Why were Frenchies, Germans, British and Russians so retarded?
I can't understand that, why would you let so many of your soldiers die in such nonsensical way?
>>79981135
Technology advanced faster than tactics
It has always been this way, it will always be this way
>>79981135
cos feminism
>>79981135
because they hadn't overcome the learning curve of 20th century warfare before going to war, so they played like total noobs wasting troops cause they don't know what to do.
>>79981236
you stupid fuck muritard
all nations involved in WWI had access to equivalent technology and infrastructure to produce it.
>>79981135
It was a war about maneuvering, the problem was when they ran out of room to flank each other.
Then they discovered that machineguns and barbed wire are pretty formidable against massed infantry rushes.
Like in the previous centuries when the meta became pure pikemen and musketmen inside castles.
You needed a cannon to wreck that.
>>79981135
The life of a common soldier was seen as an expendable commodity. I'm a pretty big elitist but even I'll admit that the ruling elites of that time didn't give a flying fuck if local Devon lads were being blown to bits, so long as they advanced 5 miles
>>79981236
But the tactic was to sit on your ass regardless
>>79981371
>all nations involved in WWI had access to equivalent technology and infrastructure to produce it
I think the Frenchies lagged behind the Germans, this is why they got their asses kicked so hard, just like in 1871
>>79981135
Machine guns
Actually in the first days of war, the french tried to fight the germans using napoleonic-era tactics, and they go wooped hard. Without knowing what to do, they trenched up. Then it just happened to continue trenching for the rest of the war.
>>79981135
It's the logical thing to do when manoveurs fail and it becomes a war of attrition. We even had them back in richmond in 1864. Soviets had them at moscow in 41 and the reds had them in madrid in 36.
>>79981352
you stupid fuck Britard
you completely overlook the political/diplomatic situation between the Great Powers at the time.
the problem is NOBODY CARED that millions of men where sent to die. fking feminists didnt care, politicians didnt care, nobody cared.
men where slaughtered against each other in the millions, and NOBODY gave a fuck.
and yet feminists WHINE about "oppression" in this 21st Century?
Too many poors.
Cull through wars.
>>79981135
Hard to maneuver anywhere in that kind of terrain, if you tried they would just relocate the artillery and make the land swamp again.
>>79981654
wew lad
>>79981724
fking cocksucker
bend over and take it in the ass till you die from it
>>79981654
This desu
>>79981614
Frenchies were far more military technological in 1871 than germans and they still got destroyed by prussian plebs
>>79981352
This.
People were still fixated on the rifleman having as much power as accuracy as possible, when this was really not necessary for regular infantry, and it wasn't really until after WW2 when the world started to slowly get a hang of this, after having seen the Germans field assault rifles en mass.
It's just one example of the kind of backwards shit which was thought as obvious back then. People were on the right track with submachineguns but that still wasn't the most useful weapon for a soldier.
Because of not letting officers and lower generals make there own decisions and not using infiltration tactics.
There's something extremely cynical about Verdun
>>79981977
Shit wrong image
>>79981135
Are you really that clueless?
Speaking of WWI, someone mentioned a book a few weeks ago that talked about how this war led to decline of the west. I think they were alluding to a sizable portion of Europe's best genes weren't able to be passed on. Any ideas?
>>79981654
>men where slaughtered against each other in the millions, and NOBODY gave a fuck.
Pretty much.
>>79981236
this guy is actually right. Firepower had eclipsed mobility so the defensive side held the advantage over the attackers. Because of that the armies refused to meet each other in the open field so they fought over tiny advances in gaining land.
This was actually true going as far back as the Civil War with the advent of the minie ball which revolutionized rifles in 1850. Minie balls allowed for far more accurate, far more long-range rifles, to the point where 500 troops carrying traditional muskets could be easily defeated by a hundred or so soldiers with minie balls. The reason that the Civil War wasn't fought in trenches is because it took until the end of the war for generals on either side to understand how deadly and effective the rifle had become. The Battle of Fredericksburg is a notorious example of an absolute slaughter due to Revolutionary war tactics going up against modern rifles, something like 7,000 yankees were gunned down in 20 minutes. But the Siege of Petersburg, in many respects the final major battle of the war, was basically a premonition of WWI. 30 miles of trenches surrounded the cities of Petersburg and Richmond and the battle lasted 9 months. That's very typical of the type of warfare that would come 50 years later in WWI
>>79981236
first post best post
>>79981135
Initially the war was pretty mobile. Germans tried to push into France but the British and French chased them from the German- French border all the way up to the coast. They were left with no more room and with no obvious solution, the only thing they could do was dig in. This resulted in a build up of arms and munitions on the line which then resulted in trenches.
The Germans developed the doctrine of storm troopers which were proving highly effective at taking ground but suffered pretty heavy losses. But as you probably know the rut continued in Western Europe until the British surprised motherfuckers with tanks. Other locations of the war were not like Europe, for example, Arabia and Northern Africa.
They found out the hard way that the same tactics used since the Napoleonic Wars weren't going to work this time against machine guns and more powerful and accurate artillery. When they realized a decisive quick victory wasn't possible they went "Well fuck, lets see if we can win this by attrition while we figure something out."
To be fair, they did get pretty creative with tunneling and planting mines under the enemy's trench, flamethrowers, chemical warfare, armoured vehicles, airplanes, ect.
>>79981947
your shit makes no fking sense, swede fag.
have you ever even held a gun, let alone undergone military training?
no?
then keep to sucking cocks as you know best.
>>79981941
I've read that the Germans had better guns and Frenchies since 1815 are just sad, degenerate people in decline, so Germany had it easy
>>79982124
Well a shit ton of whites died in the war. It was also the war that killed god and the church.
>>79981941
>Frenchies were far more military technological in 1871 than germans
As far as I know thr Prussian army was the most advanced in Europe,and used more artillery than any other nation
>>79981135
For decades the only fighting the European armies did was relatively small scale and usually against unsophisticated people. An entire generation of senior officers advanced their careers under the assumption that a spirited charge of brave men could overcome any defense. This didn't work against modern european armies with millions of men, machine guns, quick firing howitzers, over-the-horizon artillery, and radios and field telephones.
>>79982124
That's a pretty retarded theory.
>>79981135
>im poland im smarter than you !
Why don't we talk about WW1 more often?
>>79981371
>>79981941
they used late 1800s era tactics but with the advent of heavy artillery, aircraft and machienguns all those tactics were useless
>>79981135
Fortified positions with machine guns
limited motorization
poor infrastructure
poor or no armored divisions
poor supply lines for troops
The germans did the best they good at maneuvering but eventually failed to break through due to lack of supplies and primitive motorization. They couldn't win a trench war without tanks and motorization because they were starved out by the british fleet.
