3121
Comments (79)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
11
RATMW 11 points ago +12 / -1

The numbers are just simply staggering. In both world wars put together there were 1.4 million Brit soldiers dead. 2.1 million french soldiers dead. 500 thousand American soldiers dead.

Think about just how many that is. Each would’ve had on average 3 children back then, and those children would’ve had 2 children on average. Meaning Western Europe’s population would be much much higher now if not for those wars. Europe as a whole would have had a population closer to China’s. Imagine all the great poets, writers, scientists, inventors, cities etc that we were cheated out of. Makes me so so sad.

8
wharfthrowaway 8 points ago +8 / -0

especially since WWI was a phony war

5
Mayhem 5 points ago +7 / -2

And WWII

1
MAGAMAN4EVA 1 point ago +1 / -0

In WW1 and 2 we joined with the bad guys to beat the bad guys and when we did the bad guys won.

2
goose5184 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have recently been trying to look up WW1 more and find out exactly what the reasons were for fighting. In school they taught that it was just a bunch of countries that created alliances so once Ferdinand was assassinated it snowballed into a world war.

But what I don't get is for how bloody of a conflict it was why didn't soldiers fighting in England and Germany not question why it mattered to them? I don't really understand how there was enough morale to keep fighting such a bloody and pointless war.

Was there mad propaganda going on? They always gloss over WW1, if you knew of any good sources to learn more could you recommend some?

2
WhiteTrashJesus 2 points ago +2 / -0

They used propaganda. Once it started at least, it became us vs germans for the uk and us versus british for germany. Once you are already shooting each other the initial reason doesn’t matter. And then once you are there you are fighting for the people beside you. The motivations of those people making the decisions whether or not to have/continue a war are generally not in the best interest of the people. It was also a transitionary period between being led by kings to fight for territory and world war 2 which was somewhat for territory but really for ethnic cleansing and political reasons, to what the us does now which is long term money laundering. The US involvement in WWI, was explicitly done for the formation of israel. Britain agreed to set aside palestine in exchange for US to help them win. WW2 US involvement was for a very similar reason, although they created a better excuse

1
WhiteTrashJesus 1 point ago +1 / -0

And yes they were all orchestrated for financial reasons. The federal reserve was formed in 1913, then the us gets in a war a few years later and takes out massive loans from an entity that “creates” the money and gets interest back. These entities make a lot of money from wars like this

0
RATMW 0 points ago +1 / -1

The first year of the war it was voluntary for British men to go. People saw it as their duty to go and fight for their country.

The reasons for the conflict depend on who you ask. I’ve read enough banned literature to be of the opinion it was because of ‘them’.

2
Gnometard 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's where all the men died. The breeding stock after ww2,Korea and Vietnam was mostly pussies.

The men died for something, unfortunately too many died