For you people in a single image, what define The First World War?
/his/ is like 25% WW1/WW2 photos.
Jesus Christ.
>>941427
German soldiers trying to save a Frenchman from drowning in a mudd hole.
Because of how the people that killed each other really didn't have any reasons to hate each other.
>>941437
that's touching
the vacant depression filled beady eyes of this young anonymous british soldier
Have you guys ever read this one?
Think you may like it.
>>941427
>>941437
Fuck that hits home.
>>941437
Why do we let them make us hate
>>941575
There's actually a chance they just shot him, out of mercy, as was often done with people caught in mud holes.
>>941540
Are these 2 different countries graveyards?
>>941427
>>941584
I think WWI would be the worst conflict to be a soldier in, truly mindblowing what a combatant on either sides went through on the trenches let alone the horror of going across no-mans land.
>>941609
I think of it this way.
World war 1 is the demise of "gentlemanly conflict", the polite soldier who mans up and goes a-marching to fight for god, king and country. This soldier is essentially in melancholic anguish at the result of the industrial age's capacity for warfare. You have moments of this gentlemaness and the old honor ideal peek out once in a while (the christmas trench ceasefire, the calvary charges etc), but it slowly and agonizingly exits the world stage over the 5 year period.
World War 2 is essentially human nature at its most savage and barbaric, with the insane technological capacity to wipe out not just the lives of soldiers, but of the millions and millions of civilians as well. No honor remains, only the notion of total war against everyone and everything that stands in your way.
To see which one is more tragic, that's a personal opinion thing. You either think the pointless and idiotic war with the last echoes of a dying paradigm peek through is the worst, or you think the utter cruelty as a result of a hardened humanity is far more horrifying.
>>941673
>gentlemanly conflict
That sort of shit is a meme and always was. Take the 30 years war for example and how many civilians it slaughtered.
This is the image that really hammers home how different WW1 was from any other conflict in histroy
>>941692
It was the death of the idea, reality has always been brutal
>>941437
>Because of how the people that killed each other really didn't have any reasons to hate each other.
Nationalism in a nutshell
>>941609
>let alone the horror of going across no-mans land
Could you elaborate?
>>941715
>it was the death of the idea
No it wasn't. The same people went right back and did it again not even 20 years later with all the same enthusiasm and pride.
>>941735
Walking in lined waves into direct machine gun fire with little or next to no cover.
Having to dig into mud that has been saturated with water and blood from fallen men. As well as burying into ground mixed with decomposing corpses.
Risk of slipping into mud-holes and drowning in pools of rotting, stagnant water. Having to be shot by fellow soldiers or enemy soldiers out of compassion.
Gas attacks, which in the earlier stages of the war meant an almost certain slow and painful death as effective gas masks hadn't been issued.
High risk of being hit by artillery fire, which if you were lucky would kill you instantly and not have you losing a limb or receiving shrapnel wounds that would lead you bleeding to death.
If you made to the enemy trench, hand to hand combat with whatever you had at your disposal - the rifles issued on both sides weren't particularly useful at close quarters in trenches.
Also, if you survived this there's a high chance you'd eventually end up with a mental disorder of which at the time was looked down upon by commanders and the public who didn't understand it or have to do it all again until you'd end up with what i've just mentioned, wounded and sent home or dead. I don't know of the percentage of combatants in 1914 who were alive by the end of the war in 1918.
>>941715
Actually, the idea itself only came up then. Perhaps to a certain extent in the Napoleonic wars and the conflicts in-between that and the first world war already. Before, war was pretty much considered the business of the dregs of society. It was considered dirty work, done mostly by mercenaries, rascals, fortune-seekers, outcasts, etc. Glory was only to be found by the participating aristocrats.
>>941817
Ah, ok. Now I understand.