These problems were fixed in WW2 and thats why the Germans broke through easily and crushed the French and British still playing by the same rules.
>>79982340
Stop talking about history you don't understand.
Both the German War and the Franco-Prussian War happened not too long before that
>>79982434
Because it was whitewashed by history. No one talks about how it was a war for melanin.
Because the Germans and the Entente ran out of room, basically.
In the beginning it was a manoeuvre war, but after the race to the sea the front line stretched from Switzerland to the coast and there was no part of the line you could flank, so you just had to settle for direct, frontal assaults. You couldn't swing around Switzerland because Italy was neutral, and then when it wasn't neutral its borders were guarded by mountains and fighting a war there was literally hell on Earth, and Austria-Hungary was incompetent anyway to the point where their mountain divisions were wearing cardboard shoes in the fucking snow.
>>79982434
There's no ideological element to it. It's also less sexy.
>>79981135
Pretty baffling that such a destructive war that devasted France, Germany, England, and Russia started over an Austrian duke murdered by a Serbian and somehow Germany took most of the flak.
>>79982434
R3dditors think all /pol/ is good for are Trump memes and YLYL. So that's most of what we get.
>>79982198
Thanks for the info friend
I think im gonna look into the later years of the civil war more
>>79982260
wrong
"storm troopers"/shock troops had existed already for centuries.
see this guy for the essential boiled down problem of WWI, in terms of the military conflict:
>>79981426
and this guy:
>>79982198
the fronts slowed and then consolidated.
the weapons technology at the time and as it developed and became increasingly prevelant, forced this form of warfare.
the insanity in all of that, is that NOBODY GAVE A SHIT that an entire generation of men was wiped out.
this is something feminists will never understand, and why they are never, ever, to be taken seriously.
>>79981135
Firepower technology advanced too rapidly, forcing everything to a standstill. Only after mobility advanced to some degree, with tanks etc, could it become a mobile war.
>>79982286
Yes it fucking does.
Look at the Mauser rifle at the time, high powered 7.92mm cartridge good for 800m and farther.
Problem is, infantry do not fight each other at this distance, this kind of power and range isn't necessary for the average soldier to have, why do you think intermediate cartridges is the standard for fighting rifles today? It hits hard, but it recoils a lot, has limited capacity and is awkward to use in closer quarters.
But the insistence on full powered cartridges was one of the many blunders that remained after WW1 and into WW2
>>79982286
Why do you think he's wrong? A WWI rifle is a fucking beast; one bullet would dig your lungs out. Now we know that it's better to just spray as much dakka as possible.
>>79982819
>WW1 was pretty bad guys BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT FEMINISM
Take your memes to a thread where somebody cares.
>>79982689
jews will get ya like that
>>79981236
But the Franco-Prussian War was a maneuver war aswell.
>>79982689
It's because Germany gave Austria-Hungary unconditional support.
>>79981236
>>79981352
Clinically retarded.
>>79981135
In a word: artillery. it was like someone hacked the game files so everyone just artillery spammed. Planes/tanks weren't developed enough yet so the only country was to dig a hole. also >>79981426
>>79982689
Dem fucking defense pacts, man. The outcome of WW1 pretty much contributed to WW2 so you could imagine the tens of millions of deaths this guy caused including almost the 300,000 jews Hitler had killed.
Almost a third of a million jews dead because of that Serb.
>>79982689
death of the Arch-Duke destabilisesd the Austro-Hungarian Empire due to its succession crisis.
before this, Europe had been largely in an extremely intense entente following Napoleons rise and fall.
the balance of power, between the Great Powers, was tenous at best. the death of the Arch-Duke, led to a political/diplomatic cascade of events where each Great Power reacted with increasing and reciprocating shows of force, resulting ultimately in a "world" war.
>>79981135
Because we had tactics from the last century, inadapted with technologies. It resulted during the maneuver war in 1914 in more than 14,000 soldiers killed during the first hour of the war between the french army and the german one
The artillery and the rifle were too powerful
>>79982198
I learned something today. cheers anon have a pepe
>>79981135
This may not apply as much as the general bad learning curve, but you should know two things:
>WW1 was a lot more than trench warfare, the infantry rushes were actually only in the beginning and were later replaced by more suitable tactics
>information took along time. Oftentimes, generals didn't know the outcome of a battle hours after it ended
Thing was also, that most generals saw themselves in the tradition of great emperors and fighters and as such saw the battlefield as a mano a mano situation. The myth of the honorable fight, if you so desire. Infantry wasn't seen as a mobile and agile fighting unit, but rather as another tool in an even front.
Again, this was only in the beginning of WW1.
After the first year, most parties started to adapt ond maneuver more efficiantly. THe misconception of the trench is mostly perpetuated because of Verdun, which if it comes down to it, wasn't that big of a deal all things considered.
>>79982931
typical woman/fag completely ignored my questions and points, yet expects me to answer hers.
get raped by a nigger.
>>79981236
1st post best post
>>79981371
You completely misunderstood him
To sum up what went wrong, you will often find in biographies about those who fought and commanded in this conflict, the phrase "those damn machienguns" comes up alot. To put it simply, nobody had seen terminator yet, so nobody knew how effective and powerful machineguns were, just a few holding back entire regiments
>>79982819
The term storm/shock trooper has been around for centuries, the tactics the German storm troopers used were not, fucktard.
>>79982124
That's idiotic. The reason why were here is a sum of many things, and indoctrinal education is by far the biggest reason because Europe was still fine from 60's to 80's depending on country, but then things started to escalate.
Also WW1 only lasted 4 years, that kind of time won't wreck an entire generation. Many of the soldiers already had families.
this thread is full of millenial women and homos.
im out.
have it our way, stupid uneducated shits.
>>79982286
He's not totally wrong, the idea from WW1-WW2 was full power rifle rounds, heck even post WW2 NATO's official cartriadge was .308 another full power rifle round, hence all the FAL's, the FAL was originally designed to fire an intermediate cartrige that was similar to 8mm kurz if I remember right. even you kikes made some nice FAL's. Then immediately after the US demanded that the rest of the world accept .308/7,62NATO as the standard we said "lol" and started using an intermediate round which is todays 5,56
That said, rifles/caliber alone aren't enough to completely dictate military strategy so Swedefag is wrong in some ways.
>>79982260
>This resulted in a build up of arms and munitions on the line which then resulted in trenches
Fine, but what use there is of sending soldiers against machine guns? Wouldn't it be wiser to advance with your own machine guns of a longer reach?
>>79981135
The ultimate reason was the sheer scale of the war combined with the near absolute superiority of artillery. Pretty much WW1 was fairly mobile in several areas at several times, although in the western front this was mostly relegated towards the beginning and end of the war. Ultimately the early war offensives were ground to a bloody halt under artillery barrages, waves of machinegun fire, and the British mad minute where where platoons could pour ungodly amounts of accurate fire onto German troops. If you can't advance and retreating provides no advantage you might as well dig in.
