For the average solider, what was the worst war in human history?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW1 maybe. Imagine being told to run to certain death

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      walking into certain death is also possible

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      just like the napoleon wars?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but WW1 had chemical weapons.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For me it's the shock. Pre-WW1 wars at least had the illusion of a warrior's pride, martial spirit and all. Imagine going in what seems a honest limited war against other like-minded people (i.e. we'll bump heads for a while, then figure something out) and you get thrown into a meat grinder with machine guns, poison gas, massed artillery, and hitherto unheard-of disregard for human life.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My great grand father was thrown into the meat grinder in France. He stopped corresponding half into it, and there weren’t any more news of him. The war ended and he did not return. After sometime the family had to accept his death and mourn him.The wife dressing in black as a widow until one late night he enters the house. This was a small village behind the hills with no electricity. The wife collapsed They thought he was a ghost. He had been a POW of the Germans and had now found his way back home in very frail health.
      >t. Portuguese

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder if you could get her to write a book. I don't think any have been written about that scenario but it has to happen.

        Oh wait, the odyssey. Serious mate write that life down before it's gone from us forever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WW1 and it's not even close

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The one they participated in.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes because sitting in a FOB in Iraq doing jack shit was just as bad as sitting in the trenches in Verdun. lmao get real.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Getting killed in Iraq would suck all the same

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Would getting buttfucked by a guy with a micropenis be just as bad as getting fucked by a guy with a 13 inch cock?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >micropenis:
            >barely feel it
            >feels degrading
            >left unsatisfied
            >13 inch cock
            >rubs prostate even before insertion
            >blows out your ass, blows out your mind
            >feels so hard you can't move
            >feel it in your ass for a week after
            give me the 13

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >can’t shit right ever again
              well if you’re going to be dead and blown to bits half way through the next week then it doesn’t really matter

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >micropenis:
            >barely feel it
            >feels degrading
            >left unsatisfied
            >13 inch cock
            >rubs prostate even before insertion
            >blows out your ass, blows out your mind
            >feels so hard you can't move
            >feel it in your ass for a week after
            give me the 13

            >can’t shit right ever again
            well if you’re going to be dead and blown to bits half way through the next week then it doesn’t really matter

            >can’t shit right ever again
            This has been debunked.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW2 is the bloodiest war in history, so statistically the average soldier stood more chance of being killed in WW2.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. If you randomly select anyone who served in either the Wermacht or Red Army, both have significantly better than 50% odds of surviving the war, although obviously this varies drastically based on when, where, and how they served. Some wars have way higher fatality rates for combatants.

      WWII is the deadliest war in history because the human population was vastly larger than it was at any earlier point. A major war in Africa or civil war in India or China this century could exceed the total number killed in WWII while also leaving much of the world untouched and killing a much lower %.

      The Thirty Years War killed 2.5 times the percentage of the German population as both World Wars combined. The Huguenot Wars in France killed 11-14 times the share of the French population as the First World War. The death rate in the conflict would be akin to Syria having 5.75 million deaths in their war, i.e. ten times as deadly.

      In general, earlier wars tended to kill a larger share of the population. Part of this is that militaries used to supply themselves by forage and plunder, part of it is that sacks that involved indiscriminate violence, looting, and the taking of slaves was permitted, and part of it was that the mass execution of civilians was tolerated to a higher degree. However, the biggest factor was that much of the population worked as near subsistence farmers, meaning that wars could collapse the food supply, leading to starvation and increasing susceptibility to disease. Armies also brought diseases with them, and an episode of small pox, etc. could cause mass fatalities, whereas without the huge movement of men and animals diseases didn't tend to engulf a region entirely (as often, obviously it still happened).

      The First Crusade is a classic example of high combatant fatalities. The Latin army was huge for the time and ended up taking 66-75+% fatalities by the end despite being victorious.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So what would be the worst war to experience by your measure then? Living in one of the many nations ass raped by Mongols?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There are a few ancient wars where the conquered people essentially get wiped out of existence, can't really get worse than that. The Assyrians were quite brutal.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the fact that the assyrians managed to be hated so much at a time when basically every warcrime was standard procedure is pretty impressive

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Their historical accounts sound like shit you'd hear from a knockoff Conan the Barbarian villain. It's almost hilarious how over-the-top evil the boasts are until you consider that they probably weren't just making it up and they actually did that shit to people.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you make some examples?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Pic is the assyrians flaying people alive, that is removing skin
                I have made a pillar facing the city gate, and have flayed all the rebel leaders; I have clad the pillar in the flayed skins. I let the leaders of the conquered cities be flayed, and clad the city walls with their skins. The captives I have killed by the sword and flung on the dung heap.
                The Rassam cylinder in the British Museum describes :
                Their corpses they hung on stakes, they took off their skins and covered the city wall with them.Dermatologist Ernst G. Jung notes that the typical causes of death due to flaying are shock, critical loss of blood or other body fluids, hypothermia, or infections, and that the actual death is estimated to occur from a few hours up to a few days after the flaying. Hypothermia is possible, as skin provides natural insulation and is essential for maintaining body temperature.

                “I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile
                [of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I
                flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.”

                “I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and]
                defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red
                like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain
                swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their
                fighters built a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys
                [and] girls.” “In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting
                men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and]
                hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of
                many troops. I made one pile of the living one of heads. I hung their heads on trees
                around the city.”

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you make some examples?

                samefag
                “I cut their throats like lambs. I cut off their precious lives (as one cuts) a string. Like the
                many waters of a storm, I made (the contents of) their gullets and entrails run down upon
                the wide earth. My prancing steeds harnessed for my riding, plunged into the streams of
                their blood as (into) a river. The wheels of my war chariot, which brings low the wicked
                and the evil, were bespattered with blood and filth. With the bodies of their warriors I
                filled the plain, like grass. (Their) testicles I cut off, and tore out their privates like the
                seeds of cucumbers.” †

                “Their dismembered bodies I fed to the dogs, swine, wolves, and eagles, to the birds of
                heaven and the fish in the deep…. What was left of the feast of the dogs and swine, of
                their members which blocked the streets and filled the squares, I ordered them to remove
                from Babylon, Kutha and Sippar, and to cast them upon heaps.” †

                “The sepulchers of their earlier and later kings, who did not fear Assur and Ishtar, my
                lords, (and who) had plagued the kings, my fathers, I destroyed, I devastated, I exposed to
                the sun. Their bones (members) I carried off to Assyria. I laid restlessness upon their
                shades. I deprived them of food-offerings and libations of water.”

                https://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_spanier/teaching/documents/cp6.0assyriantorture.pdf

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Was this type of stuff common?
                Btw where is this from?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He's quoting Ashurbanipal, king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from 669 BC to his death in 631 BC. He wrote that (or rather, had it inscribed on a stone tablet that was placed out in public) of his conquests of Elam and what essentially amounts to his genocide upon the Elamites for aiding his brother in a civil war against him (or rather, his brother trying to break away from Ashurbanipal's empire).
                This was all occurring around 646 BC in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and what you know now as the Middle East.
                The Neo-Assyrians also had a proclivity for forced resettlement of conquered peoples, the Exile of the Bible was such a program of resettlement after they were conquered by them, moving large portions of the Israelites out of Israel and Judah (Israel split in two for a while, read the Book of Kings for more on that) and moving other conquered peoples into that land. This was done to try and stop the conquered from rising against them by placing them in lands they didn't know and among other peoples they either didn't know well or fucking hated so they wouldn't collude against the empire. None of this bullshit stopped the Persians (now Iran) from steamrolling them and absorbing all the land they'd taken though.
                If you've ever wondered why the Middle East is the way it is, this is why.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(Their) testicles I cut off, and tore out their privates like the seeds of cucumbers.” †
                Ngl thats a weird flex homie

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ya Mongols or Assyrians. Those cold ass motherfuckers killed your gods. And the Mongols treated you like traitors as All under Tengri was part of the Khans realm and ignorance was no excuse for disobedience.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        AYRT, you are right, proportion > absolute numbers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not even remotely true

      https://i.imgur.com/Kyqo226.jpg

      A lot of the wars of the 18th century were a horrible combination of
      >larger populations that can muster a greater percentage for war due to improved agriculture
      >disease still claims most of the lives of soldiers
      >ungenerous treatment of adversaries
      >the beginnings of industrialised warfare and machines of mass slaughter
      >wide ranging campaigns
      The taiping rebellion was a bad time of all involved, the civil war was not at all fun, the napoleonic wars could be pretty brutal, the Indian wars were certainly not fun for the native Americans lmao. The early wars of the start of the 20th century were also pretty awful, like the Russo Japanese and the Philippine American wars. King Philips war isn’t in that time frame but it was also a really awful time for all involved. I think unless you’re going back to antiquity or the classical period (where records are imperfect) a lot of the worst wars were fought mainly in the 19th century.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW1 or WW2 eastern front.
    Or those crazy shithole wars like the Iraq-Iran war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Iran-Iraq war had WW2 level casualties and yet its barely talked about

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because nobody fucking cares. Why is it so difficult for brownoids to understand?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        despite the mountains of corpses and electrified swamps there was barely any movement with the stalemate. Pleps like big movement and clay captures, hence WW2 gayry vs forgotten WW1. Despite the vets of the latter prepping and unleashing the former expecting a similar smack down

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          mag seems a little short? is he rocking a 10 rounder or something?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because incompetent sandmorons from both sides pointlessly threw bodies on each other. It's a decade long stalemate. And worst part is that even if it wasn't and one side could clearly win over the other it would change absolutely nothing globally. Also despite abundant use of human waves it took them 7 years to rack up all those casualties, russians already got comparable in just over a year, which should tell you a thing or two about intensity of combat.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even if one of them achieved a total victory all it would mean is that instead of two thirdie brown shitholes in that part of the world there would be one big one. It wasn't important. Stakes were very low in a global sense.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This.
        The Americans gave Saddam nerve gas to use against the Iranians, then later accused Saddam of having nerve gas, while the US was the largest global manufacturer of nerve gas

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          retard

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        500,000 people died in that war.
        That's less than some battles on the Eastern front
        Get over it retard

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are like 4 wars with more death and destruction than WW1, it still takes the number 5 spot so it is worth mentioning but you should understand that 4 other conflicts eclipse it.