>>941609
Gotta agree with this one. In World War II you at least have the dignity of dying pretty quickly and likely a hero. Any war before World War I and you die in line formation like a fucking gentleman. But in World War I, you just kinda sit there for awhile and wait for one side to run out of guys, hoping you're in the reserves. If you die, well, at least your grave was already dug for you.
This picture defines WWI for me a lot, mostly because I've seen it a fair few times but also because it showcases two big advancements of the war in the MGs and the gas.
The death of a generation.
For me, private postcards--that is, photos taken by individuals and turned into postcards to send home to the folks--have the greatest poignancy.
>>941817
>I don't know of the percentage of combatants in 1914 who were alive by the end of the war in 1918.
Low. The British standing army at the start of the war was non-existent by the end
>>941856
>>941862
>>941856
>>941862
>>941867
>>941871
>>941878
>>941878
I like this one
>>941864
It's what I assumed, just never had any statistics to back it. At the time it wouldn't surprise me if they intentionally didn't take statistics on this as to not impact morale or to be used by anti-war public in future conflicts.
Have been told one statistic though, although i'm not sure of it's accuracy, that the average lifespan of a machine-gunner in a British MG team in no-mans land in 1917 was 11 minutes.
THEME SOUNDTRACK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mVNMS-GRng
>>941817
>Walking in lined waves into direct machine gun fire with little or next to no cover.
aka
>I don't know shit about WW1
Bodies upon bodies upon bodies.
>>941590
french on the left with crosses, Commonwealth on the right
anything where a doge is wearing a gas mask
>>942556
to be fair the british army did try this on day one of the somme. not because of muh glory but it was assumed the german trenches would have been pulverised by the 5 or 6 day artillery barrage that preceded it
>>942772
Not that guy but its true that military strategy had not caught up with the technological advance in the first WW. I mean generals still desperatly tried to use their cavalry despite the advent of the maxim gun or trench warfare when mustard gas was used.
No other war I know of had that problem and hence non seem so senseless in the casualties that occured.
>>942805
Context for this pic? Seem like germans
>>941871
Aldo the Apache?
>>942984
Royal Saxon Uhlans wearing gasmasks
>>942805
It seems like the horses should have eye protection.
>>942984
German shock cavalry during the first world war. They didnt see alot of action because they had to be kept well away from artillery fire and rarely made it in time when a breakthrough was achieved in enemy lines.
Armies didn´t want to let go of their cavalry just yet as it has always served them well (after Crimea it became clear that they would fade into logistics) and "armored" cars may have been produced but tanks were not yet widespread because they sought the decisive victory a flanking cavalry promised (as it historically used to be the case) and the glory that followed.
Just like armies insisted on bayonets because the pike served so well in earlier wars and apart from ceremonial/officers swords was the only melee weapon that had not died out yet.
Nostalgia that served nobody and even the nazis had a cavalry division that as soon as they could bolster their numbers with tanks handed over their horses to infantry units as cars were not produced in sufficient numbers and not always offroad capable (enough).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_%28Wehrmacht%29
An often forgotten fact that horses were the backbone of logistics in the day and Poland had a shitton of them...
>>942803
you know how many battalions of the eighty involved in the first attack walked (and indeed for reasons you outlined, not because they were retards or anything) - or rather "advanced at a steady pace"?
twelve
out of eighty
over fifty crawled through no mans land and then stormed the enemy trenches, some dozen rushed from their own trenches, and for half a dozen we do not have records
There's not just the battles though to consider as to why it was so horrible. It was the day to day life. Imagine spending your whole rotation at the front, sitting around in this horrible, hellish, muddy landscape where nature all around has been killed. You can't eat without your dinner coming out the other side as just brown water. You're itching from the lice but there's no way to get rid of them. Out in no-mans-land are the carcasses of men, blown to pieces and torn up by artillery and machineguns. Some may even be your friends. But you can't get to them, you need to stay low or a sniper will have your head.
There's a reason the term "wastage" was coined for the thousands of men daily when an attack wasn't taking place.
