Men, would you rather have served in ww1 or ww2?

[SexualChocolate]

Provided you had to be drafted in one or the other which would you choose? Personally I would've went in with WWII. Trench warfare is probably the most miserable experience anyone can go through.

[Jej]

WWII, hands down.

[Fostin4]

Neither.

[76109108007942031]

Escrito originalmente por Fostin4:

Neither.

Well duh, but if you had to choose which one would you pick.

[Lily]

Escrito originalmente por Sir Illic:

To be fair the beginning of WW1 is a little confusing...

Bosnian Serb separatist assassinates heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne
Austria-Hungary majorly ♥♥♥♥♥ up an ultimatum to Serbia, followed by a declaration of war
Russia, in keeping with its pan-Slavic ideology, backs up the Serbs and begins mobilizing
Germany, propping up Austria-Hungary, mobilizes to support them against the Russians
France is allied to Russia and German warplans, predicting the war with Russia to be proacted, mandate a swift knockout of France to avoid a long two-front war
Germany marches into Belgium, violating British guarantees of Belgian neutrality; Britain declares in support of its allies Russia and France

[76109108007942031]

Escrito originalmente por Gustave5436:

Escrito originalmente por Sir Illic:

To be fair the beginning of WW1 is a little confusing...

Bosnian Serb separatist assassinates heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne
Austria-Hungary majorly ♥♥♥♥♥ up an ultimatum to Serbia, followed by a declaration of war
Russia, in keeping with its pan-Slavic ideology, backs up the Serbs and begins mobilizing
Germany, propping up Austria-Hungary, mobilizes to support them against the Russians
France is allied to Russia and German warplans, predicting the war with Russia to be proacted, mandate a swift knockout of France to avoid a long two-front war
Germany marches into Belgium, violating British guarantees of Belgian neutrality; Britain declares in support of its allies Russia and France

Trust me, when I first heard all that it was pretty confusing. Although it didn't help that the show I was watching tried to play up the "confusing" part and seemed to rush the explanation.

[C4Warr10r]

What, not both? Fine, WW1. Bad as it was, far fewer civilians were killed in the First World War, and while I have no problem trying to kill enemy combatants, I have reservations about killing civvies, even enemy ones.

Besides, with my knowledge of modern tactics there's a chance my successes would be noticed and permit me a place in the General Staff or higher during the next war, if I survived. From there, maybe I could avoid some useless battles, prevent some dumb strategies like bombing cities.

[C4Warr10r]

Escrito originalmente por Killua #99:

thye push back and defeat germany. They much too harshly punish germany creating a weak economy for them and create animosity leading to rise of a wicked man who takes advantage of it and eventually causes ww2

They being the British, mostly. Germany has always been a problem for Britain because it is a natural European superpower that their navy couldn't do much about. Amongst other things, British heads of state have considered strilizing the Germans, just because they're a reliable threat to English superiority, even in peace.

Not that they were allowed to do such things, but they did manage other deplorable actions, like maintaining a blockade and forcing a food shortage on Germany after the Armstice.

If Americans had known what the British were planning to do to the Germans, I don't think they ever would have supported the Entente. The British thought so tool, which is why they tried to keep us out of negotians, and their first act in both wars was to cut the transatlantic cable. For allies, they sure can be d***s sometimes.

[Lily]

Escrito originalmente por Killua #99:

thye push back and defeat germany. They much too harshly punish germany creating a weak economy for them and create animosity leading to rise of a wicked man who takes advantage of it and eventually causes ww2

France's reparation demands played only a small part in the rise to power of Hitler. And much of that was due to the Weimar government's incompetent handling of things.

The same government which, it should be noted, sent Hitler into the early nazi party as an informant. Some informant, he wound up taking control of the thing!

[76109108007942031]

Escrito originalmente por C4Warr10r:

Escrito originalmente por Killua #99:

thye push back and defeat germany. They much too harshly punish germany creating a weak economy for them and create animosity leading to rise of a wicked man who takes advantage of it and eventually causes ww2

They being the British, mostly. Germany has always been a problem for Britain because it is a natural European superpower that their navy couldn't do much about. Amongst other things, British heads of state have considered strilizing the Germans, just because they're a reliable threat to English superiority, even in peace.

Not that they were allowed to do such things, but they did manage other deplorable actions, like maintaining a blockade and forcing a food shortage on Germany after the Armstice.

If Americans had known what the British were planning to do to the Germans, I don't think they ever would have supported the Entente. The British thought so tool, which is why they tried to keep us out of negotians, and their first act in both wars was to cut the transatlantic cable. For allies, they sure can be d***s sometimes.

I thought it was France that wanted the Germans to pay for everything?