      There is an argument for % of population but it's faulty and based on looking at people as statistics rather than living breathing organisms which matter. It is much more useful to measure devastation in total number of deaths rather than deaths per % of population. Sure it sucks to lose so many of your people but from each individual persons perspective who participated or lived in the region of the conflict, the conflicts with higher total death total had more human suffering.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You only understand half of the picture by viewing things that way. It's too simplistic for something as ravaging as war.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I sympathize with the perspective, the death of an individual is a statistic but the death of a nation is a tragedy. Looking into the details, my argument hinges on the idea that the worst outcomes for everyone involved- civilian, soldier or whoever would also determine just "how bad" a war is to fight in.

          Many anons in this thread are arguing that its worse to lose a higher % of your deployed forces or its worse to lose a high % of your population in war. Many would argue that the much larger nation can much more easily deal with the consequences of war by virtue of simply having more people and the consequences would be incredibly dire for the smaller nation.

          The higher your losses the more likely that babushka has to pick up the AK. Quite grim.

          However I'd rather be more fair and measure peoples lives equally and not value soldiers lives less than the lives of say your civilians or measure their lives and experiences as less than those of nations with a smaller population and a smaller military. It seems fair to just go ahead and conclude that human suffering is human suffering across the board and whether you're a hyper confident commander of a force that appears as though as if it's winning the day- but you get pink misted by a cruise missile all of a sudden or whether you're an insurgent partisan launching attacks on an occupying military that's genocidal towards your people and you get found out and gunned down by several occupiers at once, well the end result is still that you suffered a grim and terrible end either way.

          Like I said if we want to take other things into account like starvation, not having a city to come home to, modern medicine, then sure. But that's the conversation we should be having. Not "oh well these guys got completely wiped out so their suffering automatically matters more than the people who died while they thought they were winning"

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The continuous chimpout that happened in China between 1911 and 1949. It’s every war rolled into one war, and if you managed to survive your reward was living under Mao.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kek
      this seems pretty fucked
      but fuck bugs anyway

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      actually not really. Most warlords didn't give a fuck about discipline in the army. If you wanted to you could run away and be a bandit, just like the rest

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If you wanted to you could run away and be a bandit
        The warlord armies were the bandits.
        If you wanted to you could run away and starve.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The average soldier is probably Chinese, so there's merit in this view.
      Personally I think the worst Chinese wars were the imperial era wars where one state suffering fammine invaded the neibour to steal rice, causing the harvest to fail, starving either way

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Given how fast shit is hitting the fan in China currently there’s a good chance we’ll end up with another gigantic meltdown like that I’m the coming decades.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I second this. Shit was brutal in a way hardly imaginable to most people during this period in China. Russo-ukraimorons can fuck of.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A period of near-anarchy across the country with no force to establish order in sight. Where landlords requisition grain until their peasants starve half to death. Where roaming armies, bandits, and brigands cross a continent-sized country, raping, killing, and stealing at will.

        All the while, the Western powers wring their hands and twiddle their thumbs. They continue to hold on to their colonial possessions, extorting the country of its wealth, refusing to help the government do anything to unify its country. No wonder why the Nationalist government turned to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany for help. Nobody else was willing to lift a finger to help them end the anarchy. The arms embargo, in fact, just made things worse.

        When a truly organised force comes, it's not better at all. An army enters under the banner of Asian co-prosperity - steals, rapes, mutilates, murders; builds slave labour concentration camps that put Auschwitz to shame. An army enters for the sake of the Chinese nation - and it kidnaps all of the men in a town, leaving those left behind condemned to near-death and endless years of uncertainty, stealing all of the possessions to make things worse. An army enters in the name of global socialism - and destroys the fabric of society, condemning people to hardship.

        Decades of unimaginably cruel pain and suffering. It's no wonder why old Chinese people appreciate Mao - despite killing tens of millions by incompetence and malice, his government still managed to improve life for the average person in a way unknown for many, many years.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vietnam is similar. I imagine some poor fuck fought the French, Americans, Cambodians, and then Chinese.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I second this. Shit was brutal in a way hardly imaginable to most people during this period in China. Russo-ukraimorons can fuck of.

      A period of near-anarchy across the country with no force to establish order in sight. Where landlords requisition grain until their peasants starve half to death. Where roaming armies, bandits, and brigands cross a continent-sized country, raping, killing, and stealing at will.

      All the while, the Western powers wring their hands and twiddle their thumbs. They continue to hold on to their colonial possessions, extorting the country of its wealth, refusing to help the government do anything to unify its country. No wonder why the Nationalist government turned to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany for help. Nobody else was willing to lift a finger to help them end the anarchy. The arms embargo, in fact, just made things worse.

      When a truly organised force comes, it's not better at all. An army enters under the banner of Asian co-prosperity - steals, rapes, mutilates, murders; builds slave labour concentration camps that put Auschwitz to shame. An army enters for the sake of the Chinese nation - and it kidnaps all of the men in a town, leaving those left behind condemned to near-death and endless years of uncertainty, stealing all of the possessions to make things worse. An army enters in the name of global socialism - and destroys the fabric of society, condemning people to hardship.

      Decades of unimaginably cruel pain and suffering. It's no wonder why old Chinese people appreciate Mao - despite killing tens of millions by incompetence and malice, his government still managed to improve life for the average person in a way unknown for many, many years.

      It’s worse because it was basically a century of chaos. The first opium war, taping rebellion and second opium war had annihilated China and the boxer rebellion was just the cherry on top. The Chinese really are right to call the period from the first opium war to 1949 the century of humiliation.
      And then you have the Korean war immediately after… and then the Great Leap Forward… and the cultural Revolution… I can see why people accepted Dengism tbqh. 150 years of near unending chaos and bloodshed

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if you managed to survive your reward was living under Mao
      L-MAO

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The continuous chimpout that happened in China between 1911 and 1949. It’s every war rolled into one war, and if you managed to survive your reward was living under Mao.
      Once I discovered Chinese war movies they were more gory than I expected. I don't know why I expected otherwise, maybe assuming because China likes to censor things, but not these films. The propaganda part is more, like, Mao sitting around giving out wisdom, but the battle scenes are exceptionally brutal. It's like watching Dawn of the Dead or something. Here we go:

      ?t=4752

      It could be almost medieval too at times because of shortage of ammunition, melee weapons were used a lot. Sometimes they go a little overboard and make it look like Warhammer but I imagine mass charges with melee weapons did happen:

      ?t=4721

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They did and they were not uncommon on both sides and they featured pretty commonly even in mao-era film and theatre. The Luger+Dao with a ribbon combo is pretty common on both sides. Very 40k imo and quite frankly, kino

        This movie is obviously cultural revolution era propaganda but there’s some kino there. Skip to about 1:25:00 or so for a dude dual wielding Lugers leading a detachment of these cunts

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Good film.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Glad you like it, the arts were very well funded during this era in China funnily enough because of Jiang

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ?t=4752 [Embed]
        >look at fight scene
        >oh i recognize some of those sound effects from old bond movies
        >looks like one as well
        >check title
        >"Chinese movie 2021"
        ultra kek

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's from 1999. Still kind of looks like it was shot in the 1980s, but it's not 2021.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_for_Nanjing,_Shanghai_and_Hangzhou

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn't want to have to go on patrols through a booby-trapped jungle in Vietnam time and again

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At risk of being attacked daily, rather than a few weeks a year. Thanks to insertion by helicopter:

      “For a combat soldier in World War II who served for four years, the average time spent in actual combat was approximately 40 days. By comparison, Grunts in Vietnam spent an average of about two-thirds of their 12- or 13-month tours – over 250 days – in combat”

      https://web.archive.org/web/20160209114052/http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_012104_Stress,00.html

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW1 and WW2 specifically the Eastern Front.

    Kursk however must have been fucking incredible from a birds eye view though.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really, this is an idea perpetuated by movies and a lack of real world experience with conventional war. Dispersion and range are significantly greater in real life, a bird's eye view of Kursk would look like a mostly empty field with the occasionally visible tank or explosion

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Soldiers accounts of Kursk are of fields littered with si mmay destroyed tanks the smoke obscured everything and you could barely breathe.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Soviet movies are particularly bad with this - they'll show tanks, infantry, assault guns moving forward with centimetres of space between them, as if it was a cavalry charge of Kutuzov's army. It makes for very impressive imagery, though.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Paraguayan War for the Paraguayans perhaps.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn't be too bad being a Paraguayan jody though

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously not a war but an SMO but the worst scenario I could imagine would be being a mobik/wagnerite in Bakhmut.
    >no food
    >no ammo
    >no orders
    >not even an entrenching tool
    >no training
    >zero trust and unit cohesion
    >get bombed by your own artillery
    >gun is a rusty AK
    >personal equipment is from the 1940's and full of bullet holes and dried blood from the last mobik
    >any second a grenade might be dropped on you with no warning
    >raped left, right and center by everyone from chechens to officers
    >best case scenario if you get wounded you wind up in pic related
    >if you live you get sent straight back

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is your brain on Reddit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Excuse me, I’m a little slow. But isn't it the Ukrainians who are barley holding on to their only supply road into the town? Thats sounds worse, but not anywhere close to being the worst situation.

        Good Morning Sirs!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Excuse me, I’m a little slow. But isn't it the Ukrainians who are barley holding on to their only supply road into the town? Thats sounds worse, but not anywhere close to being the worst situation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At least they get supplies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'd rather be one the side where none of the things listed is a problem. You would to even if you're too embarrassed to admit it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >barley
        ESLs are so fucking funny lmao

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn't hodl his barley

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting, so how did these starving, unarmed, untrained and unled soldiers achieve picrel?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you zoom in on individual apartments it'll look more impressive, Sanjay.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A Russian state officials I see. Its the same level as MSN or CNN or some tv evangelist. Its the same on the other side telling you Russians are loosing. Also Ukrainian 3 day anti terror operation in Donbas lasting 9 years.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            One of those is the Belarusian dictator you fucking clown lmao.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Also Ukrainian 3 day anti terror operation
            ...What? Are you seriously cargo culting even this? Kek.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Expenditure of tens of thousands of penal forces, VDV, Wagner regulars, and mobniks, concentrated with the best logistics and ammunition supplies the RU MoD can muster against predominantly territorial defense forces (some miscellaneous special forces present in low volumes as well) given tertiary priority in terms of resource allocation. Or are you forgetting how often Zaluzhny apologizes to Bakhmut defenders for keeping them at low priority?