>>942805
>Not that guy but its true that military strategy had not caught up with the technological advance in the first WW. I mean generals still desperatly tried to use their cavalry despite the advent of the maxim gun or trench warfare when mustard gas was used.
that's such a... non-statement?
you know when the leadership had some trouble figuring things out? in the first weeks of the war when the relatively new forms of warfare clashed for the first time, and here's a protip: the war would last a few more years than that
do you know why they tried to use cavalry? because cavalry was the only form of highly mobile forces available, and incidentally, highly mobile forces are, you know, a thing that all sides involved were in desperate need of, also you seem to be ignoring the entirety of the highly mobile eastern front with millions of troops and widespread use of cavalry
and finally the "senseless in the casualties that occured" bit is not down to any ridiculous notion of "muh offense not catching up to defense", but down to the harsh realities of a total war of materiel and attrition
>>943646
>that's such a... non-statement
If you dont know what eighter were sure.
Cavalry charges through lines pounded by artillery was often tried and failed miserably on the western front because they were cut down charging over the relatively open nomansland which they had to reach first. As mobile as they were it was rarely enough to even reach the breached trenches before reenforcements arrived as the cavalry had to be kept out of range of the artillery until called in.
The mustard gas (heavier than air) would gather in the trenches and even those with gasmasks were often forced to higher ground and that sometimes meant out of the trenches and foxholes.
This and more makes many deaths in hindsight seem senseless to us because so many casualties could been reduced were it not for tactics like mass charges that should have had no place in the 20th century.
The horror
>>941817
>I don't know of the percentage of combatants in 1914 who were alive by the end of the war in 1918.
Between 12-15% of all combatants died, depending on the country. Belgium got "lucky" and only lost 4%. Don't have a clue on the wounded, that number must have been pretty high as well.
>>943840
>(specific type of) invention is invented, making possible an activity that only other animals enjoyed for thousands of years while humans looked on with awe and envy
>not one score years after its invention, the invention is effectively made to serve warfare
>the history of the invention is inseparable from its application in warfare
Way to fucking go, humans.
>>941437
Reminds me of Paul saving the French soldier's life in All Quiet on the Western Front.
>>941726
>Nationalism means hating other nations XD
Ebin
>>941437
the working class was armed, working together, and was birthing internationalism
we were so close
>>941735
No-Man's land was full of mines and barbed wire. Machine/ Gatling guns and snipers could take you out before you reached the other side.
>>942556
The American army did this but not in No Man's land. On their way to the trenches, the Germans usually had snipers and machine guns waiting for them.
>>941427
>>941540
Just one big crucifx garden
>>941472
>Anonymous
You know fine rightly that's Mosley.
>>941437
Fucking Passchendaele
>>946610
Shit looks surreal.
>>945503
I don't know, that's a little like saying a Boat is inseparable from war. Obviously it has it's application in warfare, including "he who controls the skies controls the war", but one of the first things that comes to mind isn't a stealth fighter or something, but a Boeing.
>>943827
>were it not for tactics like mass charges that should have had no place in the 20th century.
At a certain point you don't have many options.
When flanking your enemy isn't an option, and you're facing one long fortified front-line, you need to break through it. You do that by trying to breach it at a weak point, but even a weak point is defensible against a large number of soldiers thanks to machineguns.
Alternatives like creeping barrages and tanks were developed, but you can't expect them to be developed and adopted instantaneously.
What should've happened to avoid Verdun being such a shitshow?
>>947110
>>947147
Fuck you too, Entente.
i dont think theres a part of history which is more warped in the minds and misconceptions of the plebeian amateur than good old great war ;_;
>>943827
I saw in The Great War youtube channel, that the russians did, indeed, successfully charged the germans allowing their own armies to retreat.
i don't remember at which battle, but it was early on.
>>946822
I don't agree. When I think of the history of aviation in general terms, its military aspect very readily comes to mind.
