to breaking the board rules, but look at everything going wrong in today's society and you will see parallels to the late WRE.

We may not have fallen, but we are well on the way.

I hope that we can save a kernel of our knowledge, as happened with them.

>>32302
>and you will see parallels to the late WRE.
Not really.
All "parallels" are extremly far-fetched

>>32009
It's not about falling or anything. It has a lot more to do withthe USA and USSR dominant position from the 50s to the 80s. Heck if anything that change is less and less true nowadays.

>>30127
>because tons of people were looking forward to it

Basically a lot of wars which predate WWI.

>It'll be an adventure!
>blood and glory!
>riches and women!

What was particularly nasty about WWI was that soldiers had to live in their own feces in trenches, deal with the constant threat of gas attacks, and had to participate in suicidal human wave attacks, all for a couple hundred of feet in land. The Iran-Iraq was was reminiscent of such torturous pain.

>>32361
Parallels-
>social decohesion (splintering)
>a lack of a sense of national identity
>people interested only in "number one"
>obsession with sexual matters
>obsession with wealth
>bread and circuses (welfare and entertainment media)
>uncontrolled and unchecked immigration
>abuse of laws by those in power
>etc...
Not everything has an exact parallel, but there are many.

>>31686
You could make the argument. After all, WW2 was in many ways just a continuation of the first war. It's very likely that no Versailles and no collapsed German economy = no Hitler. The first world war may have had a lower death toll but the second would likely not have happened without it, imo.

Then again we can never be certain with history. Even if WW1 never happened, something else could have taken its place that was just as bad.

>>32572
Meant for >>29784

>>29784
I hate that the holocaust has become a meme to be ridiculed. WWI was a horror in its own kind, but a continental bureaucratic and technologically advanced genocide, amidst a nation pulverizing all out war that spread across the entire globe just takes the cake. It's a real shame we don't have a collective memory, and that people generally have no true idea or conception of anything before their birth. WWII was the most atrocious thing in human history.

Anyone else sick of people say "HURR WW1 WAS BORING TRENCH WARFARE ZZZ"

It was the first war to have planes, first as reconnaissance then dogfighting

The first war to include tanks, etc

>>32764
Yup. "Hurr durr dey walked into machineguns in perfect rows and lines just lyk napoleon xDD"

>>32799
>>32764
Thing is WW2 had everythibg 1 had and much more. 1 is simply overshadowed. It is what it is

>>32764
To be completely honest, the tactics were fucking boring.

what it came down was send a shit ton of men, so some survive to engage the enemy, with the occasional underground tunnel explosive.

WW2 had encirclements, aerial resupplies, deployment of troops beyond the front lines, beach landings, outflanking the enemy using speed, battles in deserts, mountains, hills, jungles, forests, urban fighting, sieges, resistance guerillas and suppresion units.

The variables were vast in WW2, and it was not an endless attrition struggle.

I remember but can't find that video of a french soldiers of ww1, looking almost normal, but then they show him the cap of an french officer and he just become crazy.

File: italian gun alps.jpg (153KB, 777x1024px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 777x1024px

>>33404
What you just described is the Western Front.

Look up the Eastern Front, Gallipoli, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerilla war in Africa and the Italian front, including the war in the Alps.

File: 1445471228517.jpg (222KB, 760x939px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 760x939px

These photos help give an understanding of the devastation.

File: 1445476963372.jpg (668KB, 1000x1555px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 1000x1555px

>>36917

>>36925
Holy fuck , the town in months became fucking nothing

>>29822
I want Reddit to leave

>>29822

Please kill yourself.

>Also I'm pretty sure WW2 was more traumatizing to humanity over all

Depends entirely from what point of view you look at it. For soldiers WWI was far worse as tactics didn't match technology. For civilians WWII was worse as technology allowed strategic bombing and ideologies allowed systematic destruction of civilian population.

Trauma of WWI and bunch shit tier conspiracy theories and ideologies caused WWII.

In the end they are just two parts of same conflict that led to decline of western civilization.

File: 1395241518089.jpg (118KB, 429x408px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 429x408px

It was pretty bad, especially because it pretty much shattered old Europe. Empires were obviously on their way out at that point.

On the ground it was a different kind of horrifying than WWII, or Napoleonic line warfare. There's no comparison, really.