        Anyway the fact that's all they've accomplished so little while spending so much in roughly a year shows just how degraded Russia has become as a military force.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"yes human wave tactics are great!"
        >"it only took them MONTHS"
        >"NATO troops put up one hell of a fight"
        Good morning sir

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >So I fought that one guy
          >I came second, he ended up next to last

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How did they after 14 months *almost* capture a town with a pre-war population of 70k? That's really impressive.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          they tried to evade civilian causalities chud

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hol up, is this from yesterday? russians must know that the world is watching, how are they not making sure everything that goes on parade is 100% working, pristine condition?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              its older stuff

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Someone who helps organize and ensure safety at parades every 4th of July and Veterans' Day, this webm is still absolutely infuriating to watch even years later.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They're Russians; that is pristine condition.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What is worse: Working a munitions-factory in China or working in munitions-factory in Russia?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Constant reinforcement, bodies get replaced by more bodies

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        By dying by tens of thousands.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Embarrassing that the strategically useless town forced Russia to expend most of its resources for a pointless victory. I doubt that they can even keep the fucking place

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        by standing on the corpses of ten thousand who went before them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If I zoom in on my spilled drink it'll seem big too. Do Russians not realize just how fucking irrelevant this town is? It doesn't even show up on most full maps of Ukraine

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the funny thing. They haven't. That is only what they claim on Telegram. Ukraine doesn't reveal their positions, so there is no counterpoint. Do you think those maps show the recent Azov counter attacks 3km deep gain? Nope. Of course not. Because the "conquest of Bakhmut" is a fucking Russian fantasy sold to shit eating Zatniks as a life raft to cling to as they drown in shame and the anal rape of their peers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you, Reddit war tourist.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/hcl7HcY.jpg

        >This is your brain on Reddit

        Ukraine posting has literally been the worst thing to happen to PrepHole in years.

        He's not really that far off though. Do you realize how fucking gut wrenching it is thinking about how dystopian modern warfare has become. It used to be maybe Vietnam as the worst conflict in the fact that you're about 5 to 10 meters away in the middle of the night. But Ukraine is pretty fucking brutal, 24 hours ops meaning no time for rest and recovery, constant artillery strikes, and fire missions because there's drones and aircraft always flying by. The idea there's fucking toys flying around you dropping grenades on you is already hellish enough.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There are several dozen conflicts historically that the Russo-Ukrainian war cannot even touch in terms of total death and suffering. He's very far off, you're simply bias because you have been exposed the most to the Russo-Ukrainian war because it is a recent and ongoing conflict and is far easier to observe than pretty much any preceding war. It is the war that is most visible to you, but compared to say the Mongol conquests that lasted for 199 years and involved twice as much death as World War 1 is so distant and intangible that the suffering that occurred is alien and foreign to you. Nonetheless the historical record stands and the archaeological evidence backs it up and it dwarfs the Russo-Ukrainian conflict many times over.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This thread isn't about total deaths dumbo, read the OP.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              By definition the worst war for a soldier is the war with the most people dying. It doesn't get any simpler than that you fucking mook.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >by definition
                Post the definition.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does one come to such a retarded conclusion? There have been tiny wars that have been way fucking worse for the average soldier than wars with a lot of total deaths were the average soldier had it reasonably good.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because every soldier who dies or is permanently maimed has it the worst you fucking retard. I've already been through explaining this. Just because some nothing little tiny insignificant country got wiped out does not mean that the horrible deaths that a larger country faces on the battlefield suddenly become meaningless. Each man who dies in war suffers his own personal hell at the end, this is a fact.

                Okay let's do a mental exercise to help you understand, using fake countries. The Gorgundian Confederation loses 5,000,000 men on the battlefield but has a population of 128,000,000 million and a standing military of 14,000,000. However, their ally, The Kingdom of Terrogon was completely wiped out, their total population was 5,000,000.

                Of course for the people of that kingdom they lost everything. But those soldiers in the Gorgundian Confederation lost the exact same number of people in an equally horrible way. Obviously the Gorgundian's get to continue to exist and the Terrogonian's are completely gone but the amount of human suffering and death is exactly the same, measured individual to individual. One could argue those 5 million Gorgundian's also lost their nation because they don't know if they won or if they lost, they died horribly and will never know. They are gone, so are the Terrogonian's.

                We can get more detailed and try to argue that women children and elderly matter more than male soldiers but that's pretty dumb because the individual suffering is the same. Would the 5 million Terrogonian's that died only matter if they were the only 5 million people in their country? Do small countries matter more than big countries? Again, are you retarded? Do you know what it means to die?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >doubling down this hard instead of just taking the L

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This just in: Covid was worse than the Holocaust.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Question: Given the choice, would you rather hav been your average Gorgundian or Terrrogonian soldier?

                >Do you know what it means to die?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neither, both would have sucked. Either way you still die a horrible death being executed, blown to bits or shot up. If you get captured then you can be tortured, any number of things can happen to a soldier and not a peep of it gets out. Modern communications technology + the internet exposed us for what we are. We're fucking savages and that's the truth, in a real war no one gives a shit about the Geneva Convention or whatever treaties. Anything can happen. Whether you are the last man defending your nation or the first man over the trench you'll die horribly so my answer is neither.

                This just in: Covid was worse than the Holocaust.

                In both cases:
                Maybe it happened, but it wasn't 6 million.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Neither, both would have sucked
                I don't recall neither being an option. Also
                >There is literally no difference between joining a military with 0 survivors and joining a military with 9 million survivors.

                Damn, human lives are worthless to you, including your own, huh?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, there's a difference but even "winning" forces still have to go through the shit and can die any time. Even if you're on the "bigger" and "better" winning team you can still get erased and die horribly on the battlefield. It's the same as if you were the last man standing in some situations. You could just be in a shit part of the war. How many Germans started out thinking they were hot shit in France and then found out just how much it sucked to fight in Stalingrad. The tide can always turn, dying while being fresh on the battlefield- dying after surviving utter hell. One way or another you're still dead and your fate is the same and just because you're on the larger side doesn't mean you're gonna die knowing that you're going to win. It's not going to make it any less painful.

                Oh okay the fresh guys just sent to the front line all got slaughtered in scores while being ordered to hop over the trench.
                Oh NO how horrible the survivors from the start of the war finally met their end in the last German charge over the trenches.

                Both experiences sucked for both people and were utterly fucking terrifying. Sounds more like life and suffering don't matter to you, otherwise you'd see it on equal terms.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >By definition the worst war for a soldier is the war with the most people dying.
                Incorrect. Soldier!=people.

                The worst war for a soldier would be the war with the most soldiers dying as a % of total combatants.

                Basically, which war did you absolutely not fucking want to fight in, since if you did you were practically guaranteed to be fucked? I don't think this thread has answered that. It's inflated with non-combatant deaths or includes situations where one side had shittons of survivors because of army size.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay so soldiers aren't people or does losing your civilians in war not factor in to how horrible it was? Who is and isn't a soldier or civilian in a civil war? How much does it suck to starve to death vs getting shot in the head? Like seriously bro if you lived in the region and you had to suffer through it, do you count in the assessment of how much it sucked? Well what if you picked up a hunting rifle and took a few potshots at the Red Army or the Nazi's in WW2? Are you a soldier now? Does your experience matter now because now you're a soldier?

                I have many questions for you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay so soldiers aren't people
                No. Not all people are soldiers.
                >does losing your civilians in war not factor in to how horrible it was
                Pretty sure dying sucks more.

                >Who is and isn't a soldier or civilian in a civil war?
                A soldier would be someone that takes up arms as part of a regular force or as an irregular engaged in the war/

                >How much does it suck to starve to death vs getting shot in the head?
                Starving to death would suck more, I would imagine. So if we needed to do tiebreaks you could factor in cause of death I suppose.

                >Like seriously bro if you lived in the region and you had to suffer through it, do you count in the assessment of how much it sucked?
                No. The topic of the thread is for the average soldier.

                >Well what if you picked up a hunting rifle and took a few potshots at the Red Army or the Nazi's in WW2? Are you a soldier now?
                Yes. You're an irregular.

                >Does your experience matter now because now you're a soldier?
                Yes. Literally the subject of the fucking thread.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Glad you could clarify, so by the agreed upon definitions and agreements:

                https://i.imgur.com/6A1fPdg.jpg

                I've compiled a curated list of the top ten wars in human history in terms of total estimated losses. If you were alive in the periods of time and regions which participated, civilian or soldier your life was a nightmarish apocalyptic hellscape. These wars especially were apocalyptic, if you were in them or lived during the fighting it would appear world ending due to the size and scale.

                This includes deaths of both soldiers, civilians, etc. from causes both directly and indirectly caused by the war, which includes combat, disease, famine, massacres, suicide, and genocide.

                1.) World War 2: anywhere between 70,000,000 and 118,357,000 deaths. Lasted merely 6 years and 1 day.
                2.) Mongol Invasions and Conquests: anywhere between 30,000,000 and 57,000,000 deaths. Lasted 199 years.
                3.) Taiping Revolution: anywhere between 20,000,000 and 40,000,000 deaths. Lasted 14 years.
                4.) Manchu Conquest of China: only estimate is 25,000,000 deaths. Lasted 65 years.
                5.) Second Sino-Japanese war: anywhere between 18,000,000 to 22,000,000 deaths. Lasted 8 years.
                6.) World War 1: anywhere between 15,000,000 and 22,000,000 deaths. Lasted 4 years and 3 months.
                7.) An-Shi rebellion: only estimate is 13,000,000 deaths. Lasted 8 years.
                8.) Chinese Civil War between the Communists and Nationalists: anywhere between 8,000,0000 and 11,692,000 deaths. Lasted 14 years.
                9.) Hui Muslim Minority War: only estimate is 10,000,000 deaths. Lasted 15 years.
                10.) Russian Civil War between the Bolsheviks and the White Army: anywhere between 5,000,000 and 9,000,000 deaths. Lasted 5 years.