>>946239
That picture is horrifying
>when the shellshock hits
>>941540
The fact that not everyone got buried cause there corpse was left to rot or be blown up in the battlefield terrifies me.
>>953014
Thats just a dirty guy smiling for the camera
>>953030
Why? Whats so important about being buried?
>>943646
Cavalry was shit dude. That's why the tank got invented. The army wanted something that could survive crossing no-man's land cause the infantry and cavalry always got blasted to bits for meager advances.
>>953014
>>953047
>Thats just a dirty guy smiling for the camera
This, it's taken completely out of context. His eyes look creepy, but even modern cameras can have that red-eye effect.
>>953050
That graveyard would be way bigger. Thats not the true indication of the amount of dead soldiers.
>>953074
That picture is associated with shellshock. Unless you can provide the actual context of the picture.
>>953050
It was a huge thing to Victorian-era parents (of all classes), who were much more 'churchy' than now. Not to have a body to grieve, never certain if he was killed, or if he lives somewhere, memory gone due to shell shock, or misidentified. Uncertainty, then as now, was the worst state to be in.
“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.
“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide."
This is why the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was set up: their brief, then as now, was to commemorate the memory of *every* British Empire soldier, body or not, Christian or not, white or not, officer or man, aristocrat or pleb. Every single one, by name.
They passed a rule that no family could repatriate their dead son/brother/husband's body to England, because otherwise all the rich and aristocratic would bring them home, while the poor had no way of affording a grave.
Each tombstone is identical (apart from decorations like regiment, or a religious symbol). Each family was allowed 80 characters to put a message on the stone.
Cities of the dead.
>>941427
The barren wasteland that used to be countryside.
>>953077
They give crosses for the unrecovered dead as well, there are many many cemetaries
>>953061
>Cavalry was shit dude.
On the western front. On the eastern front cavalry was still completely viable and played a huge role in Russia's breakthrough success during the Brusilov Offensive.
>That's why the tank got invented.
No, it wasn't. Cavalry in the 20th century was seen as a means of exploiting a breakthrough, for running down an enemy after the front had already been broken (As stated before, they performed this role perfectly well on the Eastern Front, unlike the Western front, where no breakthrough materialized). Tanks (which, prior to the FT-17 and whippet couldn't be compared with cavalry at all) were intended to press a breakthrough.
>>953082
>That picture is associated with shellshock.
There's no contextual proof that it has anything to do with shellshock anymore than there is proof that it doesn't.
>>953074
>everyone one wounded
>medics here to help
>some dude crouched down smiling for the military reporter in 1914-1918
Prove it's just some guy smiling for a reporter.
>>953099
>everyone one wounded
It's a medical station. Why not use the fact that a military hospital is filled with the wounded to argue that everyone there suffers from shell shock?
There's no conclusive reason to believe it's just some guy smiling for a reporter, but there's no conclusive reason to believe it's someone suffering from shell shock.
>>953087
Here is a Commonwealth War Graves form (this example from WW2).
There is a message on the back, scrawled in pencil.
>>953105
>medical station
>0 medical equipment
>>953113
They sure aren't bandaging those wounds with tissue paper.
>>953108
Here is the back.
That scrawled message is from the 22 year-old soldier's mother, deciding what to put on his headstone in Italy (which she would never see).
She lived until the late 1990s. Never stopped grieving for her boy Jackie. After her death, the family found a box of photos and documents under her bed, including letters home from Jackie.
>>953113
Its probably an aid station near the front, where else would you find 3 medics in the same spot?
>>953113
You're still not proving in any way that the soldier is suffering from shell shock.
>>953096
Then how come you have the guts to say there's no context for shellshock when you can't prove your stance either?
The end of an era.
>>953091
I was talking about the western front. I know they performed well in the eastern front. At that point of time, due to the western front, it was evident that cavalry was a relic of the past. They were practically useless. Just as you said, they could never perform their intended role and they neither could contribute to the current situation cause they'll just get blasted to bits.