[robomagon]

Escrito originalmente por Gustave5436:

Escrito originalmente por Killua #99:

thye push back and defeat germany. They much too harshly punish germany creating a weak economy for them and create animosity leading to rise of a wicked man who takes advantage of it and eventually causes ww2

France's reparation demands played only a small part in the rise to power of Hitler. And much of that was due to the Weimar government's incompetent handling of things.

The same government which, it should be noted, sent Hitler into the early nazi party as an informant. Some informant, he wound up taking control of the thing!

That's a pretty good informant actually. Just imagine how much more information he was privy to as the party leader.

[C4Warr10r]

Escrito originalmente por Sir Illic:

I thought it was France that wanted the Germans to pay for everything?

France and Britain both wanted reparations, but it was France's reparations that were the problem. Even John Meynard Keynes, the guy who is to blame for people thinking the government cann aford everything and create economic growth, dismissed their demands as ludicrous.

Britain, on the other hand, wanted the map redrawn and a permanent solution to Germany. Paying reparations sounded great to them, and while they were at it, they gave half of Germany to Poland, moved Poland hundreds of miles west into ethnic Germany, created a bunch of other BS states they KNEW would fall apart, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and basically just tried to **** up continental Europe as muich as possible.

Britain's foreign policy at that time, and ever before it, was to keep Europe disunified. A unified Europe, they knew, would be the end of the Empire. Thus, to them doing irrational **** like putting the Czechs and the Slovaks, who HATE each other, into one country, was deemed wise.

We're still dealing with their crap today. Iraq was another creation of Britain. Nobody sane would put the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ together in one country unless they wanted to prevent unification and another Ottoman Empire.

[76109108007942031]

Escrito originalmente por C4Warr10r:

Escrito originalmente por Sir Illic:

I thought it was France that wanted the Germans to pay for everything?

France and Britain both wanted reparations, but it was France's reparations that were the problem. Even John Meynard Keynes, the guy who is to blame for people thinking the government cann aford everything and create economic growth, dismissed their demands as ludicrous.

Britain, on the other hand, wanted the map redrawn and a permanent solution to Germany. Paying reparations sounded great to them, and while they were at it, they gave half of Germany to Poland, moved Poland hundreds of miles west into ethnic Germany, created a bunch of other BS states they KNEW would fall apart, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and basically just tried to **** up continental Europe as muich as possible.

Britain's foreign policy at that time, and ever before it, was to keep Europe disunified. A unified Europe, they knew, would be the end of the Empire. Thus, to them doing irrational **** like putting the Czechs and the Slovaks, who HATE each other, into one country, was deemed wise.

We're still dealing with their crap today. Iraq was another creation of Britain. Nobody sane would put the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ together in one country unless they wanted to prevent unification and another Ottoman Empire.

Interesting, thanks for the short history lesson.

[C4Warr10r]

Escrito originalmente por Heofonā:

Escrito originalmente por C4Warr10r:

Britain's foreign policy at that time, and ever before it, was to keep Europe disunified. A unified Europe, they knew, would be the end of the Empire. Thus, to them doing irrational **** like putting the Czechs and the Slovaks, who HATE each other, into one country, was deemed wise.

Woah, there is something I must clarify. I am Czech myself, and I assure you that most of us do not have dissent towards the Slovaks. There are some Czech who find that Slovaks are a burden, but they are not really many.

There are a lot of reasons for why the Czechoslovakian state failed, but they go beyond the average person. Disagreement between Czech and Slovak politicians, and a gap in the economic and cultural development between two countries played the biggest factors. The two countries should have theoritically been equal in this union, but the Czech part was ahead for the most part, and Czech citizens also doubled the Slovak citizens.

Did you used to hate each other? That's what I've always read, also that neither people were particularly happy with that union, but I'll take the word of someone actually from the region. In any case, I should have said "hated." I know it's not so bad, now.

[C4Warr10r]

Escrito originalmente por Heofonā:

Hmm. I was not alive yet when the union dissolved, only born shortly after. I have talked to older family members and several other people who were there to see it. At least for the 10 to 20 years before the countries split, according to most accounts the Czech and Slovak people got along quite well. I cannot say how well we saw each other before that, I have never asked anyone that much older.

This holds to be true in fact, for the average slav, however. You could take any of us and stick us in a room together, and we would be quite happy to get along. I would cite our relationship with the Poles as a good example - we take the piss out of them quite often but truthfully we hold the ability to be good mannered to each other. I have a very good few friends in Poland and I have no bitterness towards them for their nationality.

Thanks for the perspective, but everyone is nicer nowadays. Back then the Germans and French hated each other, they don't now. I assume that's what the books are referencing.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to write it all out.

[Spambot71 (main character)]

Neither. My uncle was in Afghanistan and I know more than enough about war to ever want to be anywhere near one.