                Notice that the Russo-Ukrainian war that we pay so much attention to today is utterly dwarfed both in size and scale by every single conflict on this list. Any single one of these wars was absolutely devastating and would have felt world ending to everyone involved. Pick any single one of them and it was the worst for those soldiers involved.

                is still the defacto list of worst wars to participate in and if you don't think so I suggest you at least open up their wikipedia page and learn about them to understand that by the agreed upon answers- they are indeed the worst wars for soldiers, as defined by your answers, to participate in.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >is still the defacto list of worst wars to participate in
                Spanish conquest of the Aztecs killed a greater % of mobilized participants than WWII. We're talking like 2 in 3 vs 1 in 5.

                So...no?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There weren't even that many native americans alive you tard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >%

                % of mobilized participants doesn't mean shit. I don't know why I have to explain it to you. Total numbers are the only thing that matters, it doesn't matter if a large % of mobilized participants got wasted when the total death during Spanish conquest that occurred happened every fucking week on the eastern front many times over. That's why you're retarded. Measure suffering treating each individual with respect. Your little war that you think is so bad is nothing compared even to the pacific or the eastern front or even the western front.

                >Total numbers are the only thing that matters
                The average soldier doesn't give a shit about the total numbers.

                I get it. You don't know what an average is. You're a brainlet. It's okay.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                % of mobilized participants doesn't mean shit. I don't know why I have to explain it to you. Total numbers are the only thing that matters, it doesn't matter if a large % of mobilized participants got wasted when the total death during Spanish conquest that occurred happened every fucking week on the eastern front many times over. That's why you're retarded. Measure suffering treating each individual with respect. Your little war that you think is so bad is nothing compared even to the pacific or the eastern front or even the western front.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Total deaths doesn't mean whichever suck more, there's a reason there's an increase of PTSD and not becuase it's studied more intensely these days. Conflicts are sustained bouts of continuous stress now vs what they were 80+ years ago (obviously with some exceptions like in major battles like Iwo Jima, Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc...) war was a campaign structure. Now it's total constant battling. If you're a soldier in Bakhmut or Avdiivka or east of Kharkiv. Everyday you hear shells going over your head around your position, and you're on alert looking for drones or personnel doing reconnaisance. The mental fatigue of every minute could be your last is what the original dude meant in that it fucking sucks more than any other conflict.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine posting has literally been the worst thing to happen to PrepHole in years.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, if you're a vatnik/pajeet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm bored
        >Go onto PrepHole
        >psyop
        Goddammit you fucks. Ukraine sucks, Russia sucks. All of you suck.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >mobik/wagnerite in Bakhmut.

      You mean Lugandan/Donbabwean sacrificial meat.

      Anyone have this but for DPR/LNR?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wew, Reddit must be rough.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You should fucking go back.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Taiping Rebellion
    >Chinese christian schizos revolt against the Qing Dynasty
    >20-70 million people die

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i would love to see the taiping rebellion winning,they would have been better at least.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the fact that the europeans considered them crazy should tell you they werent exactly following the bible very closely

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vietnam, both sides were getting the shit end of the stick
    >randomly get headshotted by a tree speaking VC
    >step on shit covered spikes and die of infections

    >gunned down by the droves
    >burned alive by napalm and WP, and if you somehow survive you wish you hadn't

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Iran-Iraq electrified swamps. Iraq filled the Hawizeh marshes with land mines, barbed wire and live power lines. Iran lost 20k men in that assault
    >WW1 western front (Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele)
    >WW2 Eastern Front or Japanese invasion of China
    Theyre top 3. After that probably US civil war due to super high deaths as a % of the population

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In human history it's easily one of the countless chinese civil wars where like a million chinks die of starvation and cannibalism and entire armies resort to banditry to avoid dying a slow and painful death or getting castrated by whatever psychopath became emperor

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ancient warfare, where you died of some fucked up disease before ever saw the enemy sounds rough.
    WW1 where nobody really understood modern war yet
    Going into tunnels or getting captured in vietnam also sounds nightmarish

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ethiopia Eritrea war had child soldiers forced to storm and defend WWI trenches.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trench warfare of ww1. Gas attacks, mud, flamethrowers a hellscape of barbed wire and shells all over the place.

    Vietnam. Exhausting depletion of your vitality in that nightmarish humidity. Traps out of a nightmare. Both of these seem the worse.

    Desert terrain and arctic terrain are extreme and horrid but the two above seem much worse.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Thirty Years War had a lot of torture for captives. The Swedish Drink was funneling soldiers cholera diarrhea down men's throats, there was breaking on the wheel, impalement, etc.

    Also very long, very bloody, and pike/shot warfare is as brutal as any.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw swedes buckbroke the germans so hard they continue to eat and drink shit to this day

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The push of the pike, actually engaging another pike formation with pikes, was bad enough that professional soldiers generally refused to do it and it wasn't common. More often a side would win based on maneuvering, getting the other line to break, or inflicting damage on them with firearms and cannons until they withdrew. When it did occur, which it certainly did at times during the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, it normally resulted in atrocious losses on both sides. That seems like a pretty shit way to go out; even if your side wins you're fucked.

      The lack of frequency of battles before the modern era is sort of offset by how brutal and dangerous marches were. You might be eating flour gruel for most meals while lugging your kit and supplies across hundreds of miles, and starvation and disease often hit armies.

      The other thing is that poor transportation meant that getting caught up in raids could happen quite unexpectedly, although that's more a problem for civilians.

      Battles were much quicker, but also sometimes much more deadly. The deadliest day in British history is either the first day of the Somme or Townton, but with Townton the population was 40 times smaller. Scaled up to the WWI population it was like losing 400,000 men in a day, over a full % of the male population in one go.

      There are a number of battles with fatalities higher than the combined leaked total for the current war in Ukraine occuring over several hours. I imagine that sticks with you.

      Pike and shot and line warfare also has the special unpleasantness of being unable to run because then calvary will ride you down, and so you have to stand in formation while artillery/cannons tee off on you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Townton is considered to be an exaggeration, but either way neither. It's Watling street. And it's Watling street even if you divide it by ten. And I have never seen a historian say it's numbers are that exaggerated.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >calvary
        It's like you are trying to bait me on purpose.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/j9jKrUH.jpg

      The push of the pike, actually engaging another pike formation with pikes, was bad enough that professional soldiers generally refused to do it and it wasn't common. More often a side would win based on maneuvering, getting the other line to break, or inflicting damage on them with firearms and cannons until they withdrew. When it did occur, which it certainly did at times during the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War, it normally resulted in atrocious losses on both sides. That seems like a pretty shit way to go out; even if your side wins you're fucked.

      The lack of frequency of battles before the modern era is sort of offset by how brutal and dangerous marches were. You might be eating flour gruel for most meals while lugging your kit and supplies across hundreds of miles, and starvation and disease often hit armies.

      The other thing is that poor transportation meant that getting caught up in raids could happen quite unexpectedly, although that's more a problem for civilians.

      Battles were much quicker, but also sometimes much more deadly. The deadliest day in British history is either the first day of the Somme or Townton, but with Townton the population was 40 times smaller. Scaled up to the WWI population it was like losing 400,000 men in a day, over a full % of the male population in one go.

      There are a number of battles with fatalities higher than the combined leaked total for the current war in Ukraine occuring over several hours. I imagine that sticks with you.

      Pike and shot and line warfare also has the special unpleasantness of being unable to run because then calvary will ride you down, and so you have to stand in formation while artillery/cannons tee off on you.

      >Time to get fashionable.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        nice ass bro

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thirty Years War scaled up to Europe's WWII population would have been around 57.5 million dead, drastically eclipsing the European theater of WWII.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but people bred like rabbits back then.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          doesn't really matter if most people died during childbirth/early childhood

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >funneling soldiers cholera diarrhea down men's throats
      Jesus Christ in Heaven, what sick fuck came up with that one? At least during the Crusades, instances of cannibalism and other such shit was purely because logistics were shit and they happened to have a bunch of freshly surrendered brown people to eat. Feeding fecal matter to POWs is just vile.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pekka with the knife absolutely crowns this image.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          literally the best depiction of swedish-finnish and german relations during the 30 years war I've ever seen.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are northerners like this? Is it the cold? In warmer climes warfare is just comedy.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          payback for magdeburg. The swedes were the saviours of protestant germans.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pike battles were fucking hardcore, I wouldn't want to be involved in that shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Crawling under the pikes with a small dagger to stab the enemy in the kidney
        goblin shit right there

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That one Chinese war where a city was besieged for years and the garrison only held because they resorted to cannibalism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > That one Chinese war where they resorted to cannibalism
      You're gonna have to get way more specific

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    any war before modern medicine became thing
    90% of causalities in war were from shitting themselves to death

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russian-Ukrainian war, for the prisoners captured by the Russians. You may starve, be beheaded, or be castrated before being executed. I can't imagine any worse fate for the soldier.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's pretty much how the treat their own soldiers too.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sensible chuckle

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW1. It wasn't as bloody as WW2 eastern front, but it was just pure agony that provided a near-unparalleled ratio of shellshocked veterans compared to other war.

    Because all it was was sitting in a trench all day, as artillery rained down on you day and night, and a single bad roll of the dice would see you buried alive in your trench, to the point the dutch word for a trench in military context is literally "traversable grave".

    And if you got to do anything else than getting shelled all day long, or gassed all day long, or listening to the moanings of the poor night assault of hte opposing side that got mowed down en masse the night prior but most of which didn't actually die and are now just slowly dying from infection and internal bleeding, you were getting send over the top where you pretty much were doomed to either die or be send back with a crippling injury.

