A front line soldier on the western front in ww1 vs a front line soldier on the eastern front in ww2
Which was more horrible?
>>566801
THE LATTER; WHILST BOTH ARE OVERLY SORDID AND MISERABLE SITUATIONS, IN THE FORMER ONE COULD HAVE INTERMITTENT RESPITE.
>>566801
A frontline soldier in the Eastern Front during WW1 had it worse than of the Western counterpart.
West in WW1 obviously.
Eastern front in WW2 was brutal and cold in winter but otherwise normal combat. No mustard gas, no being trapped in the mud, no running out over barbed wire straight into machine gun and mortar fire and getting mowed down by the thousands every day or getting your face blown off by a shell.
in the first one I could surrender. In the second one I couldn't
>>566801
WW2. While a ww1 soldier could at least anknowledge the fact that his family and friends would be relatively safe from civilian attacks, Russian, German, Hungarian, Slovak, and Romanian soldiers alike in ww2 would almost certainly have a civilian they know slaughtered, their women raped, and their cities reduced to burnt husks.
>>566823
Hey, how is the Phantom time reading going?
I tried reading the book by that Russian man and it made my head hurt.
east ww2
WWI Western Front trenches were probably some of the worst conditions that have ever existed for soldiers.
>b-b-but muh WW2 Russian Winters!
Oh fuck off you little piss boy. People didn't drown in mud.
>>567593
People totally drowned in mud on the eastern front.
Do you even Rasputitsa?
>>566969
Wrong
Massive amounts of death on the eastern front were the result of mass shelling.
Running over barbed wire into machinegun fire happened in WW2 too, the Germans just got better at it, plus communication and better tactics make it possible to overcome statically entrenched forces.
In the first world war you only spent 2 or 3 weeks at the trenches at a time and then spent 2 or 3 weeks home or in civilian areas.
>>567593
Again wrong
All of those conditions occurred on the eastern front too, with better artillery and the spectre of air power and tanks looming. People actually did drown trying to traverse swamps.
You're thread is shit, MODS!!
>>567593
good thing the soldiers only spent a fraction of time in frontline trenches then
>>567112
>I could surrender
And there would be almost nothing stopping them from shooting you on the spot. Sure, sometimes they would take you prisoner. A lot of times they didn't want to spend time feeding you and walking you miles back to be held. And even if they did start walking you back, they might get fed up or decide to take some revenge.
>you only spent 2 or 3 weeks
If you got lucky. Only the Germans really kept a proper schedule for this
>>567598
>>567599
>muh swamps
In WWI it was a common experience to see men slowly sinking into the mud. Just because it happened on the Eastern Front doesn't mean it was nearly as big of a problem or casualty causer.
Also people die traversing swamps in AND out of war
>>566969
Eastern front had everything that you excluded except for mustard gas.
>Read moar XD
>>567599
> plus communication and better tactics make it possible to overcome statically entrenched forces.
Plus logistics. Tactically, it was very easy to overcome fortified positions in WWI. Turning that into operational and strategic success was the trick.
>>567606
OK, if it was such a significant experience, how many losses were due to mud on the Western Front?
>>567620
>thinking it's possible to have reliable numbers for this
You can read pretty much every memoir, and history book that goes into anything with casualties, and every single one of them will mention men drowning in mud.
>>567630
OK. I asked for statistics. 1 in 10? 1 in 5? Was it 100,000 or a million?
>>567634
And I said I can't give them to you, because there is literally no way to count how many men did.
I mean, i can go back and try to reread every memoir and count them all, but you'll have to give me a few days.
>>567636
>And I said I can't give them to you, because there is literally no way to count how many men did.
Modern statistics were already invented. We could count, or at least approximate, how many men died from artillery fire, from gas, from disease, from particular diseases, why not mud?
>I mean, i can go back and try to reread every memoir and count them all
OK, I'll make this simple. How many thousands of memoirs have you read?
>>566801
It's extremely common, if not universal, that the soldier as an individual fears maiming and dismemberment over death. WW1 was unique in that casualties due to fragments (artillery and mortars) was as high as 70 to 95 percent.
It was the horrible culmination of technological advancements in artillery and ballistic science that worked to ensure maximum damage to the enemy while advancements in
medicine prevented what was surely a merciful, welcomed death.
>>567643
>Modern statistics were already invente
Because you can't make guesses. Modern =/= reliable. They could be counted as missing, blown apart, deserted, or captured. To even estimate would be a fools errand. Not to mention just general laziness and men who STILL haven't been found. If you go through records and they know who did actually did die in the mud, they would write it down, but still no reliable statistic has been published. To even ask that just seems to me you don't understand how record keeping and the military work
>OK, I'll make this simple. How many thousands of memoirs have you read?
That will prove literally nothing you WWII fanboy. Go masturbate to pictures of the Battle of Leningrad or something
>566969
>Eastern front in WW2
>no being trapped in the mud
wat
>>567651
> To even estimate would be a fools errand. Not to mention just general laziness and men who STILL haven't been found.
>I don't know how statistics work.
OK, so following this methodology, it is impossible to know that more people died of drowning in mud on the western front of WWI than the Eastern Front of WWII.
Hell, it's impossible to tell that more people died of drowning in mud in either of these than in the Africa theater of WWII, or the China campaign of WWI.
>To even ask that just seems to me you don't understand how record keeping and the military work
Generally speaking, militaries take some interest in what removes men from action. See, they want to win wars, and to do that, it's usually a good idea to make sure as many of the enemy dies as possible, and as few of your men die as possible.
Now, the fact that you think that the military gathers its statistics by gathering every single instance of something, and counting exactly that, tells me YOU don't understand how record keeping and the military work.
Do you think before the Battle of Passchendaele, they went up to each individual soldier, counted him up, and asked him how many bullets he would need for the battle?
And if they didn't, do you think they labeled that laziness. Do you think they decided to even estimate how many bullets would be required would be a fools errand?
>That will prove literally nothing
It is the entire basis of your methodology. Your entire argument is "Every memoir I've read contains a reference to it." So how many memoirs have you fucking read. Because I can think of some pretty prominent ones you haven't.
>WWII fanboy. Go masturbate to pictures of the Battle of Leningrad or something
You are so emotionally invested in this topic, that you cannot believe anyone would even have a reason to question this narrative except for emotive reasons.
