Despite ww2 being more destructive and deadly, why does ww1 feel so much worse?

Home Forums History Despite ww2 being more destructive and deadly, why does ww1 feel so much worse?

Viewing 36 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #187730
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Despite ww2 being more destructive and deadly, why does ww1 feel so much worse?

    • #187731
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because it was worse for the soldiers, even though it was better for the civilians

      • #187732
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Because there’s no physical evidence the battle of Stalingrad happened. Ww2 was fake.

        No the actual reason is that ww2 didn’t even happen. It was a propaganda event.

        • #187737
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Read up on tularemia in Ww2

          Idiot scrotebrain. WW2 was real. Iron graphs and rainfall measurements clearly prove it.
          The evidence clearly shows this it’s right in front of you. Idiot worthless spam.

          • #187740
            Anonymous
            Guest

            He’s angry that evidence of the holocaust and ancient Hebrews kept getting btfo so now he makes truly wild claims to compensate and make his other claims look less ridiculous in comparison.

        • #187749
          Anonymous
          Guest

          There’s still a fuck ton more evidence that Stalingrad happened than the Holocaust

          • #187800
            Anonymous
            Guest

            There’s zero evidence for either you worthless scrotebrain.

        • #187754
          Anonymous
          Guest

          ok gaylord

        • #187775
          Anonymous
          Guest

          A lot more evidence than there is for the Holocaust myth, Shlomo, you inbred mutt rat. =)

        • #187804
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Please keep going with this stalingrad meme, its funny

          • #187806
            Anonymous
            Guest

            It’s pretty easy.
            Ww2 was fake no physical evidence.

      • #187758
        Anonymous
        Guest

        There is another reason.

        WWI in western Europe killed more soldiers than in WWII. Only HALF as many Brits died in WWII (400k) as in WWI (800k). Now, more of western European buildings and infrastructure was destroyed by bombing and the mobile fighting during WWII, and more civilians died in WWII, but as a whole western Europe was largely spared the death toll that WWI gave them. France, Britain, Portugal and Belgium certainly all had better WWII experiences than they had in WWI.

        Also, lets not forget about the impact which the Spanish Flu had on everyone, a terrifying experience which wasnt repeated in WWII.

        • #187777
          Anonymous
          Guest

          ww1 is also the founding myth for Australia, New Zealand, Canada who all also lost about twice as many men

      • #187782
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Because you fell for the mopey, whiny narrative about WWI being particularly wasteful and WWII being heroic even though the experience for soldiers on the ground was often identical. That old narrative is currently being deconstructed but you’re unaware of this on account of your illiteracy.

        scrotebrain.

    • #187733
      Anonymous
      Guest

      WWII was just a continuation of the "gnomish" WWI orchestrated by "gnomish" central bankers to decimate the Caucasian population

      • #187734
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Read up on tularemia in Ww2

        • #187735
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why? WWII is a waste of time to study for anyone with two working brain cells and who can see past the indoctrination from mass media and public schools.

    • #187736
      Anonymous
      Guest

      the virgin ww1
      >stagnant miserable warfare
      >started over some gay balkan shithole
      >every faction is pretty much the same
      >solves nothing, only creates new problems
      the chad ww2
      >blistering dynamic combined arms warfare
      >absolute fight to the death
      >huge ideological differences between factions
      >creates a new world order upon completion

      • #187743
        Anonymous
        Guest

        WW1 feels more comfy tho

        • #187751
          Anonymous
          Guest

          only because of the remnants of 19th century optimism leaving that thin veil of hope that at least when it’s over maybe things will go back to normal

      • #187747
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Ww1 had better songs too

        • #187756
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Yeah but it had tons of awful poetry which cancels that out

      • #187791
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >>creates a new world order upon completion
        ugh what could have been

    • #187738
      Anonymous
      Guest

      WWI was like practically the apocalypse for most people. A world that had been in place for centuries, with monarchs and systems that could sometimes trace their lineage to Medieval times, was destroyed through a fluke. Entire villages were sent over the tops of trenches to be gunned down in minutes.

      WWII on the other hand, had a bunch of new ideas get destroyed or put on life support before gracelessly expiring at the hands of liberalism. Instead of being an apocalyptic event, it was instead a sort of "proving through arms" the strength of the liberal system, or at least that was the narrative in the West.

      • #187744
        Anonymous
        Guest

        WW1 was the destruction of traditional systems. WW2 was the fight among the 3 evil sis spawns of the fr*nch revolution (Fascism, Communism, Liberalism) to see who would rule the post traditional world after it was gone.

        • #187765
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Liberalism
          >A product of the French Revolution
          >Hon Hon Hon intensifies.jpg

      • #187763
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >destroyed through a fluke

        Lol, keep digging. You have a long way to go

    • #187739
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because anglophone media doesn’t really focus on what the eastern front was like
      I don’t know which would be worse, being ordered over the top or being caught in a kesselschlacht and knowing damned well that surrender meant death via exposure/starvation

      • #187801
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >tfw watch "Come and See"
        >first time I ever had actual tremors after watching a movie
        >tfw it’s literally the accounts of a guy who lived through it and there are mass graves to back it up
        No nation ever made a greater sacrifice to destroy evil than the Soviet Union in ww2.