Ok OP, let's see. The war that ends with 20 million Russians killed and an atomic bomb going off, the ushering in of a 40 year cold war between two super powers and a global struggle for hegemony between them and many small sub-wars that were part of that (korea, vietnam, contras, etc) that took like 40 years to rebuild (and not even entirely) europe again, with whole fucking towns just incinerated by R.A.F toward the end, enormous genocide that is basically uncountable but in the tens of millions - or ww1, which didn't end with total destruction of one side like ww2, but really scared the poos out of some people in europe, leading to revolutions in russia, germany and elsewhere.

>>39555
>has read too many english war poets

Nobody posted a link to The Great War Channel, yet?

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar/videos

You guys can thank me later, that I showed it to you. Pretty much the best chanel on YT, history-wise. Follows the developments of WW1 week per week one hundred years later.
Hotzendorf ftw!

>>39685
This

>>39775

It's pretty good channel, but bit too SJW by it's default interpretation history. Still worth watching, but everyone watching shit should start with checking BBC's the Great War from 60's before BBC had political agenda. Lots of 1st hand accounts.

>>39685
My father's mother lived in Dresden until '46. My mother's father took part in the February raids. They met only once, at my parent's wedding. She ended up attacking him with a chair.

>>40567
>but bit too SJW by it's default interpretation history
I don't get those vibes from it, Indy only focuses on talking how horrible the war was and how many casualities it had

>>41804

I don't get from normal episodes...but from bunch of biographic bonus episodes. Normal episodes are neutral.

It's excellent by youtube standards.

>>31707
you've got yr romantics and yr warmongers in every country, but I think looking at the literature and art of the period shows a pretty widespread distaste for it

>>32471
Why have people stopped romanticizing war? is it a mass media thing?

>>31465
I'd disagree. Some of the later battles and sieges ended up much like a lot of the Western Front stalemates, with trenches and artillery bombardments for days. Before wwi, it had been decades since a real all out war had taken place in europe. Napoleon was the last real war for a lot of the countries involved

>>44046
Generally people have stopped romanticizing war because it became less romantic. There's very little romance to be found in most of the fighting during WW1, or even WW2. Even the Spanish Civil War only had the International Brigades appealing to its romance, and even then it was a pretty shitty conflict.

As wars became more destructive and the war itself became more widely seen by society, the romanticized image of it died out.

File: 1446161614890.jpg (232KB, 956x1280px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 956x1280px

>>39475
>In the end they are just two parts of same conflict that led to decline of western civilization.

Yeah, how I long for the 7 day a week 17 hour working days of victorian times. Fuck modern civilization with it's advancements and shit

>>31624
If they knew exactly what they were getting in to, then why didn't they issue helmets at the start of the war, or think of way to overcome trench warfare?

>>29822
I've heard it said that WW1 was the worst war to be a soldier in, and WW2 was the worst war to be a civilian in.

>>44268
But the 17 hour days 7 days a week were a result of "modern civilization with it's advancements and shit"

File: w9tQkEm.jpg (153KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 683x1024px

>>44447

Oh yes, how could I forget the houseon days of getting bullied by the local lord and his knights and dying of plague at the age of 30

>>44648
>houseon days

>>44737
i have no taller ants for this kind of shitposting

I think WW1 was the more traumatizing war because it was impossible to simplify it to good vs evil, it was a morally ambiguous and ultimately pointless war. This is what traumatized people, not just the horror of the war but the meaninglessness of it. On the other hand WW2 was very easy to dumb down into a battle of good vs evil because muh fascism muh shoah muh nanking. This meant that even though WW2 was worse in many ways because it took the industrial slaughter of WW1 and applied it to civilians and not just soldiers (both sides were guilty of this), it wasn't traumatizing for the winners because they got to come out of it feeling smug for being on the side of good.

>>39685
I think what was so special about WWI was that it was an mostly an conflict experienced by young men. The atrocious conditions of trench warfare radicalized a lot of these people in their twenties. Besides that, the front created a sense of unity and shared experience on a massive scale never seen before. On the other hand, WWI was a total war in the sense that it required the entire mobilization of a state's resources, but it only the men on the front who experienced its worst aspects. In the case of WWII, everyone got to experience the horrors of war with civilian bombings and massacres committed by all sides. It was total war in the sense that it was widespread destruction on a global scale experienced by all.