>>953131
according to >>953074, I
a) agreed with the other poster, who said that "that's just a dirty guy smiling for the camera", because that's all we know and the guy is clearly smiling at the camera
b) it's taken completely out of context, because it's often used as a proof that it's shell shock when there is conclusive no evidence that this is the case and
c) those creepy eyes is just as likely to be a result of the camera as it is of any physiological issue.
I have the guys to say that there is no contextual evidence for you saying that it's shell shock because there isn't. I can easily prove there is no contextual evidence for shell shock because there are more than enough people being wounded smiling at cameras while in a dressing station who might not be suffering from shellshock to take it as conclusive evidence of anything.
>>953150
I don't give a shit about the other pictures. I want to know about that one specifically since you are maintaining your stance on that speific picture. I want to know sources or accounts of the photographer.
>but first prove that it's shellshock
I acknowledge that I can't prove it but I am willing to read what you say so that my mind can be changed but I want sources.
>you're an autist,etc
Yeah I am
>>953167
No one is definitely saying that he does not have shellshock, just that there is no reason to assume he does. Denying a claim is not the same as making a counter-claim
>>953167
>I want to know about that one specifically since you are maintaining your stance on that speific picture.
I'm maintaining the stance that there's no evidence that it's shell-shock that causes that man to smile. I can't really prove a negative, the position is valid as long as there is no evidence that it IS shell-shock.
>I want to know sources or accounts of the photographer.
I don't think I have either, we just know it's a soldier being treated at Flers-Courcelette in September 1916. But unless you have some compelling proof from said photographer that it IS shell-shock, there is no real reason to conclusively say it is.
>>953182
I even acknowledged that I can't find the sources but that I'm willing to listen. Instead, I'm just initially being told "it can be assumed so with my assumption you're wrong" and now "well prove it" after I asked for proofs.
>>953197
You want proof that it cant be proven he has shellshock?
>>953197
Okay, then I take back whatever words you are clearly misunderstanding here and I'll repeat what i mean.
-There is no evidence that says this is definitely shell-shock.
-There is no evidence that says this is definitely not shell-shock.
-You aren't wrong in that it's definitely NOT shellshock, you are wrong in that you're assuming it IS shellshock without evidence.
-As there is no evidence that it definitely is shell shock and there's no evidence that it definitely is not, it is incorrect or at least completely unsubstantiated to say with any definiteness that he is suffering from said shell shock.
-As such, until we have that evidence, he's just a dirty guy smiling at the camera.
>>953205
It IS taken out of context, because it's interpreted as shell-shock when there is no evidence of it.
>whereas here says it's something else
He can be a shell-shocked dirty guy smiling for the camera. But until we have proof of that, he really is just a dirty guy smiling for the camera. That's it. My statement and that anon's statement is still correct.
>>953228
What?
>>943644
I wouldn't cope with an itchy ass from all the unwiped shit, let alone the actual war
>>953135
>"I wish I was at home playing video games"
what did queen victoria mean by this?
>>953230
Initially I did assume that it was shellshock but I then became curious and stated that I wanted to know more cause the initial post says that it's taken out of context. Now I got this huge ass post saying that my intial stance is out of context despite the fact that the circumstances of the picture and the era it was taken led me to that conclusion. Since both of our scenarios can't be proven, what gives you the right to say you're right and I'm wrong?
>>953268
Christ mate, let's look at it this way.
Let's say we have a completely opaque jar full of marbles of different colors. Someone else takes one out, puts it into a sealed opaque, empty box and puts it in front of us without either of us seeing. Neither of us are allowed to open the box or know what's inside. I tell you that the marble inside is definitely green based on the "circumstances" (I don't know, the guy who took the marble out likes green). You tell me that it's logically incorrect to say this without any evidence. You're not saying that the marble inside isn't green, but without opening the box we can neither prove that it is green or it isn't.