    • #187741
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because people make movies about WW1 with really dark and dreary brown colors and dark soundtracks while WW2 movies have light blue colors and epic soundtracks. That’s the only reason.

      Meanwhile in reality, WW2 was objectively worse for both soldiers and civilians. It was like the barbarism of antiquity but on a mass scale.

      • #187797
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This
        Since WWI and WWII were a long time ago and even the people who lived during that time are really old now most of our perception of these conflicts comes from movies or series and more rarely history books.

    • #187742
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I think it’s because of the bloody, futile image of trench warfare.

    • #187745
      Anonymous
      Guest

      WWI and II were essentially the same war separated by an unusually long armistice.
      Europe and the idea of Western civilization died in those trenches, WWII was simply the logical conclusion to Europe’s death.
      We’ve been living on the corpse ever since.

      • #187760
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Theres an ineffectiviety at the way WWI and WWII is viewed. Its always viewed from the perspective of a conflict only involving Germany, rather than a conflict between other states which Germany entered in on. A great observation you could make is that WWI REALLY both started, and ended, in the Balkans. From 1912 to 1922, some country in the Balkans was at war with another. In fact, the entire timespan of fighting on the European continent begins and ends with… Greece at war with Turkey! The Russian Civil War, a very deadly and important conflict, lasted up until that same year (1922) as well. Fighting in Europe did not resume until the year 1936, with the eruption of the Spanish Civil War. So also, in a way, a period of fighting in Europe ends with the close of one Civil War, involving the Communists, and the next period of fighting opens up with another Civil War, also involvong the Communists. One last observation you should make is that fighting in Europe did NOT cease in 1945, with Germanys surrender. No, it continued all the way through 1948, in the form of YET ANOTHER Civil War involving the Communists… the Greek Civil War! So the entire period of 1912 to 1948 involves Greece at war in some fashion, and the entire period including both the epochs of fighting (1912-1922, 1936-1948) it all opens and ends with war in Greece.

        This is never explored and always brushed aside, and the Germano centric view of the World Wars doesnt adequetly explain these facts at all. In fact it appears that our narrative of the World Wars exists solely to ensure Germany recieves all blame.

        The Italo-Turkish war of 1911-12 should also be included here because it directly led to the First Balkan War, and involved the mass deaths of citizens of European states.

        • #187808
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Good post, i knew about the Eastern Europe free-for-all after WW2 but hadn’t put it into perspective with the balkan wars before

    • #187746
      Anonymous
      Guest

      WW1 destroyed a perfectly decent continent.
      WW2 was basically just putting Europe out of its misery.

    • #187748
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because nobody actually wanted WWI to happen

      • #187750
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s not true

      • #187757
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You mean Britain didn’t want WWI to happen. Most other European states did and they should be held accountable to this day.

    • #187752
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because of all the war poetry.
      Owen, Sassoon and Brooke have a lot to answer for.

    • #187753
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because you never studied much of the russian front I assume
      That is where almost all of the bloodshed happened
      Also the soviet front was much more poorly documented because krauts didn’t want to to document their crimes and soviets wanted to not appear weak so they hid most casualty numbers

      • #187761
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Well the eastern Front was the main front of WWII, lasting longer than it did in WWI. Meanwhile, the wesern Front in WWII only lasted a quarter of the time it did in WWI (1 month in 1940, 11 months in 1944-45) and for a large portion of that time (June-September 1944) it did not reach full size. The Italian Front only lasted half the time in WWII (1943-45) as it did in WWI (1915-1918). So for most of WWII, the OstFront was the ONLY major WWI tier front, whixh naturally lead to all countries involved putting as much as they possibly could into the fighting. That all simply lead to a supercharged monster of a front.

        • #187762
          Anonymous
          Guest

          > the OstFront was the ONLY major WWI tier front
          >what is China

          • #187764
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You are deliberately evading the point of my post. Also, Second Sino-Japanese War isnt even mentioned in public school history class. Westerners have zero knowledge of it.

            • #187766
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I don’t give a fuck if you don’t know anything about the Chinese front, it was still the 2nd biggest front.

              • #187768
                Anonymous
                Guest

                …A front which involved NONE of the countries or people that we are talking about. Stop trying to derail the thread.

                • #187769
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  What do you mean, we’re talking about the brutality of WW2, how is China not relevant?

    • #187755
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In my opinion WW1 as a whole was worse than WW2 but some campaigns of WW2 make even the worst bits of WW1 look like a playground.

    • #187759
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because you just sat there most of the time the frontlines almost never moved making it Seem like it would just go on forever.

    • #187767
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Despite ww2 being more destructive and deadly, why does ww1 feel so much worse?
      Because you consume Anglophone mass-media, and Anglophones had sat out most of WW2.

    • #187770
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In ww2 there was movement. Offensives by one side, then the other, there were always gains being made.
      In ww1 on the other hand, the (western) front was static, and gains were measured in meters rather than kilometers.