    There was just something so grim and profoundly unromantic about WW1 that makes it desirable to literally nobody. There was not one role that didn't translate to unfiltered fucking misery.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IIRC troops in ww1 were on 2 week rotations. You would spend 2 weeks in the hellish nightmare of the front trenches, then 2 weeks behind that in the secondary trench lines where it was significantly less dangerous, then 2 weeks in the rear where it was quite comfy and you could do what you want and play soccer and visit shops and take leave ect. Keep in mind there is also a bias towards the big meat grinders of the war like verdun ect, there were also thousands of kilometers of trenchline where soliders sat around basically doing nothing and seeing no combat the entire war

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Korean War just seems like such a horribly depressing conflict.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In terms of survival? Probably the War of the Triple Alliance for the Paraguayans

    This was just the survival rate for their leadership.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1) War of the Triple Alliance
      2) Second Punic War
      3) Gombe Chimpanzee War
      4) WWI

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Gombe Chimpanzee War
        Imagine getting jumped at a McDonalds 1 by 1 at an odd hour of the night when you're all alone.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit, those were the top 0.1% of the country.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah the war of the triple alliance was a localised mass extinction. I genuinely can’t think of a similar event in history where an aggressor is wiped out so completely and so unnecessarily. The Brazilian/Argentine/Uruguayan tardfecta wasn’t even trying to genocide them, they just wanted a surrender

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I genuinely can’t think of a similar event in history where an aggressor is wiped out so completely and so unnecessarily
        Fourth Crusade?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The fourth crusade and the war of the triple alliance are two very different breeds of retarded, pointless wars

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Still, you have to admit, the aggressor was wiped out completely and unnecessarily from the perspective of the Muslims who literally didn't even have to do anything, lmao.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I genuinely can’t think of a similar event in history where an aggressor is wiped out so completely and so unnecessarily
        Yellow Turban Rebellion? That was kind of a shitshow.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Taiping Rebellion comes close in wanton cruelty.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The second punic war would've been pretty bad.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >all while the US and the people that 'started-it"

    Didn't know that the US invaded Ukraine on February 24 and struggles to capture Bakhmut. The more you know

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Get off my fucking board retard, every thread does not need to be about ukraine.

    Opie, I'm going to say it's probably an ancient war. I would say Belisarius' campaign in Italy is up there, absolutely devastated the peninsula to the point people and livestock got smaller from malnutrition. The sieges were fucking brutal as well.

    The final Byzantine-Sassanian war is another good candidate. Huge swathes of territory changed hands, tons of cities sacked, the Persians got garden gnomes in Palestine to start lynching random Christians in the street. Constantinople almost fell to a combined Persian-Avar force. Heraclius managed to turn it around by turning a Persian general, sneaking past their forces and sacking major cities in Iraq. The war was something like the USA and the USSR fighting if they didnt have nukes, superpower knock down drag out fight for survival. The reason the Islamic conquests were even able to happen was because the war left both empires so depopulated, impoverished and demoralized that a sudden attack caused the Persians to implode and the Byzantines lost the entire middle east except for Anatolia. Honestly this was one of the most important wars in human history in terms of long range consequences.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The final Byzantine Sassanian war is an underexplored conflict thanks to the lack of written sources on the Sassanid side.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being Japanese in ww2 sucked
    >basically told up front you're not going to survive, your life matters less to your commanders than most soldiers in all of human history
    >see the empire you follow religiously(literally) torn apart in front of you and experience a massive existential breakdown
    >main killers are starvation and disease
    >americans fucking despise you because of booby traps (dont accidentally step on one yourself, not like anyone is keeping decent track of where they are!) and your general treatment of them
    >convinced that americans are demons
    >you're a 4'10 starving conscript with a bolt action rifle and your enemies are marines who stand a full head taller than you and have air support, artillery support, a superior navy, better small arms, better equipment, better medicine, better organization and communication
    >nightmarish heat
    >flesh eating humidity
    >flesh eating diseases
    >flesh eating animals
    >cannibalism
    >massive lack of supplies, support, or even communication
    >your diet is mostly rat meat, dead comrades, and whatever you can forage or fish for (assuming the commanders don't take it from you) while the enemy is having bbqs and is being followed by floating ice cream factories, if you do manage to get a ration its a tiny portion of cold rice
    >expected to commit violent suicide as soon as anything goes wrong
    >head is stuck on a pike to decorate some americans tent, gear is taken home for him to show off to his drinking buddies while they make fun of you

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >convinced Americans were demons
      the Americans themselves weren’t, but the garden gnome bankers that controlled everything certainly were

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Manchurian Japanese women were told to drown their babies and commit sudoku so they and their kids wouldn’t be raped to death by theRussians.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to commit violent suicide as soon as anything goes wrong
      This will never make sense

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Do you think they actually believe this shit or they're just being disingenuous?
    Ukrainians get tons of training, especially compared to Russia, this is HEAVILY documented and incredibly easy to obtain information.

    And I suppose this one is (sort of) a matter of opinion but I just don't see how anyone can claim America is responsible for this

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The "Indian wars" in the 19th century US west. If that wasn't genocide, what was it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The point wasn't to kill them per se, just drive them off their land. Plus it wasn't really a war, just a special military operation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that the US bothered to set up reservations sort of disproves the genocide aspect. Why give up portions of land for your enemies to live in if you're just going to kill them all?
        Many of the tribes got off easier at the hands of the US compared to what they would've gotten at the hands of other Indian tribes. The Comanche in particular come to mind.

        Ethnic Cleansing is considered genocide. Yes, displacing populations of specific ethnicity through force of their homes is considered ethnic cleansing. No systematic murder doesn't need to be involved, and it's not like it wasn't.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The fact that the US bothered to set up reservations sort of disproves the genocide aspect. Why give up portions of land for your enemies to live in if you're just going to kill them all?
      Many of the tribes got off easier at the hands of the US compared to what they would've gotten at the hands of other Indian tribes. The Comanche in particular come to mind.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        we killed the vast majority of them and forced them to relocate to some shitty plots of land. this passes the bar for genocide
        >Many of the tribes got off easier at the hands of the US compared to what they would've gotten at the hands of other Indian tribes.
        maybe a small fraction of them, but not in general. native americans didn't survive for dozens of millenia by nearly wiping each other out on the regular.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we killed the vast majority of them
          smallpox hands typed this post

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not even a mutt but that's just ridiculous. Indians were complete primitives, there wasn't much to genocide and they didn't had much concept of "land" either to take it from them. It's not even like with middle and south american indians, where they had stable civilizations and societies, average north american indian had about as much connection to the land it was "driven off" as an Irishman born half a globe away that build his farm there.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Indians were complete primitives
            Native americans east of the great plains lived in city like settlements, the group of cultures known as the mound builders (pic related)
            Granted they were not as advanced as the europeans but did have copper working
            They lived in city states and kingdoms.
            The civilisations collapsed due to disease spreading up the trade routes from central america and from the spanish explorers that did meet them
            the civilisations collapsed before European colonies in the north

            Im not saying what the Americans did was right by forcing people out of their lands
            but native americans had brutal approaches to war like targeting women and children as it showed how you made it in to the heart of enemy territory
            Look up descriptions of inuit warfare and you will be disgusted by what humans can do

            I used to be one of those 'muh natives didnt do nothing, americans genocided those good boys', then i read more about it and they were brutal the torture and execution of captives, the simultaneous gang rape and torture of settler women including children, the total destruction of settlements. Im not saying the americans were saints either with their massacres either.

            tl'dr
            As I said i'm not saying what the americans did was right but the native americans shouldnt have acted like savages but neither should the americans, like begets like

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >like begets like
              Plenty of tribes were murdered just for being natives with zero fucking involvement with actions of other tribes. What like begets like nonsense. The California Genocide was basically all just unprompted genocides for natural resources. Sorta shit you see to this day in the Amazon.

              One fucking tribe fought back against encroachment from settlers and after that it was just a protracted campaign to enslave, hunt, or sterilize Native Americans out of the entire fucking state.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i wanst saying their weren't innocent tribes
                i was trying to say its not black and white

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >i was trying to say its not black and white
                But it often literally was. It was just granular.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i understand
                tens of thousands of innocents died on both sides
                tribes were forced of their lands and there were numerous massacres of the natives
                the american view of natives as a whole was probably tainted by the barbaric ones that commited the attrocities

                for comparison at school we were told their was a tribe in africa,
                when a warrior died they cut out the gall bladder and drunk the contents so he could go to warrior heaven,
                when the british army were fighting them, the tribesman did the same to the british dead as they respected them as fellow warriors
                now the british saw this and thought they were barbaric cannibals desecrating their dead and this lead to a brutal campaign
                now i dont know how true it was because i can find no reference to it on the internet

                the romans even thought christians were a cannibal cult, they talk of a bizzare group of people who ritually eat their god and hide in tunnels and caves, they misunderstood the Eucharist, the eating of bread and drinking of wine representing the body and blood of christ

                what i mean these two is early missunderstandings can taint how two peoples treat one another

                the native american tribes that scalped women and children believing it to show great courage that you entered the heart of enemy territory and made it out alive, along with the massacre of settlers probably tainted the american's view of all natives they encountered from that point onwards
                to this day not just americans but people around the world view native americans as a singular culture despite the fact they were many different cultural groups with differences within the groups

                im saying neither side was right neither was wrong, attrocities were commited by both, this is an unfortunate fact of life that has repeated itself time and time again throughout human history and it will sadly contiue to repeat itself

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >im saying neither side was right neither was wrong, attrocities were commited by both
                And I'm saying this is complete bullshit, there was no "both". Portraying it as a "both" is a fundamentally biased world view. There were hundreds if not thousands of Native American tribes in the USA alone. Some were morally black, some gray, and some white, vs a definitively morally black USA.

                There were absolutely some dumbfucks that viewed all Native Americans as a monolith, but the USA as a political and cultural body did not. It was aware of tribal differences to the point of actively exploiting intertribal politics for its own benefit. It made treaties with individual tribes which it continuously violated. It engaged in a protracted genocidal campaign without regard for fault for individual acts or human dignity on the side of the Native Americans.

                And to say otherwise is to *lie*.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If USA was so morally black, why does every native american left today speak in ideas they got from the USA? Like people's right to self-determination, freedom from slavery, universal suffrage, right to divorce, bodily autonomy, etc. these concepts sure as shit werent invented by any indian or african.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >these concepts sure as shit werent invented by any indian or african.
                1. Indians were fighting for self-determination for the entire fucking Indian Wars, you fucking idiot
                2. Black Haitians gave us freedom from slavery
                3. Universal suffrage was from Finland
                4. Native Americans had right to divorce
                5. We don't even have bodily autonomy today. If anything that shit's been rolled back for them cause of the fucking government.