You don't "need" proof that it's wrong to say that it's definitely green without more evidence, because that's basic logic - it's wrong to assert a fact to be true without evidence. Until I can provide clear evidence that the marble inside is green, you are correct by default in saying that I can't logically make that assumption.
This is just like that. We don't have proof that he's shell shocked or that he's not. But just as you would be correct in saying that we can't assume the marble is green unless the box is opened and we can see the marble, I am correct in saying that we can't assume he's shell-shocked unless there is definitive proof he is shell-shocked.
>>941437
So people legitimately got stuck in mud and had to be shot out of mercy?
I'm having a hard time picturing this, and why they could not be dug out.
>>953297
Dude I haven't rebuked the fact that neither of us are wrong. In order to better clarify my recent question,since I did not word it properly , I asked why my interpretation is out of context even though most people, including me, got to that conclusion through the context of the picture.
>>953321
>I asked why my interpretation is out of context even though most people, including me, got to that conclusion through the context of the picture.
What circumstances do you see pointing to him definitely being shell-shocked?
Being a soldier? There are many soldiers who didn't suffer from shell shock.
Smiling in a trench? He seems to be in a dressing station at a rear trench getting his wounds tended to , that seems a pretty good reason for relief. You wouldn't see this in the normal picture that's posted, pic related, which just seems to be him huddling in a trench.
It's World War I? It's not like anything close to the entirety of the soldiers of the first world war suffered from shell shock.
There's just no piece of contextual evidence that allows you to conclude that it definitely is shell-shock. Unfortunately, many people online state it as fact, and it's wrong to assume this or say this because there simply is no evidence for it.
>>953334
Yes, being a soldier is one reason why. Besides nurses, soldiers had a high chance of getting it. And it was a significant number of soldiers who got it.
Regarding the smile, yes. Due to the angle and expression, it's a fucking weird smile. Most people don't have that kind of face when they smile. Both in the larger picture that shows more of the surroundings and in this closeup picture, his smile is eery.
Yes, world war 1. It's the war in which put more into the spotlight the mental conditions of the soldier.
Lastly, shellshock isn't just limited to soldiers walking around trembling and moving all jittery.
Seems to me more like you refuse to acknowledge the fact that it could be shell shock for some reason. Like in this post, you initially say,"neither of us are right" and then the second part says,"I'm right and you're wrong"
>>953364
>Yes, being a soldier is one reason why. Besides nurses, soldiers had a high chance of getting it. And it was a significant number of soldiers who got it.
Significant but hardly the majority and certainly not enough to be consclusive evidence.
>Regarding the smile, yes. Due to the angle and expression, it's a fucking weird smile.
There are tons of unphotogenic people who don't suffer from shell-shock.
>Most people don't have that kind of face when they smile.
Most people aren't being photographed from the top of a trench by cameras that required you to stay still.
>his smile is eery.
pure opinion and not a basis for arguing it's shell-shock
>Yes, world war 1. It's the war in which put more into the spotlight the mental conditions of the soldier.
Firstly, no, that would be Vietnam. Secondly, even if it were true, the fact that shell-shock was noticed more doesn't mean that it occured at any higher a rate than in previous wars.
>Lastly, shellshock isn't just limited to soldiers walking around trembling and moving all jittery.
Sure, but that doesn't constitute any kind of evidence.
>Seems to me more like you refuse to acknowledge the fact that it could be shell shock for some reason
It seems to me like you're not reading the post properly. I'm not saying it's definitely not shell shock.
I'm saying that it's wrong for you to say it's definitely IS shell-shock. These are not the same things. I am saying it COULD be shell-shock, but you are wrong in saying without proper evidence that it IS.
>Like in this post, you initially say,"neither of us are right
No, I never said that.
>and then the second part says,"I'm right and you're wrong"
That's what the whole thing says. Unless you have proof that it definitely IS shell-shock, I'm right in saying you're wrong to jump to conclusions and say it is without any evidence. It COULD be shell-shock, and that's all you can say.