>>45470
im
>>47351
we semi-hiveminded

But I disagree with the smugness part. The winners of WWI were also very smug about having won. I've read newspapers from the time and the British and Americans were all talking about "muh freedom and liberties vs. kaiser and his belgian atrocities." French probably less so considering that they bore the brunt of the war. Italians were also were dispirited by the war, d'annunzio captured the feeling when he called Versailles a "mutilated peace"

>>39775
>>40567
>>41804

Nah, senpai. Best WWI documentary series comin' through:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxOVt4f-_b1YtCQI8IG-cc9HUB3vy4ZIx

>>39775
>>47804
This is a good one too
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/

File: 1438707930660.png (942KB, 978x686px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 978x686px

>>29822
In this case it didn't even have a racial slur/politically incorrect fact.

I always see ''WWI'' and ''horror'' in the same sentence could you guys share some particulary disturbing stories?

>>31465
I had always been taught that the civil war was the first "modern" war in the sense of technology.... roughly. mind you this was in middle school

>>48711
/his/ in a nutshell. Not all history is politically correct, get used to it.

>>49323
this.

>>48776
Well here's a mental image. The flies were so thick in some trenches that you could swing a shovel and kill hundreds of them

Let me get one of my books I'll see if I can find a good passage

>>29784
It was the first time humanity collectively agreed that war could no longer be glorified.

>>>49445
I can't find the passage I wanted, but I believe this one will do

>The military hospital had been set up in a school building close to the station, and it was presently housing four hundred severe cases. Day after day, a procession of corpses left its portals to leaden thump of drums. Doctors did their bloody best at a row of operating tables. Here, a limb was amputated, there a chipped open, or a bandage that the flesh had grown over was peeled away. Whimpers and cries echoed through the harshly lit room, while white-clad sisters bustled efficiently from one table to the next with instruments or bandages.

>In the bed next to mine lay a sergeant who had lost a leg, and was fighting a bad case of blood poisoning. Mad periods of fever alternated with cold shivering. His temperature chart performed leaps like a wild mustang. The doctors tried to keep him alive on champagne and camphor, but the needle seemed to be pointing unmistakably to death. What was strange, thought, was that, having been delirious for the past few day, at the hour of his death he was once more completely lucid, and made some arrangements for what was to be done afterwards. For instance, he had the sister read him his favourite chapter from the Bible, then he took his leave of us all, by asking our forgiveness for having kept us up at night so often with his fever attacks. At the end, he whispered in a voice to which he tried to give a humorous inflection: 'Ey, Fritz, have yer got a bit of bread for me?' and, a few minutes later, he was dead. That last sentence was a reference to our male nurse, Fritz, an elderly man, whose accent we sometimes imitated, and we were profoundly moved by it because it showed the dying man's wish to cheer us up.

>>50278
>there skull a chipped open

Sorry, I had to hand copy this

>>33404
>WW1 didnt have guerilla fighting
>not knowing the Krauts had to keep 1 million in the East after Brest-Litovsk to supress slavs

>>29822
Indeed, we can never forget the poor 6 quadrillion burned to death in the ovens.

>>33404
>I don't know anything about the war

Read "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Junger. It got pretty bad, apparently. I lol'd at the fat officers setting up Baronies in and fiefdoms in occupied villages, using an economy centered around beer.

File: 1430500996768.gif (709KB, 245x281px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 245x281px

>>50478
>>50491
>>50617
>>50639
Artillery is so fucking cool. It's my favorite part of this war

>The Paris gun was so big that they had to account the rotation of the earth before aiming

>no one posts about brits taking jerusalem

57,470 British casualties, 19,240 of whom were killed on first day of the battle of the Somme

File: 1443979328927.jpg (34KB, 601x695px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 601x695px

Was Laurence of Arabia taking place around the same time?

>>50821
Western front is all that maters senpai

>>48711
>>49323
>>49323

Still history isn't their /pol/itically incorrect revisionism parade either.

>>50851
Yep, they were fighting the Ottomans.

>>50865
>europeans shitpost about "Beus buld :DDD" and crusaders dindu nuffin all day
>the time they end up taking jerusalem, they gloss over because of muh poppehs in flanders

>>50910
My god, you /lit/ crybabbys who shout POL POL POL GO AWAY WAAAHH everytime you see something you don't like are worse than the stormfaggots.

If you see something you don't like, either prove them wrong or shut the fuck up.

>>50865
This is a sad truth. Just like WWII overshadows WWI most of the time, the western front overshadows everything else that was happening during that war.

Someone have that picture of the soldier in his trench supposedly suffering from shell-shock? The guy is leering at the camera like a daemon. Real creepy looking.

>>31628
>>31676
>using ad hominem

>>50976
This.

>>50952
Thought so. Interesting stuff.

How can we make wars more romantic again?

