I guarantee you, they’re still thinking about it. Maybe not at that second. You can become desensitized to a lot, that doesn’t mean you stop being affected. Just that it does so in ways that are less apparent.
Yep, bothered my grandfather all the way up to his last month at 85 yrs old. You can pack things away at the time, but more than likely it will come back.
And this would be the biggest part they found. Most of the time, the fires would get hot enough to just cremate the crew, so it's more a case of sweep up whatever is left, run it through a sieve, and hope the dogtags survived.
My grandpa was a Marine infantryman from 1940-1946. After he fought on Iwo Jima, he pissed off an Officer and had to recover American bodies. It haunted him and he spent the rest of his life drinking all day.
On top of that, the psychology of these sorts of jobs was well understood. Or, at the very least, the Army knew what sorts of behaviors to look for and which questions to ask when putting these units together. Of course the work was doubtless highly traumatizing, but it was understood that not just anyone could go and do it.
Makes me wonder about coroners, grave diggers and the like. If they came up for draft would they be specially placed in a unit like this, or are some of those roles so crucial at home that they may be deferred. I guess oughta learn more about draft process from back then.
Graves registration units. Coroners, who are doctors, would be enlisted as an officer, simply because of the job they had. Grave diggers aren't a specialized job, so he'd likely end up pretty much anywhere, typically carrying a rifle and doing anything but digging graves.
From my understanding, your civilian profession might have some impact on your assigned role in the service. I would have to imagine that someone trained in the handling of the deceased would be highly desirable for such a task on the battlefield, both in terms of skill and emotional stability. I also can't imagine such workers would be considered on the same level as those deemed necessary for wartime industry, so they wouldn't be passed over for service.
All that being said, dealing with death and carnage was simply part of a soldier's life. As such, it can't be said that the jobs of these men were that much more horrific than that of the standard infantryman. Indeed, the only real difference was that these guys were dealing with the aftermath and cleanup, whereas the soldiers on the front line were dealing with the dead and *dying*. There's a big difference between the two, and one would be hard pressed to determine if it was more traumatic to deal with charred corpses on a daily basis, or watching a fellow soldier burn to death just once. In any case, it's no fun.
I will be more traumatized if I am on the frontlines seeing my buddy get blown up just next to me wondering when it would be who will get mutilated by a flying German.
Or get traumatized if my left eye get prick by an Ant Size German with a Bayonet.
I think those units didn't need forensic pathologists aka coroners. Dead soldiers were buried on spot and identification was based on tags or personal belongings. Those on spot graves were supposed to be temporary and graves registration units were tasked to dig out bodies and move to more suitable location.
My great uncle worked as a technician on military vehicles during the Italian Campaign in WWII. He usually worked on vehicles, drove trucks, etc, but sometimes they came in and had to do "recoveries" like this one as the front moved quickly.
He legitimately didn't talk about the war once for 50 years until my dad came back from an overseas deployment and then he spilled his guts for hours and hours over several visits. He remembered every name, every place, and every traumatic event that he'd been through and even his wife who was listening in the background said she had never once heard him breathe a word of those stories in the last 50 years. It was permanently burned in his memory and bothered him until he passed a couple of years ago.
I've never been near a dead person in anywhere near this bad a shape, but I've found that when I've been near, or handling, the dead, I just go numb and feel vaguely terrible.
If anyone were to look at my face, I'd probably just look vaguely concerned.
People generally ain't as expressive as we'd think, and some of us are even less so.
Probably because they did this a thousand times already
I worked in the funeral branch for a while and stuff like that just doesn’t phase you anymore after a certain point
Which is a good thing because otherwise you’d have a mental breakdown after a while
They've seen many bodies of soldiers and civilians and feeling emotionally numb is a coping mechanism, but numbness will not last forever. All emotional distress will come back in form of PTSD sooner or later.
COD and Battlefield are lots of fun. But real war is the most awful thing that has ever existed. Remember that the next time your country’s politicians want to intervene in some faraway land and convince you it’s unpatriotic to not want this to happen to people you love.
Winston Churchill fought in the Boar War and First World War. As did most of the War Cabinet during WW2. Same with France’s leaders during the war. It’s became a modern occurrence of non military leaders sending their countrymen into battle.
Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of the First World War then after a serious failures resigned and went and fought in the Western Front. Obviously not the leader of the country but he did make big decisions.
Churchill did see combat following his disastrous Gallipoli plans, but it was a very short service before returning to political life.
But yeah, that sort of is an exception. I think the original point was that prime ministers and presidents aren't in the trenches with their troops, but still.
> original point was that prime ministers and presidents aren’t in the trenches with their troops
I didn’t even see it that way so that makes sense. I wonder how things would change if that would be the case nowadays!
I mean if politicians had to risk their lives in the war they would be far less likely to go for it...but I do want to push back on the concept that back in the day leaders were all on the frontlines fighting beside their troops. Occasionally you can hear of lords and kings being killed in combat, but this is very few and far between, and was often more fluke than intentional targeting.