Once both armies were dug in the problem developed that neither side had the means to truly achieve a breakthrough, sure the Germans broke through in 1915 in the East and Brusilov shattered the Austro-Hungarians in 1916 but each of these offensives eventually ran out of steam. It took until 1917 for both sides to develop effective trench breaching tactics, for the Western allies this was primarily combined creeping barrages with artillery support, for the Germans this was primarily specially trained infiltrators known as storm troopers. Each side had their own advantages and disadvantages but eventually the numerical superiority of the allies allowed for a final major breakthrough that shattered the German line. This breakthrough (which was never halted by the time the war ended) combined with the naval mutiny due to rumors of being sent on a suicide mission and widespread discontent at home from the lack of supplies led to the complete collapse of the Second Reich.
In 1914 Europe had three sick countries, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, WW1 showed that Italy was a country born with, only slightly older than Germany but somehow unable to breakthrough a dying Austro-Hungarian empire.
>>79981135
New wepons, outdated tactics
>>79983218
>Calls me a nigger
>Can't even capitalize his posts
W E W
E
W
>>79982434
Because it's ancient.
>>79982689
>le makes no sense
Pre wwi was highly international and there were two competing power blocks (think USA and USSR) however there was no way for these power blocks to cope with international crises (league of nations). So when any sort of crisis occurred, there was a risk for massive war. So it was just a matter of time really.
>>79983359
>>79982286
Woops sorry Finn, I saw white/blue and assumed you were a kike.
>>79983271
what is the difference between the tactics of storm/shock troopers as they have always existed, and those the Germans implemented in WWI?
>>79983349
how much vodka have you drank angry fin?
>>79981614
frenchies in 1871 had repeating rifles...they lost anyway...go read a book you retard. France always had one of the best military and still has...
>>79983189
>Verdun, which if it comes down to it, wasn't that big of a deal all things considered.
~300.000 dead and another 400.000 unable to fight.
Falkenhayn's strategy being to literally bleed out France.
It kinda deserves the attention
>>79983359
I never said it was a deciding factor, merely that it was one of those things that is very telling of tactics and mentality at the time.
>>79983349
And there he rage quits! Bye mongol!
>>79982337
To some extent. It's true that the Prussian army had one of the most advanced artillery systems in the world by that time, but to my knowledge the french army had the first "machineguns" in use, experienced troops and more manpower at the beginning of the war and the use of effective and cheap rifles(Chassepot), the only thing they lacked were good tactics
>>79983400
nice meme see>>79983370 & >>79983421
>>79983297
wrong.
WWI wiped out almost an entire generation of males, as well as many younger and older, in reproductive age.
WWI was an utter catastrophe for men
There is no way to know how different our world today would be had they not died there in the mud and the shit.
When the US MARINES showed up, it became more of a real war.
Fires with Maneuver.
Note I didn't write Fire and Maneuver, though that tactic may have been in use in those days.
>>79982124
yes indeed it did lead to a decline of the West, the high losses shocked the societies. The colonies became rebellous after they saw their white masters butcher each other by the millions, conservative ideals were disavowed and radical ideas like socialism and feminism suddenly appeared as a legit alternative to mass killing, hunger and despair.
>>79983470
which are you
gay or female
>>79983829
Not an argument.
>>79983741
And a third of Germany's total population got killed during the 30 years war.
That's a much bigger effect.
>>79983366
Well you wouldn't hit anyone because they are in the trenches for starters. Second, the machine guns were bulky and primitive early on in the war, if you were to advance with one you would get cut down in no man's land before you could set it up.
>>79983025
Thats because all the prussians had to do was remain prone with their new needle guns to absolutely destroy the french formations of standing troops.
>>79983366
>Wouldn't it be wiser to advance with your own machine guns of a longer reach?
The enemy troops are all in trenches, and your machineguns and their machineguns are already probably less than 100 metres apart.
To take land you have to capture the enemy's trenches, and that means you have to get into their trenches. The only way to do that is to get to there trenches.
There are a couple ways of doing this, but a charge is the most effective way. It's not very effective at all, but it's still the most effective way. You could dig a sap to their trench but the diggers are vulnerable to having grenades lobbed into their sap, and even if you do make it all the way you've got to get your entire force into their entire trench through a single sap. Digging multiple saps makes it easier, but also vastly more complicated.
>>79983878
its a question, you stupid cocksucking swede
>>79983829
not an argument
>>79983741
>WWI wiped out almost an entire generation of males, as well as many younger and older, in reproductive age.
Jews got what they wanted, to be sure.
Even Kaiser Bill realized the Jew was behind it all.
pic unrelated
>>79981135
nobody planned it to go like that, you see you must understand that the 20th century European leader is a moron, usually an aristocrat and inbred, and lacks any sense of foresight or basic understanding of how wars even work, who then employs similar men who are at least in the military, but mostly think it's the day after the last Franco-Prussian war and don't much care for doing anything differently.
the main idiocy of the Briton and the European in WW1 was all of them assuming "this will be easy lol" and thinking it'd be done in time to tuck into Christmas lunch of that year.
>>79983539
It sure as hell deserves the attention, but if you ask a question about the tactis of WW1, while assuming that everything was like Verdun is moronic. WORLD WAR 1 was all around europe.
The eastern front. The desert fighting. The combined arms at the end. The ace pilots. The gas warfare throughout late battlefields and the beginning of close-quarter-tactics.
THis is what needs to be the dominating picture of WW1, not one fucking battle, that just ended in both armies getting stuck, because the generals wanted to pull a Bismarck and overrun the enemy by having the time advantage.
>>79981135
ww1 may have been an engineered genocide, when you think about it.
>>79983421
>however there was no way for these power blocks to cope with international crises (league of nations)
There was, there was Metternich's Congress of Vienna but it fell into utter ruin after decades of liberal insanity politics. It could have prevented WW1.
>>79982198
lol are you retarded burger?
Trenches WERE the tactic to cope with the new power of artillery (rifles to a Much lesser extent). What possible tactic can you invent to outmaneuver an artillery/machine gun barrage when you only have infantry and calvary?
>>79983994
Honestly it should be considered an invasion of privacy and illegal to take a picture of a total stranger and then post it online.
>>79983582
The german alliance had more troops in the beginning of the war and some french generals made some mistakes that cost the war, just like the austrian did in Sadowa, the french army was strong but not really prepared, besides the republicans were plotting to eliminate Napoléon III, he had only two options : risking a war with the germans (a war that was strongly supported by the republicans btw) or risk a coup. He tried and fail.