                What an embarrassingly dumbass post.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Black Haitians gave us freedom from slavery

                nani?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Haiti was founded in a giant ass slave revolt. The "idea" of ending chattel slavery en masse was Haitian, in a way.

                Actually that shit inspired John Brown, whose actions lead to a rapid deterioration in relations between the North and the South, which in turn accelerated if not helped to cause the Civil War, which in turn directly lead to the abolition of slavery, so in a roundabout way it also gave us freedom from slavery.

                John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
                John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
                John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave
                His soul is marching on!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The idea of ending slavery was haitian? Are you mental?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. I feel like I made my case. Who would you say had the idea first? And please don't say Abraham Lincoln.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No. I feel like I made my case. Who would you say had the idea first? And please don't say Abraham Lincoln.

                not any of these anons but i just wanted to say
                inb4 spartacus
                their is a myth spartacus wanted to end slavery, he didnt
                during thier slave revolt, they only freed agricultural slaves as they were seen as strong and could fight
                domestic slaves were left enslaved as they were considered weak

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ....you fucking idiot that doesn't mean he didn't want to end slavery, it means he didn't want the horrifying logistics drain of leading weak, untrained soft bodies into combat.

                >Huuuurrrrrrrr he could have used them as meat shields huurrrrrrr

                That's not how war works. In between battles he would have been fucking up his logistics by dragging around a shit load of people that couldn't help in the war effort. Remember Spartacus was effectively in hostile territory and fleeing from the "popular" enemy meaning he couldn't rely on the goodwill of the populace to feed and aid his army. He did want to free all slaves, he simply couldn't at the time.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it was never one of his goals, his goals was to get home

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Mutts have an amazing ability to know nothing about world history. The first bill to end the slave trade was introduced to British Parliament in 1783 (passed 1807) and ending slavery had been a position held by quakers for a lot longer than that. That wasn't even the first banning of slavery the anglo world which happened in England circa. 1086. Haiti inspired loads of slave revolts (that all failed except the few where slave ships just sailed to British ports) but it had a limited effect on actually changing laws on slavery worldwide.

                So the psychotic franchophone despot you should be sucking off is William I of England not Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stop lying. Slavery in the UK wasn't banned until the 1960's.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1. The Haitian revolution started in 1791 and concluded in 1804.
                2. Britain didn't end slavery until 1838. Slave trade and slavery aren't the same thing.
                3. If you still had fucking legalized chattel slavery past 1086, slavery wasn't fucking ended, now fucking was it?
                4.
                >but it had a limited effect on actually changing laws on slavery worldwide.
                And? Nobody said anything about worldwide. It had a sizeable impact on the course of American political history vis a vis emancipation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hell, slavery was abolished in the Northern U.S. states as soon as the t were independent. a couple of decades before Haiti.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Black Haitians INVENTED freedon from Slavery

                Et Tu, Spartacus?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Spartacus lost. And more importantly didn't set about direct policy change resulting in the freedom of the slaves. There's been a bajillion failed and successful slave revolts and escapes through history both before and after his bullshit.

                If the notion is he's good enough to represent a torchbearer for the idea of freedom from slavery then that idea was already rampant in Native American society and indeed every society on Earth through history.

                FFS, Spartacus was a leader in the "Third" Servile War.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Modern liberalism came from Revolutionary France.
                Modern fascism came from the United States.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >right to divorce,
                >these concepts sure as shit werent invented by any indian
                Tell me you know nothing about native culture without telling me you know anything about native culture.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i say 'both' for simpicities sake
                i think we both agree on the majority of points i feel we are arguing semantics

                the american conquest of america was akin to ceasers conquest of gaul where their were 100s of gualish tribes many of which did no harm to rome
                ceaser still burnt their cities
                1/3 of gaulish population enslaved, 1/3 genociede, 1/3 left to live under roman rule

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good. Imagine this country with even a million more indians in it.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Have you read about King Philips War in detail?
              Like begets like indeed.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Im not saying the americans were saints either with their massacres either

              Isn't the way the American state genocided the natives a major inspiration for Hitler and the holocaust?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re getting your wires crossed I think, thinking of the Boer War inspiring the camps and Jim Crow laws inspiring similar laws in 3rd Reich

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Now that's some mutt urban legend, why do you think anyone even cares about indians let alone knows? Africa tier morons just slightly less brown

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >why do you think anyone even cares about indians let alone knows?
                If there's one thing Nazis are, it's autistically obsessed with minorities.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC before ww2 nazi germany did send ethnographers and linguists to study native americans

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Hitler literally referred to Poland as a "reservation" at one point.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Look up descriptions of inuit warfare and you will be disgusted by what humans can do
              I can't find anything, tell me.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >native americans didn't survive for dozens of millenia by nearly wiping each other out on the regular

          On the contrary, that's exactly how many of the powerful tribes survived. The Comanche, who originated in Wyoming, didn't build an empire in the Southern US and Mexico by politely asking the Apache, the Tonkawa, the Nadaco, the Shawnee, and everyone else in their path, to please leave. Indian tribes had been massacring and genociding each other for thousands of years, just as people have done everywhere else on the planet.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there’s not one single thing stopping any one of them from getting off their ass today and rejoining what’s left of civilization. they can quite bitching about the past.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Survival. They were savages and we treated them accordingly.
      Not just the men. But the women and the children too.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think everyone agrees the only tribes we actually tried to genocide were the Comanche and we weren’t the only ones trying, not even the first to start.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    First Punic War. You want guaranteed death, imagine sailing out in the largest premodern fleet ever assembled and getting shitcanned and drowned by Neptune along with 100k other dudes.

    Twice.

    Literally the most egregious use of human wave tactics in history. Emphasis on wave.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    thirty years war
    all the fun of disease, messed up supplies, wanton killing, and actual engagements of lining up in pike and shot blocks is probably the worst form of combat
    or alternatively the ottomans wars which include all that plus slavery if you lose

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rape, pillaging, murder are statistical certainties in war. But the situation in the era of the 30 Years War is difficult for our present day minds to conceive.
      The Treaty of Westphalia stated that only states could field armies, because during the 30 years war there was an abundance of non-state militaries. I imagine this was extremely bloody and hellish, basically dudes who had arms that took the opportunity to loot and destroy at whim because chaos reigned and they could site sectarianism as a justification for their actions. Entire regions were depopulated and had to be reclaimed from nature.
      When the was was over, many of these people were rounded up and hung, much to the glee of the citizenry.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd say the 30 Years War has WW1 beat when it comes to human suffering, especially because in WW1 they at least had something akin to modern medicine.

    And that's just Europe, I think the myriad of Chinese Civil Wars manage to be worse. And who knows what native Americans and Africans did in their history, but was just never properly recorded (or records destroyed during colonialism because said records were embedded in looted and destroyed artworks).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't really think pre-modern wars were that much bad on themselves, it's just that general quality of life was terrible already and war only made it worse.
      In comparison modern war would be akin to forcing a man to jump from luxuries of heaven straight into pits of hell, while pre-modern war would be like moving from a pool of mud into a pile of shit.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any naval campaign: all the risks of ground warfare, plus the likely possibility of drowning.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lord Anson's special military operation against the Spanish pacific was pretty grim

    >Royal Navy sends a flotilla of 8 ships to harass and take prizes against the spanish.
    >they can't find enough marines for the detachment so they rock up to a military hospital and explain to the marines the plan
    >any of the wounded capable of running off go AWOL and the ones who can't are loaded aboard ship (including several very old marines who served at the Battle of the Boyne 50 years prior)
    >they fill the rest of the marine compliment with fresh recruits with no training
    >they get chased across the atlantic by the spanish
    >the ships all get lost and 2 return to britain
    >by the time they reached Chile 2/3 of the men were dead
    >HMS Wager crashes into a reef because only 12 men out of 105 and 50ish marines were fit to change sail
    >36 men from Wager survive by sailing round cape horn in jolly-boats
    >the meet up point on Juan Fernandez was plotted 300 miles away from its actual position
    >the flagship Centurion spends almost a month looking for the island while the crew dies of scurvy (only 8 were not suffering from scurvy out of 400 when they arrived)
    >3 more ships arrive there while they recover in Juan Fernandez but the Anna is too damaged and gets scuttled
    >they scuttle another ship but capture 2 spanish ships to use
    >fail to capture a manilla galleon
    >they realize they don't have enough crew and scuttle the spanish ships leaving all the men in just Centurion and Gloucester
    >they decide to circumnavigate to get home
    >Gloucester sinks halfway through the pacific
    >they reach Tinian and find a spanish supply depot with only 1 guard
    >while most of the crew are ashore Centurion is taken out to sea by a storm
    >Anson was planning to journey to China in another fucking jolly-boat
    >before that can happen the typhus addled sick men left on Centurion sailed back into port
    >they reach Macau and refit their ship

    CONT

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they sail back to Samar to look for another manilla galleon
      >in the stupidest luck of all time they manage to find and capture the Nuestra Senora de Covadonga loaded with $54 million modern USD in silver
      >sail back to china and load all the silver onto the Centurion
      >return home as extremely rich heroes but with only 188 men out of 1,854

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Grim.
      But please, continue

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly? Imagine being some warrior having to fight of the sea peoples? Your entire world is falling apart, these psychos on ships are just steamrolling your technologically advanced society and burning your cities to the ground and no matter where you run you find more of the same, the entire known world has been burned to the ground and you have no where to go. Also, warfare in the dawn of human civilization was always wars of annihilation, must’ve been apocalyptic

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reminder that the wars during the collapse went so hard multiple civilizations lost the ability to read and write for centuries. They quite literally got pushed back to the stone age.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've compiled a curated list of the top ten wars in human history in terms of total estimated losses. If you were alive in the periods of time and regions which participated, civilian or soldier your life was a nightmarish apocalyptic hellscape. These wars especially were apocalyptic, if you were in them or lived during the fighting it would appear world ending due to the size and scale.

    This includes deaths of both soldiers, civilians, etc. from causes both directly and indirectly caused by the war, which includes combat, disease, famine, massacres, suicide, and genocide.