    • #187771
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because it was the first time. First times are always harsher.

      • #187773
        Anonymous
        Guest

        the first world war happened a hundred and fifty years before 1914…

        • #187774
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Oh please enlighten us

        • #187776
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >1764????
          Close to the seven years war?

        • #187784
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It started in 1618

    • #187772
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it was the first of its kind. the last great european wars before it were the franco Prussian and the Carlist wars that still had formation tactics and cavalry charges (and the random colonial wars against scrotes and chinks). imagine having that concept of war in mind and jolly joining for glory and benefits and suddenly there are trenches, gas attacks, air raids, machine guns with people dying by the hundred thousands per battle

      its like zoomers joining war thinking its gonna be all fun stalker or call of duty only to be massacred by a drone missile barrage or shot by heat seeking artillery or trying to find cover from depleted uranium bullets the size of a hamster. and that its not mentioning white phosphorus rounds, and whatever nasty shit they have in development right now (my bet are murder spider drones for covered troops alla red alert 2)

    • #187778
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Propaganda always makes WW1 looks bad and pointless while WW2 was epic "good vs evil" with totally good ending

    • #187779
      Anonymous
      Guest

      WW1 doesn’t have the larger-than-life villainry that seems to centralize the WW2 overall narrative

      WW2 is also the last major global conflict, and as time passes, there’s inevitably more time for authors to romanticize the fighting.

    • #187780
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Bc for the west the front was defined by trenches which is a much more depressing narrative than the mobile fronts of ww2. Even though being in a trench in ww1 was one of the safest places you could be in the front. People find a mobile dynamic war so appealing because it’s dramatic and exciting. There’s liberation and conquest where a static war seems more like a meatgrinder. But they are both meatgrinders in their different ways, ww1 feels more pointless so it seems worse.

    • #187781
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ww2 casualties were massively inflated by slav(e)shits, chink insects and parasite garden gnomes.
      Actual people died in large numbers during the first world war

      • #187783
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Nazis fuckin lost lmfao
        Some master race

        • #187786
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Quality post from JIDF. Nobody buys your bullshit anymore, pedophile. Stop raping palestinian children.

          • #187788
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Beastiality isn’t kosher though. You’re thinking Muslims and not garden gnomes.

    • #187785
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because during WW2 Germany achieved superiority on the continent quickly which meant that the whole thing didn’t devolve into a battle of attrition in the West. As result, neither France or Britain suffered as much causalities as during WW1 and why the Soviets took the brunt of the fighting.

    • #187787
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Christmas ass grab in the woods
      how horrible

    • #187789
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Conflicts in WW2 are often one sided, and the guys that get annihilated don’t offer much of a perspective. The Japanese probably felt a lot like WW1 soldiers when they were defending against American invasions.

    • #187790
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >WW1 WAS BAD
      >WAR IS CRUEL AND BARBARIC
      >THE SOLIDERS SUFFERED A LOT
      >WAR IS NOT NOBLE AND ADVENTUROUS
      Can’t believe people still fall for this gnomish meme

      • #187792
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >what a Great War. Sure am glad I went.

        • #187793
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Those are rare cases. Regardless, they can just put an end to their suffering by going back to war and dying.

        • #187799
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Disabled vets, even horribly disfigured one tend to have complicated views on their wartime experiences. Very rarely do they actually regret serving.

      • #187794
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The wars were literally orchestrated by garden gnomes to kill off Europeans who would otherwise have made offspring. You are a shabbos goy.

        • #187807
          Anonymous
          Guest

          War creates inovation. Europe prospered due to constant war. Europe is now gay due to the EU. Verdun was good fun for everyone involved.

    • #187795
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s simple.
      It doesn’t.

    • #187796
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because there are many ghosts that were spawn out of WWI

    • #187798
      Anonymous
      Guest

      ww1 was great and should never have ended

    • #187802
      Mrrandom
      Guest

      Because before world war 1 Europe was at the very top. Scientifically and economically and culturally and militarily. After world war 1 that all went away and it lost its soul through so much blood shed

      • #187811
        Anonymous
        Guest

        WWI was the suicide of Europe

    • #187803
      Ramrod1644
      Guest

      Despicable injuries in WWI. Not that WWII was a joy. However WWI with gas, trench diseases, catastrophic injuries, poor medical care, made survival from wounds an incalculable horror.

    • #187805
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Stagnation of the western front I’d say.
      Even the Africa campaign, for whatever value there was in holding it, saw land change hands a lot faster than the trench warfare of France.

    • #187809
      Anonymous
      Guest

      worse cameras

    • #187810
      Anonymous
      Guest

      But who was to blame for the shit kicking off?

    • #187812
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No antibiotics and limited access to medicine. Much higher mortality rate from preventable disease. Injuries left you scarred for life if they didn’t kill you outright.

    • #187813
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The postwar literature. WWI came to be seen by all its combatants as a pointless slog that made the world a much worse place. WWII could be painted as a noble if bloody cause that saved the world from Ultimate Evil (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan).

Viewing 36 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id