But anyway, the french army had better rifles during the war of 1871 (even if the german army had good equipment). During WW1 howeover the french army had better artillery (canon de 75mm modèle 1897 capable of firing 28 shells per minute, the best canon during WW1)
>>79982561
>Both the German War and the Franco-Prussian War happened not too long before that
45 years before, just like I said decades and long enough for a whole generation of officers to have a career. And those wars didn't have WW1 technology I mentioned.
>>79984010
wanna know how i know youre still in high school?
>>79983885
granted
but it is too historically distant, in all contexts, to be even comprehensible or relatable by a casual modern observer.
>>79983460
Fire and manoeuvre tactics with light machine guns, flamethrowers, and hand grenades.
>>79983802
>>79983741
Any idea what book anon was referring to?
>>79981135
kek couldn't have been the fact that mustard gas was used in great quantities with no care for who it was killing
>>79983741
11% of Frances population was either dead or wounded.
The jewel of France's manhood died on the fields like animals.
>>79984078
I mean no dedicated international body with (some) gravity like the UN. There was nothing binding to halt the crisis and no serious public opion to do so.
>>79981371
Going into WWI, no one had any idea what to do. Everyone had to learn as they went. This is a war that saw a fucking cavalry charge with swords at a mounted machine gun unit, kek
POST INTERESTING WW1 PICS
>>79983885
you can't directly compare two different time epochs. Some 100+ dead Bundeswehr soldiers pretty much killed the will to join the army and get deployed overseas. You always have to view it in the context of the respective zeitgeist.
>>79981135
but that is what pooland has done for centuries, you don't get mentioned in ww1 because you did not exist LOL
>>79981697
Bigger problem was that artillery moving in a reasonably secure rear area was faster than infantrymen advancing aginst the enemy, and far faster than towed artilery being moved over broken ground.
So you could (with effort) break the initial trench lines, but advancing enough to make it relevant would take you out of the cover of your own guns.
This was a bad thing, and lead to things like the Battle of the Somme racking up 800,000 casualties for a net gain of five miles.
>>79983460
Traditional combat has three actions:
Fire
Shock
Manoeuvre
Fire action is literally firing at the enemy. Shock action is closing with and engaging in melee combat with the enemy. Manoeuvre is moving around the enemy.
Shock troopers, as the name suggests, specialise in the shock action. In the early 1800s a shock action would be cavalry charge by heavy lancers - a massed formation crossing open ground to close with another massed formation in the hopes of routing it.
A shock action in the early 1900s in a trench landscape is much different - digging a sap to the enemy trench, advancing under a withering fusillade of fire and grenades, and taking their trenches.
The actual action is the same - it's a shock action, closing to short range (in many cases still actually melee combat) with violence and speed in an attempt to overwhelm an enemy quickly and gain advantage and initiative - but the tactics are much different.
Hence why they're called infiltration tactics, not shock tactics, to differentiate from traditional infantry shock tactics which would be charging an enemy trench.
>>79984415
High res of course
>>79981135
>and Russians
Russians didn't have trench war.
>Frenchies, Germans, British
Trench warfare occurred when a revolution in firepower was not matched by similar advances in mobility, resulting in a grueling form of warfare in which the defender held the advantage
>>79984289
no, but I bump this question.
>>79983741
10-17 % dead from the involved is nowhere even close of a generation being wiped out, since those deaths will be split between 15 to 50 year olds. And people over 25 were very like to already have reproduced and passed on their genes
>There is no way to know how different our world today would be had they not died there in the mud and the shit.
They were probably so übermensch we would have FTL travel by now.
>>79981135
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48
>>79981135
It comes down to the machine gun. Until WW1, there was no conflict where those were used. They were capable of mowing down troops that advanced in the standard way.
In the early stages, the soldiers would march in loose formation into combat range. They learned to dig trenches fast. Once a trench was dug, there would be no way to move it anymore. There was a stalemate, with both sides loosing enormous amounts of troops. Only the blockade of Germany and the revolutions sparked by it made one side capitulate.
>>79984367
not just frances
its incalculable how many of our finest men we lost throughout europe in this period, alongside nonetheless worthy men that where good men too.
no feminist ofc ever gives a flying fuck about any of this.
men are expendable in the mind of a feminist, just as they where in the mind of society then and now.
>>79984505
why was ww1 so aesthetic?
>>79984096
Horse-propelled C-RAM, but that probably isn't what you were looking for.
In effect, tanks and APCs were the counter-measure.
>>79984415
>The officers are literally wearing those breeches with the wide thigh pads
DEM QUADS
SQUATZ
Q
U
A
T
Z
>>79984480
We should fuck.
>>79984480
wrong
stormtrooper tactics are identical in this period to that of their shock troop predecessors.
and yes, Ive played as much and more Total War as you have, as well as plenty of wikipedia reading alongside.
>>79984633
>>79982294
>Waterloo
>>79984415
What about interesting WW1 weapons?
>>79984592
wrong
its almost entirely a generation of reproduction capable males within that period.
you fucking feminist misandrist.
>>79984828
>stormtrooper tactics are identical in this period to that of their shock troop predecessors.
I'd be very interested in how a 1917 German stormtrooper's submachine and grenade-based tactics could be compared with an 1812 French lancer's lance charge and the conclusion reached that they were identical.
>>79981135
>why would people who haven't fought in decades or ever make military decisions that did not attempt to reduce casualties made up of poor people
Gee OP I just can't answer that one.
>>79984602
>Only the blockade of Germany and the revolutions sparked by it made one side capitulate.
It was jewish communists and anarchists that "sparked" the revolution, not the blockade.
>>79982561
Franco Prussian war happened in 1870 m8. That's a fucking generation. Also Franco Prussian war only involved two of the major combatants of ww1 and lasted less than a year.
>>79984976
they are.
charge.
deploy ordnance.
period.
youve never served in a military, have you,
>Why was WW1 a trench war and not a maneuver war?
>East front didn't exist
.
>>79984916
TFW I helped an old lady to clear out her cellar and found such a bayonet, albeit in a rusty state. She said it was from her grandpa and gifted it to me.
>>79982198
>Firepower had eclipsed mobility so the defensive side held the advantage over the attackers.
This is only part of the story.
Another major problem was that even when mobility trumped defensive advantage and gains were made, the assaulting force was typically unable to capitalize on their gains because their logistics were unable to keep up and resupply them, and even if they hypothetically could keep up they lacked the material to resupply them anyway as the offensive capacity the WWI military far outstripped the industrial capacity to keep up with demand. Armaments expected to be used over the course of a month could be used up in a single day for example.
So typically an assaulting force after a successful offensive that had been carefully orchestrated and planned down to the last detail with mountains of ammunition saved for months ahead of time for the occasion, would find itself exhausted, overstretched and low on ammunition effectively behind enemy lines. Within range of the enemies artillery while their own artillery that had provided cover for their assault couldn't fire on the enemy even if they had the ammunition to do so because the advancing force had pushed them out of range. Once placed in such a position the assaulting force was easily pushed back and the whole process began all over as they waited for enough munitions to be gathered for the next offensive.