    1.) World War 2: anywhere between 70,000,000 and 118,357,000 deaths. Lasted merely 6 years and 1 day.
    2.) Mongol Invasions and Conquests: anywhere between 30,000,000 and 57,000,000 deaths. Lasted 199 years.
    3.) Taiping Revolution: anywhere between 20,000,000 and 40,000,000 deaths. Lasted 14 years.
    4.) Manchu Conquest of China: only estimate is 25,000,000 deaths. Lasted 65 years.
    5.) Second Sino-Japanese war: anywhere between 18,000,000 to 22,000,000 deaths. Lasted 8 years.
    6.) World War 1: anywhere between 15,000,000 and 22,000,000 deaths. Lasted 4 years and 3 months.
    7.) An-Shi rebellion: only estimate is 13,000,000 deaths. Lasted 8 years.
    8.) Chinese Civil War between the Communists and Nationalists: anywhere between 8,000,0000 and 11,692,000 deaths. Lasted 14 years.
    9.) Hui Muslim Minority War: only estimate is 10,000,000 deaths. Lasted 15 years.
    10.) Russian Civil War between the Bolsheviks and the White Army: anywhere between 5,000,000 and 9,000,000 deaths. Lasted 5 years.

    Notice that the Russo-Ukrainian war that we pay so much attention to today is utterly dwarfed both in size and scale by every single conflict on this list. Any single one of these wars was absolutely devastating and would have felt world ending to everyone involved. Pick any single one of them and it was the worst for those soldiers involved.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I considered adding the European colonization of the america's, but actually knowing for sure how many native american's were alive in the Americas at that time is very difficult and estimates vary wildly between 8 million and 80 million and that variance is ridiculous. It seems mostly political just so they can say 80 million and I refuse to propagate such lies. The main agricultural civilizations in the americas were not particularly numerous, there may have been 3 or 4 of them over the period in question and none of them were able to support anywhere near 80 million people combined. Most of the population would be based on what the native flora and fauna of the americas would be able to support so the 8 million estimate is more than likely more accurate than 80 million and the vast majority of the dead in this particular instance were due to disease and not direct confrontation necessarily. Said disease death was not inflicted on the native on purpose even and occurred before germ theory in europe. So to count the colonization of the americas on this list would be disingenuous and unfair to other conflicts.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Making the claim that devastation should be measured by % of population is like saying "the more people who are alive, the less an individual persons experience matters" which is a completely moronic take. Just because a larger nations military was bigger than a lot of countries at that time does not mean that the individual suffering of their soldiers did not matter as much and the horrors they faced were not as important or devastating. Do you think that smaller countries just matter more than bigger countries? Are you retarded?

      The number of individual deaths and individual suffering is larger. % of population would only matter to the citizens of that nation and nobody else. People are not statistics and each persons suffering matters so is definitive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Add covid to the list then. 6 million dead over a period of two years. Truly a nightmarish hellscape we've been living in for the past two years (reminder: size of affected population, in this case the entire world, doesn't change things)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well you can't add COVID to the list because it's difficult to figure out if doctors were lying about who died from COVID or not, especially when the government would give them good reason to mark everything down as a COVID death in order to get more government payouts. Many nations operated with similar governmental policies and that will in fact skew the numbers, add in the number of people who happened to die of something else while suffering from COVID- COVID then scores an extra kill because technically we wouldn't know if the person would have survived if they did have COVID or if they didn't. You see the problem here? Also you're going way off topic, why would you equate a pandemic to a war when a war didn't start the pandemic.

          Unless you have absolute proof and evidence that the CCP designed COVID as a soft-kill biological weapon to destabilize the global economy and give themselves the edge while simultaneously eradicating their problematic elderly population which they were going to be unable to care for en masse. Maybe at that point you could make the case that COVID was a "war" of sorts. But first you'd need to prove without a shadow of a doubt that that's what China was doing.

          By the way, yes we have been living in quite shitty times recently. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      tbqh half of these are chinks so 80% just died to starvation, non related to combat in any way

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's where you're wrong bucko. The combat caused the starvation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, it would be true if it was some siege but most often it was just
          >conscript all farmers
          >not enough people to work on fields
          >less food
          >population is the same
          >excess population just straight up dies
          having population on the peak of your food capacity just means that any slightest drought or flood or blight or locust or dog shitting in wrong place would always kill millions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >conscripting all farmers
            >no but actually they didn't fight at all
            >conscripting. all. farmers.

            So you admit that the battles were actually fucking humongous and the actual fighting was probably nightmarish by the sheer magnitude of it?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >>no but actually they didn't fight at all
              No, they didn't most often. They mostly manned yet another shitty fortification in bumfuck nowhere and and were slaved the fuck out on manual labor and constructions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      where are you getting that upper death figure for WWII?

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The worst war in human history was probably the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah they really highlight how incompetent third world armies are when compared to those of civilized countries.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Other way round, retard. Third world kicked the US's ass.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cool, post some battles that you won.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    New Guinea for the average Japanese soldier. They literally had a saying
    >Heaven is Java. Hell is Burma. But no man comes back alive from New Guinea

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Congo War

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There were wars that ended with the bulk of the population dead - that includes the soldiers. Many mongol invasions basically killed as many combatants out as possible. I have no doubt that there was plenty of wars where 95% of one side got wiped out.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fucking hate communists but the retards running the show during WW1 would have made me consider communism as a lesser evil. That on top of battles like Passchendaele would have made it that much worse.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can understand hating communists as they actually exist but always thought communism as a belief system has more hits than misses. Obviously the labour theory of value is horseshit and that's what makes most of the rest of communism fall apart but the parts about class dynamics for example are mostly correct.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What does it say about class dynamics?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The working class provide a clear majority of the value of economies and are overall the most necessary class, yet receive the lowest share of political influence and only a fraction of the wealth their work justifies. The capitalist class, what we normally call the upper class nowadays, hardly works at all, at best gambling with investments but frequently just sitting on hoarded wealth - in either case their income is mostly passive and earned off the backs of the working class, yet they receive the most political influence and benefit from many legal opportunities that simply are not available to other classes (for example, the right to purchase newspapers or own vast swathes of land despite the fact that nobody ever invented or created said land).
          Then there's the middle class who the particularly retarded communists spend all their time alienating when they are clearly the only thing preventing elite dictatorship.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Never read anything more retarded. I'd rather die quickly from a shell or explosion or getting sprayed with a rifle rather than bleed to death slowly after being stabbed 6 times by a foreign man who looked me in the eye as he stabbed me over and over.

    Every cop I've ever talked to much prefer getting shot to getting stabbed. There is an incredibly psychological component to piercing another human being with an edged weapon. War yes use to be based much more so on skill and technique but it was also more personal and there was no modern medicine, technology was worse and you had to put in a lot more effort and you had many more chronic health issues through compounding injuries which medicine could not fix at that time. Covered in filth and refuse and run through with spears or having your skull caved in by a club or warhammer was much more traumatizing than getting (usually) instantly erased by mortars and artillery and small arms fire.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    these global south retards who make shit up and then expect everyone else to play along

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    American Revolutionary War 1775-1783
    Cherokee-American Wars 1776-1795
    Northwest Indian War 1785-1793
    First Barbary War 1801-1805
    Tecumseh's War 1810-1813
    Creek War 1813-1814
    Second Barbary War 1815
    First Seminole War 1817-1818
    Winnebago War 1827
    Black Hawk War 1832
    Second Seminole War 1835-1842
    Texas Comanche Wars 1836-1875
    Mexican-American War 1846-1848
    Cayuse War 1847-1855
    Apache Wars 1849-1924
    Navajo Wars 1849-1866
    Bleeding Kansas 1854-1861
    Puget Sound War 1855-1856
    Rogue River Wars 1855-1856
    Third Seminole War 1855-1858
    Second Opium War 1856-1859
    Reform Wars 1858-1866
    First and Second Cortina Wars 1859-1861
    Paiute War 1860
    American Civil War 1861-1865
    Yavapai Wars 1861-1875
    Dakota War of 1862
    Snake War 1864-1868
    Comanche Campaign 1867-1875
    Modoc War 1872-1873
    Red River War 1874-1875
    Great Sioux War of 1876
    Buffalo Hunters War 1876-1877
    Nez Perce War 1877
    Bannock War 1878
    Cheyenne War 1878-1879
    Sheepeater Indian War 1879
    Victorio's War 1879-1880

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Autism strikes and wins again

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honorable mention, The Ice Marches in Siberia during the Russian Civil War.

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    White River War 1879
    Egyptian Expedition 1882
    Crow War 1887
    Ghost Dance War 1890-1891
    Garza War 1891-1893
    Yaqui Wars 1896-1918
    Spanish American War 1898
    Philippine War 1899-1902
    Moro Rebellion 1899-1913
    Boxer Rebellion 1899-1901
    Crazy Snakes War 1909
    Mexican Border War 1910-1919
    Little Race War 1912
    U.S Occupation of Nicaragua 1912-1933
    Bluff War 1914-1915
    U.S Occupation of Veracruz 1914
    U.S Occupation of Haiti 1915-1934
    U.S Occupation of Dominican Republic 1916-1924
    World War 1 1917-1918
    Posey War 1923
    World War 2 1941-1945
    Korean War 1950-1953
    Lebanon Crisis 1958
    Dominican Civil War 1965-1966
    Korean DMZ Conflict 1966-1969
    U.S Invasion of Granada 1983
    Bombing of Libya 1986
    Tanker War 1987-1988
    U.S Invasion of Panama 1989-1990

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably whichever one they died in.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the absolute fuck is wrong with her arm?

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Gulf War 1990-1991
    Iraqi No Fly-Zone 1991-2003
    Intervention in Haiti 1994-1995
    Kosovo War 1998-1999
    Iraq War 2003-2011
    Intervention in North-west Pakistan 2004-2018
    Operation Ocean Shield 2009-2016
    Intervention in Libya 2011
    Operation Observant Compass 2011-2017
    American Led Intervention in Iraq 2014-2021
    American Intervention in Libya 2015-2019

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So we are all mentioning Euro wars, and ya bad. But honestly like China probably had a dozen wars worse than anything in Europe. Like we all have seen that strategic tang victory meme, like I'll go over the trench vs being stuck in a Chinese siege.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >gulf war was a defeat

    The coalition won it more convincingly than basically any other non-NATO has since ww2.