>>44278
For a while in WW1 people thought helmets were a bad thing.
This is because after issuing helmets, there was an immediate and huge increase in the number of injured soldiers with head wounds.
This counter-intuitive statistic was because before helmets those injured soldiers would have outright died instead of just being injured.

>>31659
There might have been some strategic significance, but the value of a single human in WW1 was less than in any other war. Losing several thousand lives just to move the front lines 100 meters forward would be considered a pyrrhic victory in any other conflict.
There are also campaigns like Gallipoli, in which everything was a pointless clusterfuck in which nothing of value was achieved. Charging the enemy lines was a utter waste of time. Two hundred and fifty thousand British and colonial troops were killed to capture a beach that they lost anyway. Two hundred and fifty thousand Ottomans died to protect an empire that collapsed anyway.
It was just two sides throwing bodies at each other to see which would run out of soldiers first.

>>51127
Kill the internet and mass media

>>31380

US Civil War and also some of the land battles in the sino-Russian War in particular showed how the industrialization of war had changed the wat strategy needed to be approached.

But the strategy developed very slowly in WWI. Only near the end did it evolve somewhat: rush and cover and bite and hold using specialized troops, for example.

>>29886
I think it's actually 8 million

What did soldiers in the trenches do with their shit and piss?
They couldn't just pop out of the trench to relieve themselves.
If they couldn't even get rid of the corpses of the dead, then what did they do with their excrement?

>>31557

I hear you brother, but most are still in the grip of the big post-1919 myths about the western front.

Not that I can blame the poets and novelists for their anger.

File: 1325209251958s.jpg (2KB, 117x127px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 117x127px

>>50278
well at least he accepted his fate

>>29822
Because Germany was literally raped from all sides, both with firebombs and mong/burger dick?

Because other than that and the human experimentation being done in the USSR and Japan, WWI was worse in its brutality.

The weaponry was far less sophisticated, making them less lethal. Medicine was less advanced; and chemical warfare was allowed.

Then there's the living and fighting conditions, again worsened by poor medicine.

WWI was also much slower, which is both awful for the psyche and a nation's resources.
>>51127
Bigger H-bombs and more moral ambiguity.

Neither exist in contemporary wars. Instead, there's a moral split.

>>51362
I thought it had been revised to 120,000,00?

>>29784
>Just how horrific was WWI?
Horrific enough to earn the name of world war. WWI was horrific. Some battles more horrific than WW2 ones, some others less horrific than their WW2 counterparts.

>Was it the single most traumatic and damaging event in history
If you're talking about its impact on history and its consequences, then no. WW1 didn't trigger anything. Most of the things that happened after WW1 (or during) like the Russian Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany weren't directly triggered by WW1. They were already there and the elements to make them exist were already in harmony. WW1 was just the "start process" button. It made things faster.

>Was it truly the trigger to destroy Christianity in Europe?
No. What destroyed Christianty in Europe was a large chain of events. Namely, protestantism, followed by the industrial revolution and the end of European monarchies.

>Did it really set Europe on an irreversible economic and social decline that it is still ongoing to this day?
No. You should thank Napoleon for that.

>>51646
>Napoleon

Why is that?

>>51127
We can't. War stopped being romantic when the media and other privatized civilians began reporting on wars themselves.
Before then, the state could pump out propaganda with impunity. They could spin whatever narrative they wanted and romanticize war to encourage enlistment and nationalism. The public was shielded from the true nature of war.

It's harder to demonize an enemy when you see bodies of their children on the street or a teenager pissing his pants in a trench or whatever.

>>51374
During the worst battles they just left it there, and naturally, dysentery was common among the troops. But I'm sure they had methods to get rid of the waste during less extreme cases.
It seems like an interesting read.

>>50976

We absolutely need at least 150% more conspiracy theories that doesn't match history at all here.

Holocaust happened. Deal with it. It wasn't a bad thing at all as gypsies got gassed too.

>>51303
>There are also campaigns like Gallipoli, in which everything was a pointless clusterfuck in which nothing of value was achieved.

At Gallipoli there were huge benefits for allied cause at stake. Win there and Ottoman empire is out of war and Russia can be supplied from Mediterranean.

>>29784
This thread brought to you by Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

File: 1431242643269.jpg (93KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x600px

>>51646
>the Russian Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany weren't directly triggered by WW1
But they were. Neither of them would have happened without WW1

>>51891
Guess what faggot, there are currently 0 threads about the Holocaust in the catalog and I did not mention it at all, you did.

Just fuck off with your boogeymen crying every time something that bothers you pops up.

It turns threads into shitposting contests.

File: image.jpg (135KB, 1200x807px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1200x807px

>>36925
I can't believe mere men could destroy so much.

File: CYMERA_20151021_234358.jpg (624KB, 800x1040px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 800x1040px

This is a WW1 illustration, which I've added the name to the picture, so you can look up an unedited version if you want.

I use it as a background on my phone. I've always felt WW1 to be underated.

>>29822
Nice false flag.

>>51891
>Win there and Ottoman empire is out of war and Russia can be supplied from Mediterranean.
But they didn't win there. 500000 people died and the Allies didn't hold any ground. All those deaths gained virtually no strategic value, which is the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps you could argue that losing so many young men contributed to the Ottomans eventual defeat, but that wasn't so much of an intentional strategy on the part of the British, but rather the natural result of sending hundreds of thousands of people into a giant meat grinder.

>>50563
I wouldn't expect a modern tank to be able to cross that let alone 1st Gen tanks.

>>52303
You're underestimating modern tanks

Tbh senpai idk sjw

The first world war was worse for the soldiers, the second for people in general. Though Stalingrad probably tops the list of shittiest place to be in history.

>>50721
Funny you say that because it was probably the soldier's least favorite part.

>>52126
>But they didn't win there. 500000 people died and the Allies didn't hold any ground. All those deaths gained virtually no strategic value, which is the point I was trying to make.

My point is the fact that assuming Allies could have won at Gallipoli, it would have led to massive benefits to their cause. It was a huge gamble and it failed.

The allied mistake wasn't trying to force Turkish straits, their mistake was trying to force 'em with half arsed attempt. They didn't push enough meat into grinder there and once half arsed attempt failed they simply gave up.

>>29784

>Was it the single most traumatic and damaging event in history?

It was for Germany,Britain and France definetly.Probably not for the USA. it did cause the Russian Revolution and the wave of Bolshevik revolts/invasions that shook europe 1918-1920 and caused the amount of European nations to almost double due to the peace settlement. Effects of PTSD, breakdown of class system in Britain, growth of Pacificism, Brutalisation of the individual. literally impossible to fit all its effects on European society/politics in one post.

>>51891
>Holocaust happened. Deal with it
Nope.

File: Danse_macabre_by_Michael_Wolgemut.png (771KB, 705x599px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 705x599px

>>54124
Can't recall if this WW1 or not.

File: WWI in a nutshell.jpg (123KB, 696x482px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 696x482px

Finally, some more thread relevant stuff.

File: ww1 kiwi.jpg (71KB, 1020x666px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1020x666px

>>54308

File: Underwater Giant German Skeletons.jpg (990KB, 1982x2517px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1982x2517px

This one is very subtle.

File: the victor.jpg (505KB, 1032x1325px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1032x1325px

It really seems like /his/ should have pdf support. I mean /tg/ has it.

>>54261
That's awesome

File: 1445548721576.jpg (1MB, 5320x3520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5320x3520px

>>36917
You can still go there and find WWI artillery shells, it is absolutely crazy how bombed that place is.

>>36925

They killed everything in and near that town that couldn't leave.

Men, women, children, dogs, horses, mules, birds, cats, rats, trees, bushes, everything.

Not even a single blade of grass was left alive...

File: kaiserbot.jpg (309KB, 500x649px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 500x649px

>>54407
I have a few other images like that but they're all before or after WWI

I'm sure this image right here is WWII because of the helmet but I might as well post it.

>>54443
Even the craters are still around. Shit's insane.

>>30242
You are fucking wrong, the Eastern Front of WW2 makes your petty WWI look like a playground.

WWI didn't have human waves like WW2 did, especially as the Russians sent large numbers of unarmed soldiers rushing towards their death in temperatures below 30 degrees while Nazi equipment was breaking down and also had to fight up close. It was fucking horrible, it was the bloodiest theater in all of human history, there was absolutely 0 regard for human life, the Nazis had absolutely demonized the Russians to a point they were seen as lesser than rats.

It gets worse, sometimes the Soviets would act smart and would encircle the enemy, meaning that the Nazi supply-lines were cut down and had to fight to death desperate fights where the Panzers broke down in the cold and resistance was futile. The harsh treatment of Jews just adds to it. WW2 was a different kind of war from WW1. WW1 was a battle of alliance, of nonsense and antiquity, while WW2 was a battle of ideologies, which is frankly more terrifying.

>>29822

colossal amounts of ignorance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvoJkreZtT0

>>54610

>Russians sent large numbers of unarmed soldiers
>Soviets would act smart and would encircle the enemy

Stop posting Hollywood-tier memes. The soviets used strategy as much as the Germans and the Western Allies. the unarmed troops is mostly a lie they had rifles but often lacked ammunition in the early months of the war.

>>54602
Nah, that's WW1. The stahlhelm introduced in 1916. You can tell which part of the war photos and images came from just by the uniforms

File: 1373398164595.jpg (690KB, 1275x3313px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1275x3313px

>millions dead
>bombed the fuck out of everything
>cruel chemical warfare
>Frontiers/trenches pretty much halted any sort of advance, leading to sending men into no man's land to die
>Death of the Old World along with any existing peace between nations in Europe
>Allie's terms allowed the Nazi Party into power
>Shell Shock


I know people like to think WWII was more horrific because of the kill count, but I find WWI to be much more horrifying given the environments and conditions they were forced to fight in as well as the manners of how soldiers were killed. Seemed to be much more brutal.

File: a000396.jpg (122KB, 760x572px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 760x572px

bump

>>29784
>Just how horrific was WWI?
No where as bad as is claimed
>Was it the single most traumatic and damaging event in history?
No that was the fall of constantinople
>Was it truly the trigger to destroy Christianity in Europe?
that was marxism
>Did it really set Europe on an irreversible economic and social decline that it is still ongoing to this day?
yes

File: zouaves.jpg (68KB, 861x544px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 861x544px

>>39555
>different from the napoleonic line wars.
Try not getting shot while wearing this outfit.

Yes and no. Next question.

>>44268
whered you get that pic? ive legit fucked that girl

>>51891
>I'm going to cry and throw tantrums because there are anons that disagree with my beliefs!
If you can't handle disagreement, and see /pol/ hiding under every table and in every cupboard, the problem is with you.

Either engage in discussion and provide proof of your beliefs, or fuck off back to reddit or 4+4chan.

>>52581
You're overestimating them, especially as far as that massive shellhole filled with water is concerned.
Source - a former tank soldier.

>>57828
The tactics in the Napoleonic era were so hilariously out of touch with firearm warfare. The brightly colored rank and file formations, marching in time to a drum, had been a part of European culture for so many centuries that they couldn't see how utterly retarded it is if you're fighting with guns instead of spears.

>>54610
While I agree with your overall sentiment of WW2 (esp. in the east) being even worse...
... the bit about human waves is literally wrong. If anything, it was the OTHER way around! "Human waves" in ww2 were basically rare, extreme occurences, or notes from the German side being overwhelmed by superior numbers. Whereas in WW1, they happened in the east - the kind of human waves everyone spergs about when talking about muh stalingrad.

>>60415
>The tactics in the Napoleonic era were so hilariously out of touch with firearm warfare.
Napoleonic tactics suited the Napoleonic era, armaments, technology et cetera. Why do you think that people lived in the past, they were stupid?

>>55163
You make it sound as if there were no trenches in WW2. Or as if WW2 did not have hellish conditions - such as extreme urban fighting like in Stalingrad or jungle warfare, which conversely WW1 did not have. Also the allies' terms didn't really put the nazis into power, the depression did.

>>39475
>WWI was far worse as tactics didn't match technology
I want this meme to die.

World War 1 was worse for westerners. The reason why we don't remember World War 2 as grimly in the west is we escaped the slogs of WW1. Apart from the mass executions by the japanese of allied prisoners and strategic bombing of the axis, there wasn't as much of an overriding theme of senseless warkeking for the west compared to the soviets.

>>60827

Infantry tactics and doctrine had not been adapted for machine guns. Eventual solution was pretty simple squad and fire team based tactics instead of platoon being the smallest tactical unit.

>>60415
Firearms weren't that accurate so you had to bunch soldiers up in formations that work as big shotguns to even hit anything.

>>55163
>>bombed the fuck out of everything
Not really the case.
Only the areas in which the front was located for three to four years straight were destroyed. The rest of Europe escaped pretty much unharmed.
The overall damage of WW1 was miniscule compared to the level of destruction WW2 left in Europe and Japan.
After WW2 every major city between the Rhine and the Volga was either ruins or heavily damaged with very few exceptions like Prague or Bucharest.

>>33404
You seem to get your historical knowledge from Call of Duty.

>>64340
CoD was actually rather historically accurate desu