>>79981135
Lack of mechanized moving units like tanks was the reason. The first tanks did show up in WWI but the officers didn't utilize them effectively because they didn't understand how to use them.
The inefficient aircrafts were also part of the problem. WWI was the last war that didn't have to take air and armor superiority into account, only the amount of ground troops.
>>79984891
You guys put up a good fight though.
All generals fight their previous wars.
>>79981654
They were sent by other men so its ok
plus they deserve it because they are white racist rapists.
>>79981135
Because fighter airplanes and bombers weren't advanced enough and weren't in the required numbers at that time.
Air power ended trench warfare.
>>79984950
Are you retarded? Even if every fifth soldier died(which is overestimation) and they happened to be precisely 20 years old (which they weren't), that generation would still be mostly alive and fine.
>>79983957
>but it's still the most effective way
Uh. I find it hard to accept, that the only way to advance was to waste hundreds of thousands of people
Russia fought WW1. Then during 1918-1920 it (Soviets that actually) fought a war against the Poles and it was very much a maneuver war. I don't know whether it was because both sides lacked the amount of artillery or because of the vast area that allowed to maneuver effectively
>>79984976
PS: LOL submachine guns in WWI?
They where EXTREMELY few.
You really have no fking idea, stupid aussie cocksucking bitch.
Go back to bending over to a bogan.
Its all yo uare good for.
>>79984828
If think 17th century shock troopers were employing the same tactics as the German storm troopers, well you're a fucking retard. It would be like saying F35 pilots will be using the same tactics as their Bristol FII predecessors.
>>79985125
>youve never served in a military, have you,
I'm a Major.
>charge.
>deploy ordnance.
>period.
That's interesting.
Very interesting.
What ordnance, exactly, is the man in the pic carrying? How does a French lancer in 1812 deploy ordnance that he doesn't have?
Not even mentioning that German stormtroopers didn't charge most of the time, preferring to sap or to cross at night in secrecy and attack with surprise.
>>79985294
except Rommel, Guderian and Patton
>>79985074
It was the malnutrition that provided fertile ground for whatever they did. Remember that a lot of Germans were, if what you say is true, cooperating.
>>79983802
Not to mention the Communists in Russia gaining power and fucking things up
>>79985323
Women where not sent to fight and die.
Sexist.
>>79985327
that is not how it works.
you need more learning in sociology and statistical understanding.
WW1's trench warfare was mostly due poor planning on the strategic and tactical level while also taking place in a relatively small region with highly developed infrastructure.
On the local level infantry tactics were not focused on small units suppressing enemies and rushing forward but larger unwieldy units kinda like Napoleonic skirmishers this obviously was a poor way to deal with large amounts of artillery and machine guns.
On the larger level commanders were not prepared to exploit success, command and control setups weren't able to rapidly support any breakthroughs in the enemies line, often attacks would capture the enemies line but no would be able to coordinate enough to exploit the breakthrough.
>>79985378
fuck. war is hell.
>>79981135
The French tried to be mobile at the start of the war.
They were slaughtered.
>>79985369
Over 10,000 MP-18s served in WW1, primarily with stormtroopers.
>>79981135
It is because the commanding officers grew-up and were taught with 18-19th strategy and tactics.
The massive leaps in accuracy and firepower in both infantry and artillery made offensive maneuverings with infantry and cavalry obsolete. It just a bloodbath that completely destroyed morale.
It became a defensive war until mobile armor greatly diminished the effectiveness of machine gun encampments and artillery.
>>79983100
calling others clinically retarded
>so the only country was to dig a hole
fucking what?
>>79985411
None of which were generals then.
>>79984916
is that a shotgun with a bayonet?
>>79985610
It was like they never read about the US Civil War.
>>79985494
Then who would look after the children?
Also:
>Trusting a woman on the battlefield
>>79985074
When you're basically starving 3 years in a row with a massive toll of dead civilians the moral at the homefront isn't exactly high.
>>79985459
indeed, I had summarized that under socialism.
The psychological shock also lead to the rise of Hitler, whereas the victorious Allies, F and GB, did everything in their power to appease him.
>>79983801
Theres some truth to this, the Marines were actually getting rekt at Belleau Woods, they were following old military doctrine of mass attacks.
It wasn't until they actually did fire with maneuver that they were able to turn the tide, being a bunch of salty sons of bitches who were great shots helped too
>>79985707
but officers. Flag officers usually are recruited from the pool of officers.
>>79984639
>tanks
>>79985725
They knew about it but just blindly assumed it would be different in Europe. No-one quite understood just what an advantage those on the defensive had until thousands were slaughtered.
The French offensive in Alsace-Lorraine in 1914 is a great example. The only nation with real experience with modern was was Russia, from their war with Japs.
>>79985716
Yes, the 1897 "Trench Gun"
The Germans were SO mad about this gun.
>>79985155
The Eastern front was hardly mobile. Sure there were offensives that maintained mobility for a while but come winter the offensives always ground to a halt.
>>79985556
>Get shown simple mathematics of the lost lives and how the newest generation survived that war just fine.
>Baww that's not how it works!
>Be drunk raging entire thread
Go dissolve your brain with alcohol some more.
>>79981371
look at this mongolian moron
>>79981135
armies had the firepower to wipe massive amounts of men out in minutes, but not the mobility to flank that firepower.
That came with tanks and armored warfare in WW2.
>>79981371
>all nations involved in WWI had access to equivalent technology and infrastructure to produce it.
Are you even trying?
>>79985582
thanks
>>79985725
US Civil War and Crimena Wars were Premonitions on how 18th and early 19th tactics and strategies became obsolete with the advent of the industrial revolution.
It became cheap and easy to mass produce accurate and powerful firearms and artillery. Command staff was taught that Napoleon was the big shit because he wrecked Europe's shit for a while.
>>79986033
Not to mention that air power in WW2 was so, so much more effective. Air power made trenches obsolete, as you became sitting ducks if you remained in place.
>>79981135
Machine guns and artillery had more or less developed into maturity.
Internal combustion vehicles and planes not so much. The lack of paratrooped and armored infantry (yes, I know there were some prototypes, but they were not big enough for making a difference) means the only way to get your boys to the other side is walking. And walking sucks under enemy fire.
>>79986140
We had that kind of dichotomy in a way.
Almost like McClellan was Jomini and RE Lee was Clausewitz.
>>79981236
This.
It ended in 1918 when Ernst Jünger developed the Stormtrooper Tactics.
First used during the ,,Michael Offenisve'' in 1918.
But we had no reserves to defend the gains
interesting:
2013 Hagey Lecture: Margaret MacMillan - Choice or Accident: The Outbreak of World War One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gF_6j2pQzg
>>79985378
Savage.
>>79986140
Russo-Japanese war was most analogous to WW1 imo.
>>79981947
>People were still fixated on the rifleman having as much power as accuracy as possible, when this was really not necessary for regular infantry
A good example of this manifesting itself is the fact that sights on German rifles had a minimum effective range of 400 meters. Nobody thought this was a big deal because "that was the distance they'd be fighting at anyway", and even after experience proved otherwise a solution was never found, so German soldiers just had to make do and aim extra low to hit their targets at close range.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WkBrh1euWg0
![lancer_german].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/98XdhRJ.jpg "lancer_german].jpg")
>>79981135
It was a maneuver war and they would have been more idiotic to not use trenches.
Most of the early war was fought in a very traditional way but casualty rates were atrocious, being anywhere above ground was death when machine guns and artillery threw enough lead around to fill the sky with metal. Even with the casualty rates the front moved a large amount during the beginning of the war. Germany in it's initial push pushed back a tired and exhausted French/British army to just outside Paris and basically were one or two successful battles/maneuvers away from winning the war when the allies turned them back at the miraculous (or not since it extended the war) battle of the Marne. The Germans then were forced back themselves exhausted and demoralized. It was only then that all armies tired from weeks/months of marching/retreating, completely demoralized, and shells of their former selves after taking massive casualties began digging in since both sides were unable and almost unwilling to continue pushing into the other. Basically every nation had lost at the point failing to achieve their goals but no one had lost/won enough yet for someone to surrender so the Germans were content to hold their lines that were dug into a foreign country and the allies were content to starve the Germans out with a naval blockade. Even after the trench lines were dug it was still a maneuver war. It was important to maneuver for the attack/defense of different areas and trains became incredibly important. There was also an important instance where Germany built massive defenses behind their lines and then moved the entire front back leaving the Allies a booby trapped empty wasteland. This is also all only on the western front, just about every other front from the eastern to the middle east had constant change throughout the war.
>>79986362
Austria-Hungary wanted a regional war, Germany was paranoid as fuck, and Britain couldn't accept a dominant power in the continent.
>>79983537
Thanks you rital
>>79986573
This is the correct answer, famalam
>>79986606
maybe you watch the whole thing, and update your conclusion...
By 1918 it became again a pretty mobile war, pretty much like World War 2. But not many memorable battles took place in 1918, most of them like Verdun or Passchendaele took place in 1916-1917, and thus it remained in collective memory as a bloody, slow, trench war. People ignore the German storm-trooper tactics in the 1918, the integration of the tanks and airplanes in the everyday operations and such, just because it took place at a late point in the war.
>>79986573
you could argue that it was stupid to assault static defenses but many of those attacks were almost successful with the defenders just barely holding on or losing and then counterattacking themselves and winning because of logistics which gave just enough hope to the generals that they could at some point make a breakthrough which would allow them to push through and flank the entire enemy line winning the horrible war as quickly as possible.
Also as the war developed assaults became less like they are popularly depicted from the early with whistles sounding a large trench wide charge at the opposing enemy trench and more like one would imagine a ww2 battle with skirmishes up and down the trench-line and flowing lines of battle with troops experienced and trained to take advantage of the terrain and modern squad tactics. These changes are also why American troops died in massive numbers when deployed as they employed early war tactics against armies trained and experienced for the late war
>>79986943
I wonder why decisive battles like St. Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne are ignored this much.
>Although the Meuse-Argonne was the deadliest battle in U.S. history, in that it left a large number of U.S. dead (over 26,000),[2] the battle is largely forgotten in the United States[citation needed], and the Argonne war cemetery is often ignored by tourists[citation needed]. The battle also hailed the debut of the Browning Automatic Rifle in combat, with both the US and France using them significantly for the first time in battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse-Argonne_Offensive
>>79982403
no you're pretty much the retarded one here...
>>79981135
>Why was WW1 a trench war and not a maneuver war?
Maneuver wars require rapid-moving motorized armor and airplanes. No armor, no maneuver. WW1 these technologies weren't advanced or reliable enough. The few instances of armor being used made a big impact, but it was unreliable.
mobility is a word spoken very easily by armchair generals who play fancy war games.
>>79987268
All of WW1 is widely ignored in the US because of the limited number of casualties (relative to the European nations) and because it is widely overshadowed by WW2 in the American psyche.
WW1 was industrialized war at its most unglamorous conclusion. Great nations trying to grind each other out in terms of food, material, and population. Europe really committed suicide during WW1.
>>79981135
hard to maneuver through places that have been shell for days at a time, harder to get trucks/horses loaded with supplies through to forces across said shelled land.
>>79987683
This. Read Achtung - Panzer! for an interesting look into the introduction and application of armor in WW1, and WW2.
>>79986573
Technically, they TRIED to make it a maneuver war, but the jump in artillery tech made the old tactics of maneuver impossible. You can't maneuver through artillery and machine guns with horses. 50 years earlier, mounted units could maneuver around foot soldier lines. This became impossible, with no alternative fast-moving units to rely on to maneuver around ground forces. No trucks to load up foot soldiers, etc. Everything was marching, and at such a slow rate, long-range artillery simply adjusted and cut them off. So reliance was placed on artillery and attrition, and artillery became a proxy for mounted divisions.
>>79988145
that's a good book
>>79987982
>Europe really committed suicide during WW1
I agree
but
Europe inflicted it on itself. Think about the tension and the emotional state in all those countries that lead to this war
These countries had no limits in terms of what level of violence is accepted in politics/society. No, it was rather thought at the time that you can do anything you want to grab any resources. If there are no limits on violence then you end up with slaughter
>>79981135
it was the point. WW1 wasnt about winning it was about population control. no general in their right mind would throw away soldiers like that unless they knew it wasnt about winning a war
>>79988196
>with no alternative fast-moving units to rely on to maneuver around ground forces
So people at the time must have been actually really quite stupid not to connect the emergence of heavy artillery with an appropriate counterpart of armored maneuver units
>>79987982
it widely is ignored here too, WW1 plays a way bigger role in the French and British national consciousness than anywhere else.
I wasn't taught anything about 1914-18 in school, anything I knew about it was from Airfix/Revell construction sheets and very old relatives/ppl who had experienced that war.
>>79981977
>>79982019
Thanks for sharing Helmut.
>>79981236
This.
>>79981371
You don't get it. Yes the technology was there, but the point is they didn't quite know how to use it properly.
This is why you had cavalry charges against machine guns until they got the point that the old methods don't work.
Every war uses the last wars tactics.
This is also why Hitler was able to clusterfuck the alies with Blitzkrieg early on.
>>79981977
Well it was a battle launched specifically to bleed France out.