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Gulf War was a defeat
    >Russia is winning
    Is it opposite day already?

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    A lot of the wars vs "non-state actors" you're talking about was when the U.S was relatively small fledgling nation with a small fraction of the resources and population that it currently commands. The Native American armed resistance technically lasted all the way up to 1923 with the Posey War.

    Not to mention if you actually read the list, plenty of the victories were vs relatively functional nation states. It's not an exaggeration to say that the U.S has historically picked on countries weaker than itself- but that's not in and of itself exclusively true for all U.S victories.

    By the way, no the U.S was not the deciding factor in WW1 but it can't be ignored that it sacrificed 117,466 men; in ancient times that would be an insane number of men to lose in just 4 years- there were still 12 participating nations which lost less men. You can't say that the U.S didn't contribute to the victory and by virtue of being on the winning side, the U.S gets the privilege of saying it won.

    The Korean war started with the South Koreans basically defeated, North Korea had taken just about all of Korea, the U.S singlehandedly marched all the way up China's ass and then it spit out an extreme response without warning- 1 to 2 million Chinese soldiers sent in human waves to overrun the U.S and South Korean positions. North Koreans would have been completely crushed without extreme Chinese intervention. Every following attempt of the North Koreans and Chinese to penetrate into South Korea failed.

    The U.S didn't want to escalate with the Soviets so it ended there. From start point to end point it's still a victory, south Korea was liberated and all further attacks repelled. The Gulf war and GWOT were resounding defeats for the standing militaries of those nations, every single original government was crushed every single time. It was the following insurgency that could be considered a "defeat", more so we just got sick of police work and left.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >BUT WE WON THE BATTLES
      Yeah, yeah. It's been the same story since 'Nam. "America has never lost a war, and if it didn't, it didn't count".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron we bodied the empire of Japan by ourselves in WW2 which was one of the most powerful empires of all time. Let me repeat that.

        Empire of Japan:
        Ground Forces: 6,095,000
        Navy: 550,000 tons of displacement.
        At the beginning of the Pacific war the Imperial Japanese Navy possessed the most powerful carrier force in the world, through combination of excellent ships, well-designed aircraft, and unsurpassed aviators. The Navy Air Service consisted of five naval air fleets. The Japanese had a total of ten aircraft carriers: six fleet carriers, three smaller carriers, and one training carrier.

        The IJNAS had over 3,089 aircraft in 1941 and 370 trainers.
        1,830 first-line aircraft including:
        660 fighters, including 350 Mitsubishi Zeros
        330 carrier-based strike aircraft
        240 land-based, twin-engined bombers
        520 seaplanes (includes fighters and reconnaissance) and flying boats.

        Pic related is Japanese Imperial territory at peak strength they controlled 1/5 of the planet damn near. We defeated them, single handedly. Give us some fucking credit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Americans barely limped to Japan. It was the British Navy and Australian soldiers who won the day. And Japan only surrendered when Russia declared war, not due to the atomic bombs.
          But what should we expect from >american education

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this was pretty bad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Decisive Tang victory.

  54. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll just leave this here.

  55. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So much for the third world kicking the US ass then.

  56. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Emu Wars.

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so in hindsight, was WW1 strategy/tactics really stupid, or was there no better option?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >or was there no better option?
      they knew what war of movement was but theres nowhere to move into when everyone has millions of troops in arms

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was a lot of problems in WWI. Multilingual empires, dysfunctional officer corps often based on outdated class systems, truly revolutionary military technology, improvements to logistics and food production, uneven technological development between belligerents, the insufficient development of manoeuvre elements compared to firepower assets, severe political dysfunction in many of the powers, large populations, army units organized by geographical area coming up against doctrines and weapons capable of mass slaughter, etc
      I frankly think that three things have fixed it in the minds of people
      >weapons that more effectively physically marred battlefields and cities
      >photography and a generally free press documenting the war
      >the general air of pointlessness to the war in both causes and in outcome
      Notice how Vietnam was also affected by the sudden increase in media coverage and colour video footage, and a lack of clear purpose for Americans

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >was there no better option?
      Legitimately don't have the war. A lot of the countries that joined didn't have to or were brought in by being attacked.

      Austria-Hungary was under no obligation to declare war in the first damn place.

      Germany dragged France and Russia into the war out of paranoia, Belgium and the UK into the war out of wanting an easier time fighting France, the Ottoman Empire into the war through spycraft (this one was at least on their side), Portugal into the war out of buttmad, and Brazil into the war out of incompetence.

      Italy and Romania literally joined the war against their own fucking allies.

      And Japan, Bulgaria, the US, Siam, Liberia, and China all joined the war for more or less purely political reasons.

      Also, Italy gets a lot of shit for stabbing Germany in the back, but I'm surprised they found any fucking room with all the German knives shoved up there. Absolute dumbfucks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what's crazy is that the USA had a proto-WW1 style of trench warfare just less than 50 years before WW1. The whole entire world saw the massive casualties from the Civil War, and nobody learned a goddamn thing (except for Muricans who avoided trench warfare during WW1).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        World history is full of instances of the same damn lesson needing to be learned a few decades apart.

        See: Vietnam and Afghanistan

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what i found interesting is no western country learnt from the troubles or rhodesian bush war
          >extensive use of ieds prompt british and rhodesians to adopt v shaped hulls on vehicles to better deal with the blast

          afghanistan comes round
          >uk forgot its lessons from the troubles
          >coalition sends flat bottomed vehicles lose 100s to ieds with 100s more injured
          >coalition 'invent' v shaped hulls, hailed as a great success
          think about how many lives may have been saved if the west adopted v shaped hulls earlier

          as von bismark said
          >Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thirty Years War, Magdeburg.

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t know about the “most brutal” but Cambodia was absolutely nightmarish. Any sort of genocide of unarmed civilians by the military, like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking.

    I’m not saying they are each equivalent, just saying that being an unarmed civilian up against a serious military force bent on war crimes is a nightmare.

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any before modern medicine.
    >get grazed by spear
    >1 month later the local carpenter saws your leg off
    >3 months later you are dead

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't read the thread yet but I would say the Iran-Iraq war personally, think WW1 with gas and trenches but you're in the desert and everything sucks even more.
    >t. Uneducated anon who read this on a news site once

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you know anon, there are some other maybe better choices in this thread, but Iran-Iraq is pretty underrated for how shitty it was

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You should read about the iran iraq war more, because you’re not far off. It was fucking insane. Very few wars can claim to have used roads made of corpses and I don’t know of any others that electrified swamps as a method of mass slaughter of assaulting forces

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know quite a bit about military tactics (manuals) but don’t know much about military history and past wars, where can I learn more?
    I learned a bit from a military logistics book “supplying war” and a German soldier memoir from Russia in ww2 “blood red snow”, but aside from that I know almost nothing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      as always, start with the greeks. The Peloponnesian War is as good as anywhere to begin.
      In all seriousness, when studying the history of wars, it is usually best to take a roundabout approach and very broadly gloss over important periods or wars and identify campaigns or individuals that interest you and then focus on those parts. Reading in great deal about an entire era within which only small parts are interesting is just gonna lead to you forgetting almost everything you read.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Start with Peloponnesian
        You need to start with the Greco-Persian Wars to even understand the Peloponnesian Wars. That aside, starting two weeks before the Battle of Marathon and ending at The King's Peace is the first tract any prospective student of strategy or military history should study. It will also teach him why everyone who knows history fucking hates Sparta as turbo-cucklords.

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Without any shred of a doubt the second sino-japanese war
    no matter what side you fought for, you were utterly fucked

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being a Slav peasant soldier during the mongol invasions must have been unimaginable hell.\

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A pointy stick and a few planks of wood against a horde of merciless horse archers who are going to kill you and impale your entire village on spikes along the road to the next one
      Grim.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's even worse if you think about it. 199 years. Imagine being some Slav or Hungarian and you have to face off against the Mongols for a hundred years. That's like your great grandfather fought them, your grandfather fought them, your father fought them and now you have to fight them. Multiple generations growing up living as a tributary state or a country during the invasions. + You got your pointy stick and some shitty shield just marching under your lord into the slaughtering fields as you get encircled and outmaneuvered by an obscenely large and well organized force just constantly fucking pelting you, so many horse archers it feels like machinegun fire. You look on in horror as even your lord is outnumbered and torn apart by the horde. Oh and on the way to the battlefield you pass village after village with a pile of dead bodies at the center of town, fuckers on spikes and shit no modern medicine, no sanitation, your life already sucked and was hard as fuck and then you get surrounded by the horde.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Plus the Mongols had absolutely no mercy to armies that fought them. Throw down your weapons and run away, they'll easily catch up to you on horseback and use you for target practice. Inflicting near 100% casualties on fleeing armies is one of the many things the Mongols did that made them utterly wreck every state that tried to fight them.

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't if you are actually retarded or just farming (you)s

    the Somerset case in 1772 set the precedent that slavery couldn't exist except via positive law and no laws allowing slavery existed meaning that slavery in Great Britain and Ireland ended de facto on that date and de jure in 1086 which was when slavery ceased to exist as a legal concept under Norman legal reforms. The rest of the British empire followed in 1833. The 20th century stuff was just adding a legal definition of slavery in laws against it since before that it was just false imprisonment like in the Creole case in 1841

    Read a book moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In point of fact, the last British serfs weren't freed until the 1570s, but by that point Britain had begun trading in African slaves, so effectively you're wrong.

  66. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically (and this is even from a Europoor perspective) - American Civil War. If you watched documentaries or read about it - wounded soldiers being left on the battlefield for days, new expanding bullets fucking up bones so badly only amputations could potentially save you, no sanitation in the hospitals making Crimean war look like it took place in a freshly mopped maternity ward, POW treatment from both sides and the insane rates of death by disease amassing to 50-60% of soldier casualties.

    It fucking sucked man.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh and I forgot to mention - out fucking dated tactics used by both sides. Napoleonic formations engaging each other at what? 20-50 yards? When the firearm at that time could very well carry the bullet for 100-200 with decent accuracy. It was a meat grinder for both sides.

  67. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ya mudda

  68. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything with spear/pike formations going up against each other, i would rather walk into machine gun fire in ww1 than imagine dealing with that shit.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *