Lusitania

[- English -]

Supprised there appears to have never been a topic about this, i didnt know anything tonight about it until i watch these videos.... I reconmend them

discuss!

YouTube - Lusitania: Murder On The Atlantic - Part One
[youtubevid]1KhqZ1mduNo[/youtubevid]

 

[leviathane]

Read about this, really not a fan of that reenactment though.

 

[Iceforge]

One thing I hate in such reenactments is they are always making overly dramatic effort to show how people are getting on because they are 100% sure nothing will happen and they ridicule those who are worried.
I just sincerly doubt that really happened. Not the event as such, but nearly everybody getting aboard speaking about that and going "Won't happen!"

 

[svartalf]

YouTube - Zeitgeist III - Por trás dos panos, ñ se preocupe [Parte 3]
[youtubevid]Lo4notLTqCo[/youtubevid]

 

[Levin]

Very interesting about how the Admiralty might have covered their actions up. And their attempts to frame the captain reminds me a little of the Dreyfuss affair in France just 20 years earlier.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm suprised people are suprised about WW1 these days.

It was the most brutal, most "unhumane" war ever on this globe. Tanks lined up to run over humans, etc.

Ww2 was a pisstake really, and this? Well, just another day in paradise.

 

[pikeh]

Ww2 was a pisstake really, and this? Well, just another day in paradise.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Really. WW2 wasn't anything compared to WW1, and yes, this is just anoter incident. There's nothing "shocking" about it.

 

[Mabs]

I'm suprised people are suprised about WW1 these days.

It was the most brutal, most "unhumane" war ever on this globe. Tanks lined up to run over humans, etc.

Ww2 was a pisstake really, and this? Well, just another day in paradise.

go check the russian front circa 42/43, and then come back and say that

 

[Levin]

I don't see how you can compare them, really. The two wars were both horribly brutal, each in its own way.

 

[Olgaline]

that second movie is scary, but,
it's abit,
well......

very vive la conspiracies

 

[Zede]

Really. WW2 wasn't anything compared to WW1, and yes, this is just anoter incident. There's nothing "shocking" about it.

Nothing will ever come close to the horror of the first war of the industrial age. For me, it was the naivety of the troops and the nations involved, no war in history had ever seen such instant slaughter. Least the ruskies had an idea what to expect in ww2.

 

[Olgaline]

how odd to compare two very different wars that where fought out very differently
for very different reasons, and in "different time"

The bottom line is you cant compare them, and imo neither should you.
However

if you look purely at the death tolls you'll find the more died as a result of ww2 than ww1
but!!!
you cannot look at it that way and isolate it as such becuase, you also have to look at the aftermath of f.exp ww1 alot of wars broke out as a result of ww1 and then well the death tolls start to reach astronomical porportions, and well it's not far fetched to argue that ww2 is a direct consiquence of ww1 and so on and so on.....

Russian civil war 1917-1923, Greek/Turkish War 1919-1922, Polish/Soviet War 1919 –1921, ect

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not saying WW2 wasn't bad, but compared(yes you can compare), WW1 was more brutal, primal and all out nasty.

It's just an oåpinion, there's no "ooh you bad!" here.

If one were to ask, which was worse, WW1 or 2, i'd say 1, and that's it.

 

[tris-]

could someone sum up the pros and cons if you will, of both the wars.

i dont know much about ww1 and all i know about ww2 is loads of jews died.

 

[Olgaline]

I'm not saying WW2 wasn't bad, but compared(yes you can compare), WW1 was more brutal, primal and all out nasty.

It's just an oåpinion, there's no "ooh you bad!" here.

If one were to ask, which was worse, WW1 or 2, i'd say 1, and that's it.

how would you compare and what standarts would you set up to compare forms of brutality ? and do you derive your conclusions on a level of death tolls ? or wounded ? or on how many were influenced directly/indirectly by the war ? the tactics used ? weapons ? how ????

thats why i say you cannot compare, well sure you "can" but i personaly dout you can draw anything sugnificantly usefull out of it.

both wars were very nasty and brutal in each there own way.

what I'm getting at is that if you wish to compare something you need to set up standards out from wich you wish to compare, you say brutality ? ok but in wich way ? nubers killed ? methods ? what ? how do you compare trench warfare to systematic genecide of civilians ? i cant at least

just like i would not compare the vietnam war to the irak war or the korean war, at least not directly in that way! by

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's as simple as this:

"which war do you think was more brutal?"

WW1.

Opinion, plain and simple. I dont NEED any deathtolls or such to justify my opinion on a choice.

Stories told, stories heard, documents and such, give this opinion.

It's as simple as comparing snapple with coca cola, or wii with xbox...

 

[Levin]

Aye, it's quite alright to have a subjective opinion of course. Mine is that WW2 was more brutal, based on the things I've read and heard about both wars.

 

[Olgaline]

well fair enough, and remember i dont as such disagree with you it's just that personally
I'm off the opinion that you can not conclude wich is the more brutal war due to the fact that what made them each exeptionally brutal, and the brutality for wich they are best remembered are significantly different.

because for me, when it comes down to pure warfare and the way it was applied ww1 "wins" hands down, but when it comes to geneside and acts of hatred, ww2 "wins"

so thats my perspective and why i feel that you cannot compare "get my drift?"

but as levin says, nothing wrong with "a subjective opinion" as long as it's just that and nothing more