>>79988616
No, not stupid. Bear in mind that most of the technology in that war had never been used in battle before, not on that scale. At first they assumed that they could use horse, which didn't work out. Imagine if you found out your tanks were worthless the next time you went to war in the present. Almost everything would fall apart, because the nations wouldn't just call off the war, they'd try to work around it and adapt. We're also talking about a 5 year period, and not a lot is going to be figured out in that time. By the time they were trying to use tanks, the war was ending, and the economies of all the participants were imploding. England and Germany were weeks away from starving by the time the armistace was proposed. Had the German offensive worked as planned, the war would have ended earlier. They were all planning on the war lasting half the time it did. The period between WWI and WW2 is more interesting, especially considering the Germans seemed to learn so much from their experience, while the other nations (the "winners") essentially stagnated, and learned nothing at all. By the time France and Britain declared war on Germany, the French were digging trenches instead of coming to the aid of Poland. The Germans turned around after Poland and smashed France and British forces to pieces using new armor techniques (Blitzkrieg).
>>79986360
The Tank also stopped trench warfare
>>79986573
Exact.
>>79988634
Because supression of WWI history was part of "de-nazification";it was seen as a source of german nationalism that needed to be supressed.
>>79987683
>Maneuver wars require rapid-moving motorized armor and airplanes
No they don't. Even in WW2 the vast majority of the German army was infantry, and early war trucks were extremely rare. WW1 was extremely mobile during the early parts it was simply that the lack of any armoured transports made artillery too dominant. You don't need tanks to move fast, infantry can cover about 35 km a day under normal conditions, and cavalry can obviously move much faster than that.
![[HorribleSubs] Amaama to Inazuma - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_09.50_[2016.07.05_09.08.44].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZimLSoY.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Amaama to Inazuma - 01 [720p].mkv_snapshot_09.50_[2016.07.05_09.08.44].jpg")
>he hasn't read Storm of Steel
>>79981135
>Why did stationary/static arms technology out pace mobile arms technology /pol/?
Polish intellectual detected. Same fucking reason your "field gun" cavalry was fuck useless against Nazi combined arms, Sergei.
>>79989733
>>Maneuver wars DONT require rapid-moving motorized armor and airplanes
From the moment machine guns and the artillery of WWI was in use, yes they do. That's what I went on to explain, that the previous paradigm was based on horse and foot, but all they had in WWI was foot due to artillery. They needed armor to replae horse, but it couldn't happen in the span of the war years.
>infantry can cover about 35 km a day under normal conditions, and cavalry can obviously move much faster than that.
Neither could function under those conditions. It would be like a modern armor suddenly losing its automobiles and tanks.
>>79990008
>armor
*army
>>79989715
de-nazification ended in 1946 and those commies were smashed by the republic in 1919. But indeed, WW1 history has no holocaust, that's why it is not usable for anti-national propaganda.
The next major war will involve autonomous and semi-autonomous drones, both aerial and ground. Our armor and motorized cavalry won't be fully prepared for it. It will create a similar situation to the one faced in WWI. We'll withdraw behind stalemate "lines" of drone swarms.
>>79990410
Well, a great deal of Nazi identity was derived from WWI and the Versaille period. A great deal of the "jewish problem" was tied to the "stabbed in the back" narrative of how Germany "lost" WWI at the negotiating table. Might have been a bit of over-reaction, but WWI topics were intentionally supressed. Germany was meant to lose it's pre-war identity. Its very sad. Every nation needs an identity, even in defeat.
>de-nazification ended in 1946
De-nazification never ended, you're still going through it today. That's how Mama Merkel gets refugees welcome rammed down your throats.
>Gerd Shulze-Ronhoff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MejbBsSAP8I
>>79990821
>Well, a great deal of Nazi identity was derived from WWI and the Versaille period. A great deal of the "jewish problem" was tied to the "stabbed in the back" narrative of how Germany "lost" WWI at the negotiating table. Might have been a bit of over-reaction, but WWI topics were intentionally supressed. Germany was meant to lose it's pre-war identity. Its very sad. Every nation needs an identity, even in defeat.
indeed much propaganda was made about it, but Hitler got his basic ideas from pre-WW1 Alldeutsche movement.
>De-nazification never ended, you're still going through it today. That's how Mama Merkel gets refugees welcome rammed down your throats.
thats not de-nazification. De-nazification required Nazis which can be turned into democrats. That program ended in 1946.
>Gerd Shulze-Ronhoff
admitted never having read a scientifical history book
>>79981135
New developments in weapons such as arty, automatic machine guns and bolt action ment that whilst in the campaigns of the 1800's on the continent favoured the attacker who could out manoeuvre a defending enemy, now a rifleman could kill 15 men a minute instead of 3 (not including machine guns or barrages) so defence was naturally the safest strategy after the halt of the Germans at Marne. The tactics of the end of the war are completely different with Germans in the spring offensive being very mobile with storm troops and the Entete using combined operations with tanks and infantry in the 100 days but for these to develop generals first had to learn through the process of trench warfare which is like the bridge between the age of musket and modern war which is overlooked in hindsight.
>>79988634
>I wasn't taught anything about 1914-18 in school
What shitty school did you go to?
>>79989181
BS. Falkenhayn just said it was to justify himself after the fact. They tried to take Verdun plain and simple.
Certainly, he was hoping for a moral blow, but they attacked to capture the city, not just the hills and forts that would have given them the position they needed to bombard the city and force France to counter attack.
>>79984599
god damn
hell
this is it
this is the reason
life is hell
>>79991377
>thats not de-nazification
Ok, let me re-phrase: the "official" period of de-nazification ended in 1946; I'm trying to make the point that the broader social re-engineering of Germany extended into every aspect of German fedarlism, law, propaganda, economics, and international relations. In a very real sense, Germany never became fully independent of the US. We re-wrote the German political and legal character, and your education curriculum and media have policy they follow, as well as laws than ban anything resembling nation socialist ideology. A right wing movement is essentially unable to come to power in Germany, the entire post-war structure of Europe is designed around preventing the rise of a single hegemonic nation on the continent.
>admitted never having read a scientifical history book
I'm sure if you want to, you can dismiss or discount any controversial author by pointing out some libelous detail or odd remark. I offered it because it might be nelightening to you, but if you ignore it that's your business.
>>79991722
its called Gymnasium in Hesse. There was a bit about 1848, 1866 and Weimar Republic - and lots of Holocaust.
>>79982646
True, BOSS had yet to design their best line to this day...
>>79984396
the UN isn't really binding either, countries ignore it all the time with no fucks given
>>79981135
Because doctrine hadn't evolved.
What amazes me is that, at the start of WWII, Allied, especially french, doctrine was STILL lagging very much behind.
>>79992491
Victory tends to make nations weak. Sad irony.
>>79982434
Cause WW2. Everyone loves to hate hitler and feel bad for the six gorillion. Jews wouldn't want us focusing on WW1, now would they?
>>79992046
>Ok, let me re-phrase: the "official" period of de-nazification ended in 1946; I'm trying to make the point that the broader social re-engineering of Germany extended into every aspect of German fedarlism, law, propaganda, economics, and international relations.
that's not true, I grew up in SW Germany, I learnt basic German and local heritage, the anthem etc. being able to cite the national anthem was a theoretical requirement in army...
> In a very real sense, Germany never became fully independent of the US. We re-wrote the German political and legal character, and your education curriculum and media have policy they follow, as well as laws than ban anything resembling nation socialist ideology.
This is only partly true, if we talk about sovereignty we also must mention sovereignty in interiour matters, and its not the American's fault Germans want to remain subjects rathert han being citizens. Many of the laws here still are modified 2 and 3 Reich laws.
>A right wing movement is essentially unable to come to power in Germany, the entire post-war structure of Europe is designed around preventing the rise of a single hegemonic nation on the continent.
Once again its the Germans fault, no one forces them to let a reckless elite rule over them, breaking one law after another.
>I'm sure if you want to, you can dismiss or discount any controversial author by pointing out some libelous detail or odd remark. I offered it because it might be nelightening to you, but if you ignore it that's your business.
I am well aware of his writings, they are useless as the basic narrative is false.
>>79984599
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne! KILL FOR KHORNE! KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!KILL FOR KHORNE!
>>79992604
Probably the most tragic thing about the west: the more successful in war we are, the safer we feel, and the safer we feel, the more we slash our military budgets. It's a recipe for disaster all due to success.
>>79992099
I really don't believe that you skipped 1870 and atleast the build up for WW 1.
Gymnasium in Südwestfalen here.
I think we did 3 repeats of the Holocaust.
7th class, 10th class and 12th
Anybody watch The Great War on Youtube?
I've donated and watched every episode.
>>79992972
>I really don't believe that you skipped 1870 and atleast the build up for WW 1.
we had it mentioned briefly, like 1871 and 1814-18 happened. But never ever any detail on it. There was no time between all those visits to concentration camps and Schindler's List movies...
At least we visited the 1848 parliament in Frankfurt...
>>79992843
>not true, i learned the national anthem
completely irrelevant to what I said
>ts not the American's fault Germans want to remain subjects rathert han being citizens
also irrelevant to what I said, you're comprehension is poor.
>Once again its the Germans fault, no one forces them
I'm speaking to someone having moral judgement reactions to descriptive statements and insight into systemic realities. Nothing I'm saying implies moral responsibility, I'm not talking about normativity.
>I am well aware of his writings, they are useless as the basic narrative is false.
You haven't read him because you heard he was without merit. Sloppy conformist thinking.
>>79992971
Ibn Khaldoun spoke of this cycle in his work on dynastic decline; victory tends to set forces in motion that lead to the collapse of the winning dynasty or paradigm. Happens throughout history over and over. When you win, you have no incentive to keep adapting, while the losers that survived are focused entirely on adapting to their last defeat.
>>79992972
>I think we did 3 repeats of the Holocaust.
fucking hell is it really that bad
>>79981614
The French had the 75mm howitzer with its pneumatic recoil that didn't require adjustment between shots, resulting in a higher rate of fire than the German equivalent.
This is one of the main reasons they were able to stop the German advance on Paris in 1914.
>>79992971
Cutting military budget and fighting force for the vanities of a corrupt ruling elite was what initiated the ultimately irreversible downfall of the Byzantine Empire.
It gets old to say it again, but I wonder, if our great weakening will ultimately lead to our downfall aswell. In the middle of prosperity and peace, the savages crush the decadent empire.
>>79981135
That's an Irish unit in that picture you know.
Mayhaps my great great grandfathers were among them, who knows.
>>79993311
Interesting I was looking for where that theory was based. I'll have a look into that thank you m8.
>>79993232
Schindler's List is a great movie.
Favourite part of history class for me was probably the visit from a Veteran from the region that was in Soviet captivity.
>>79993341
MSM is much worse. When I grew up no week, basically no day went buy without anything bad German Nazis and holocaust related. It's really drilled in your head. But I think it's actually increased than decreased the longer it is after the war, due to the gaining influence of the left/radical left.
![revisionist-history[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ACNcjbG.jpg "revisionist-history[1].jpg")
>>79993341
>fucking hell is it really that bad
What is WWII? Bettwen 1939 and 1945, the Germans were gassing Jews and the US interned a bunch of nips, and then nuked them. Nothing else of note happened.
>>79993515
Khaldoun's writings are thought to have influenced the Otooman rulers to create the Jannisaries. Not sure its true, but I've heard that. They created a force of foreigners with the incentive of constantly proving their loyalty to the ruling dynasty. They are a main reason that the Ottoman dynasties lasted abnormally long without transition.
are germans white?
>>79993704
>Bettwen 1939 and 1945, the Germans were gassing Jews
normalfag detected
>>79993354
It's weird how history repeates itself almost perfectly. No doubt the US will cut its standing army for territorials and/or PMC's just like the Romans did with the Germanics. No doubt it's a cycle it's just a shame we were born in the declining phase m8.
>>79993311
>completely irrelevant to what I said
no it isn't. ou said no positive German heritage was taught, which is not true.
>also irrelevant to what I said, you're comprehension is poor.
nope, yours is, if all politicians here were US agents, then why is anti-Americanism rampant overhere? A minster even said (9/11) the phallic symbol of capitalism has been crashed...
>I'm speaking to someone having moral judgement reactions to descriptive statements and insight into systemic realities. Nothing I'm saying implies moral responsibility, I'm not talking about normativity.
You keep claiming things out of a solely theoretical perspective. Fact is the FRG government tried to take influence British WW1 memorials by pointing out it was an European tragedy rather than the consequence of a German war of aggression. Clark was promoted and pushed everywhere.
>You haven't read him because you heard he was without merit. Sloppy conformist thinking.
I have watched and read him, every single major claim he makes can be debunked by reading the treaties and documents he referred to. He himself admitted he is no historian and never read a history book (other than that schoolbook of his daughter and the dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte). We can go into details, if you wish.
>>79993341
That's just what happens when you go through history three times.
It's just not something they're going to skip so they usualy focus on different parts of WW2 and the Holocaust each run through.
>>79993659
I'm rather sure that Der Spiegel is contractually obligated to print Hitler on the cover every few months.
>>79985604
To be fair, 10,000 in the scheme of things wasn't a whole lot and they were only introduced near the end of the war.
>>79981135
to invade poland
>>79994107
>tl;dr
cheers m8, I'm talking to you about apples and you're replying about oranges. No need to continue if it's pointless. I'm not interested in talking past someone over and over.
