4 ms·

There's something very sci-fi seeming about the idea of a huge battlefield from a long-ago war, still too contaminated with old poisons and weaponry to safely e

There's something very sci-fi seeming about the idea of a huge battlefield from a long-ago war, still too contaminated with old poisons and weaponry to safely enter. Which nature has mostly reclaimed, except in dead zones so toxic that not even plants can grow there. And yet, this is a real thing that happened, and is a part of our past. A generation who very soon will only be ancestors the living participated in battles so destructive that they did this to the land they were fought on. I find that difficult to fathom. Of course, humans have only gotten better at killing each other since, and WW2 was more destructive overall. But the static nature of the Western front, combined with the unrestrained use of artillery and gas, and the total commitment of manpower on both sides in places like Verdun, gave its battles an apocalyptic intensity that I think is unmatched in any war before or since. And that, hopefully, we won't ever see again.

Clubber 9y ago
It's just not WWI, there are minefields all over the world that still kill people that wander into them. The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Let me correct that phrase: One of the main reasons WW2 ended, was because the Russians defended their country fiercely with their lives, and because the communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment. I hate to see people injecting anti-communist bullshit everywhere, even when it's irrelevant. The Russians, and the people of the USSR, like all the allied forces, died heroically in the battlefield fighting fascists. Calling them a "meat wall" really fucking grinds my gears as it's extremely insulting and derogatory to the dead.
  - gandhium 9y ago
    > communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment They lost most of the munitions and equipment in first _months_ of war, and lost half of the factories as well. So they had to rely on lend-lease from much-hated capitalists. And yes, human waves (if you don't like other term) and general disregard for human lives were common in Soviet tactics. That's the reason for staggering losses (they still cannot get their number right, now there are talks that USSR losses were 2x higher, i.e. ~40 millions).
    - ethelward 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Please read some actual historians work concerning the Eastern Front like Glantz or Zaloga before spewing pop history nonsense.
      - leroy_masochist 9y ago
        I believe the commenter above is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks (specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade). I mean, the necessity of doing this in battles like Orel and Stalingrad is described in Zhukov's memoirs which are not exactly anticommunist propaganda.
        ethelward 9y ago
        > is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks He is not. > specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade That's bullshit straight from Enemy at the Gates and CoD2. > is described in Zhukov's memoirs I happen to have them on my shelf, I'd like you to point me to the pages you're referring.
        gandhium 9y ago
        Did you reaed historian Mark Solonin? Or Eisenhower memoirs? He mentions a quote from Zhukov: > There are two kinds of mines; one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a mine field our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there.
- hh3k0 9y ago
  > The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation. I read that claim quite often, it's not entirely accurate: "The Buzzfeed claim is overstated, although not by a wide margin. Around two thirds (more exactly, 68%) of the original 1923 male birth cohort did not survive World War II. But the war is not the most important reason for the poor survival rate; almost half of them died before the war broke out." More: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet/ http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet...

Clubber 9y ago

It's just not WWI, there are minefields all over the world that still kill people that wander into them. The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation.

John_KZ 9y ago
Let me correct that phrase: One of the main reasons WW2 ended, was because the Russians defended their country fiercely with their lives, and because the communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment. I hate to see people injecting anti-communist bullshit everywhere, even when it's irrelevant. The Russians, and the people of the USSR, like all the allied forces, died heroically in the battlefield fighting fascists. Calling them a "meat wall" really fucking grinds my gears as it's extremely insulting and derogatory to the dead.
- gandhium 9y ago
  > communism establishment industrialized Russia enough to produce war munitions and equipment They lost most of the munitions and equipment in first _months_ of war, and lost half of the factories as well. So they had to rely on lend-lease from much-hated capitalists. And yes, human waves (if you don't like other term) and general disregard for human lives were common in Soviet tactics. That's the reason for staggering losses (they still cannot get their number right, now there are talks that USSR losses were 2x higher, i.e. ~40 millions).
  - ethelward 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Please read some actual historians work concerning the Eastern Front like Glantz or Zaloga before spewing pop history nonsense.
    - leroy_masochist 9y ago
      I believe the commenter above is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks (specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade). I mean, the necessity of doing this in battles like Orel and Stalingrad is described in Zhukov's memoirs which are not exactly anticommunist propaganda.
      - ethelward 9y ago
        > is being historically accurate when it comes to human wave attacks He is not. > specifically in terms of infantrymen operating in fire teams that shared one rifle among several men attacking the enemy in enfillade That's bullshit straight from Enemy at the Gates and CoD2. > is described in Zhukov's memoirs I happen to have them on my shelf, I'd like you to point me to the pages you're referring.
        gandhium 9y ago
        Did you reaed historian Mark Solonin? Or Eisenhower memoirs? He mentions a quote from Zhukov: > There are two kinds of mines; one is the personnel mine and the other is the vehicular mine. When we come to a mine field our infantry attacks exactly as if it were not there.
hh3k0 9y ago
> The only reason WW2 had more combat casualties than WWI is that the USSR decided to defend their country with a meat wall of unprepared soldiers. That generation of Russians had like an 80% casualty rate or something crazy like that. Nearly wiped out an entire generation. I read that claim quite often, it's not entirely accurate: "The Buzzfeed claim is overstated, although not by a wide margin. Around two thirds (more exactly, 68%) of the original 1923 male birth cohort did not survive World War II. But the war is not the most important reason for the poor survival rate; almost half of them died before the war broke out." More: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet/ http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/was_the_soviet...