>>941483
>>953380
Significant enough to make people assume it could be shell shock.
Doesn't matter whether a person is photogenic or not, the face isn't normal.
And that's why I said the angle gives the face an uncanny appearence.
Opinion, perhaps. Doesn't changes the fact that the face isn't normal.
Are you really that daft? There are numerous accounts from people of that era who describe it. It even has been described in books, poems, art,etc. There are even films made from that era showing soldiers who suffer from shell shock. Up to that point in time, people assumed shell shock was something made up but due to high numbers of it occurring that people began to study it. World war I is the origin of the term she'll shock. By the time Vietnam War came along, it was described in a different term and it's now called PTSD. World war I exposed to the world the psychological impact of war to the soldier in great numbers.
Yes, like I said, shell shock has various symptoms.
Seems to me more like you aren't even reading what I'm writing. I have stated multiple time that IN THE BEGINNING I BELIEVED COMPLETELY IT WAS SHELLSHOCK. My recent posts have shown that it is no longer the case but I can still make the conclusion due to the picture's circumstances.
No shit you didn't say those exact words but that's the summary. You yourself have said that each of us can't prove what we think of the picture.
You are the one that is denying the reasons that can make a person assume that it can be shell shock. Just as you have the reasons to say that it can be a simple picture, I have stated why it can be shell shock based on the picture. But you say it can't be shell shock even though you yourself can't prove it's not shell shock. Thus, making it unreasonable to say you're right and I'm wrong.
>>953061
>cause the infantry and cavalry always got blasted to bits for meager advances.
>always
only a sith deals in absolutes
>>953481
>Significant enough to make people assume it could be shell shock.
no, not at all. If the majority of soldiers did not suffer from shell-shock and we took a random smiling soldier there is more reason to think he is not shell-shocked than to think he were.
>Doesn't matter whether a person is photogenic or not, the face isn't normal
>Opinion, perhaps. Doesn't changes the fact that the face isn't normal.
If you admit it is an opinion than there it clearly isn't objective evidence.
>And that's why I said the angle gives the face an uncanny appearence.
I'm glad you're trying to explain away your own views.
>Seems to me more like you aren't even reading what I'm writing. I have stated multiple time that IN THE BEGINNING I BELIEVED COMPLETELY IT WAS SHELLSHOCK. My recent posts have shown that it is no longer the case but I can still make the conclusion due to the picture's circumstances.
And I am saying you are still wrong to do so because you do not have enough definitive evidence to make that conclusion. The best you could say is maybe that it's "probably" shell-shock, but even that is subjective conjecture.
>You are the one that is denying the reasons that can make a person assume that it can be shell shock.
I am not denying that it COULD be shell-shock, but you would be wrong for saying that it IS shell shock.
>But you say it can't be shell shock
Must I quote EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE MADE SAYING THAT I AM NOT SAYING IT'S NOT SHELL SHOCK? Here
>>953380
>It COULD be shell-shock, and that's all you can say.
>>953230
>He can be a shell-shocked dirty guy smiling for the camera. But until we have proof of that, he really is just a dirty guy smiling for the camera.
>>953096
>There's no contextual proof that it has anything to do with shellshock anymore than there is proof that it doesn't.
Please, get that through your head. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS NOT SHELL SHOCKED, I AM SAYING YOU CAN'T ASSUME HE IS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
>>953380
why do you even bother with that guy he's being obtuse on purpose
FUCK ALL OF YOU AUTISMAL FUCKHEADS BITCHING ABOUT WHAT EACH OTHER HAS TO SAY ABOUT ONE MOTHERFUCKING PICTURE. YOU'RE DERAILING A GOOD THREAD.
>>953498
Yes, cause world war I is known for giving a lot of soldiers shell shock. Why the hell do you think people assumed the soldier could have shell shock?
Dude, no matter how you look at it, that face is not normal. People usually don't go around smiling like maniacs.
Wow. I said from the beginning that the picture gave the man that appearence. I don't see how that translates to me contracting myself. Looks more like you're trying to find ways to nitpick what I post.
How can I be wrong to reach the conclusion if you don't know either? I have said that I am using circumstantial evidence to reach my conclusion and I am not even saying it IS shell shock. I'm saying that a person can reach that conclusion by looking at the picture.
You are the one that is continously denying circumstantial evidence of the picture that a person can use to reach that conclusion. Get through your head that a person can reach to that conclusion by looking at the picture. Could it be shell shock? Who knows since we don't have the accounts. But by looking at the image, a person can reach to that conclusion since it shows world war I(a war that is infamous for having shell shock), shit trenches, and a soldier making a face, although it's a smile, isn't natural.
>>953566
I understand that they appear all the time, but I don't have internet where I live, so I have to enjoy it while I can. Also, I really like this board and I don't want it to end up like /pol/
>>953582
Shit that sucks. And don't worry, this board has been around for some months and its more rational regarding history.
Ur all wrong.
>>953589
So I've noticed, I haven't really been going on any other board since discovering this one.
Also, this is possibly WWII, but it seems to fit with much of the other pictures.
>>953599
It's world war I during the Christmas truce.
>>953606
Thanks man. I saved it from a thread where the poster just claimed it was a German sharing a cig with a captured British soldier.
>Inb4 another debate over the nature of one specific picture
>>942805
That pic is mine, the lancers with gasmasks is a perfect metephor for the transition that WW1 was between the old and the new.
Men started that war with fighting with pressed, colorful uniforms waving flags and massing across open ground, like a slightly updated version of Waterloo. And they ended it with tanks and air support and in some cases mechanized infantry in an early form of combined arms warfare.
>>953662
>Men started that war with fighting with pressed, colorful uniforms waving flags and massing across open ground, like a slightly updated version of Waterloo.
That is doing an extreme disservice bordering on the ridiculous to the hundred years of military development since Waterloo. The 1870 war was nothing like Waterloo, so why would a war forty years later be like that? Waterloo saw line infantry with muskets operating in large close order units still reign supreme, by the second half of the 19th century, open order platoons armed with rifles and making use of cover, covering fire and maneuver were all the order of the day.
>>953689
Making a generalization and some exaggeration, but look at how the french fought in 1914. Now kindly fuck off.
>>953710
>but look at how the french fought in 1914
Nothing like they fought at Waterloo.
>>953721
Massed infantry with bright blue uniforms attacking open ground has a hell of a lot more in common with 1815 than with 1918. They even had cuirassiers.
I already said its a generalisation, i dont give a fuck about details right now you autist. You are not providing me with anything I dont know.
>>953122
That is heart breaking, she realises/is told she has gone over 60 letters and has to decide what to leave out
BOOTS MOVING UP AND DOWN
>>953662
fucking idiot, go open a history book. Germans and Brits had grey and khaki uniforms respectively, only the French started the war with ridiculous red and blue uniforms, with white caps and gloves for officers.
>>941694
>all those toilet paper rolls
Must have been taco night in the trenches
its not an image
its a song about knowing youll die here, far away from home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV3sEU-JBI8
>>954110
Thats exactly what I said fucktard. I specifically mentioned France. Kill yourself.
>>943840
Almost definitely shopped.
>>953122
Damn... You can see how her hand was shaking while she was writing this note...
Has there ever been a war with worse leadership?
>>953303
I can see two reason for that being the case.
That people getting stuck in the no mans land meant trying to save them would endanger the lifes of several others..
And that if you tried to dig him out every time you removed mud, posdibly, more could pour in to replace it. Will have to research it.
truly a world war
>>953122
Brutal...
>>958723
Why exactly would you single out this particular war?
>>953135
>2 Empires crippled, 3 destroyed.
>>942770
>checkem.jpg
>>946239
And then you most likely are not able to retrieve his body so you have to sit for weeks in your trench and watch his corpse rot.