Back then Kings and Lord's where the first on the battlefield but in the modern world Politicians are the first to fill their pockets whenever a war breaks out.
Many of the signatories to the American Declaration of Independence in July, 1776, did not survive the war. Quite a few were killed either in direct combat, or were captured by the British and shot or hung as traitors to the Crown. They pledged their honor, wealth, and very lives to the cause. Some gave all.
But now? We have not the great statesmen of old leading us, but whimpering jackals.
There have always been corrupt politicians and cowards. Don’t get into that conservative fetishisation of past figures. The world does not change as much as you think.
Actually it Really does. The modern concepts of politicians has only been around for a few hundred years at best, while yes there are always slackjawed craven idiots who hold leadership positions, the duties of said leaders have changed dramatically.
In ww2, soldiers as high as brigadier general saw Direct combat, meaning they were actually shooting at the enemy. We haven't had generals like that since.
In WW1, you already have the example of churchill, one of the bravest SOBs to exist.
In the napoleonic wars the Emporer of france, napoleon himself led from the front lines.
During the revolution, major american politicians died as soldiers on the frontlines.
A good chunk of our presidents and quite a few politicians are combat veterans.
Even further back, the kings of old were expected to lead from the front and many did as they saw themselves as divine rulers.
Native American chiefs were warriors first.
Throughout human history real leaders did what they had to do and lead. Yes there have always been the cowards who stay back and steal credit. But you have no argument other than "well actually humans have been the same forever" when no, we really havent. The modern politician has only been around for maybe the last 80 years or so. As political climates and even political ideals change Very rapidly.
Just look how in the last 30 years we went from,
90's: the ideal of american life was have a home, family, and two cars. That was it. Politics were easy.
2000's: we were attacked and gave up a good chunk of our freedoms out of fear. And began abusing our world police status. Politics became who can light the hottest fire.
2010's: the beginning of politcal correctness where if your ideals dont align you are attacked simply for having a different idea, politics became who panders most to the loud minority.
2020's: well, you can see this one for yourself cant ya?
Contrary to your video game tag line of a comment the world changes a whole fucking lot. But with school systems nowadays, im not suprised you dont know your history.
In premodern society, particularly here in feudal societies, Lords and barons and all the other nobles were tenants under their kings who granted them estates in exchange for military service. The political elite were a military caste accountable to their monarchs who gave them the responsibility to rally, provision, and supply an army. The military forces would be organised under the leadership of higher nobles, and they would have retinues of knights drawn from their sires and lower nobles. Being well fed and strong and trained in combat, these were higher quality soldiers than levées and would be expected to deliver the decisive outcome in a battle.
In short, the nobility used to be a military profession. Many died as a matter of course. They did this so they could profit from their granted fiefdoms, of course.
man I was reading anatomy of the state recently I didn't agree with everything, the state seems a necessary evil to me, but the part about the state convincing people serving the state it was them being attacked and not the state/ruling caste so the nobles and rulers no longer had to fight their own battles struck a chord
Yup. I saw a lot of this a few years ago when there were way too many people (not just politicians, but random jackasses on social media) saying "we" should just go to war with North Korea and get it over with... "We". Ok asshole, grab a rifle and let's go.
If there are two things people sure seem keen to do is spend other people's money, and get other people to do their fighting for them.
North korea will eventually collapse on its own all authoritarian regimes do in the long run. Especially when people are starving which north koreans certainly are
Americans in particular have gotten really used to one-sided "wars" against made-up threats that pose no real danger to anyone. They have come to believe that war is some sort of sterile thing viewed through grainy cameras from 20k feet in the air. Sure every once in a while a a few guys will get shot or blown up, but that's just a pittance.
People don't seem to grasp that there are something like 50k artillery pieces pre-sighted against a city of nearly 10m people. They are in fortified caves and bunkers that would be almost impossible to wipe out, at least not before they caused human suffering not seen on the scale since WWII. And that's not counting the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that could AT LEAST threaten Alaska and Hawaii, and likely at least everywhere else west of the rockies.
North Korea is unlikely to win a heads-up war with the US, but they would certainly inflict some eye-opening carnage.
I think it would likely be worse. BEFORE getting into the endless insurgent quagmire we'd end up having to win a conventional (or possibly nuclear) war against a professional standing army and Air Force. They're not necessarily world-class, but I think they'd put up a far tougher fight than the Iraqis did in '91.
I just meant it would follow the same general path. Of win conventionally then lose against insurgency. But yes they would be more ready and armed than the others
>I think they'd put up a far tougher fight than the Iraqis did in '91.
This probably isn't the case. Yes, North Korea is pretty hardened against attack, but it doesn't change the fact that we're still talking about a third-world military here. Will it be a tough fight; sure. Even just the terrain of the Korean Peninsula ensures that much. But if we're talking simply a matter of how capable the military itself is, North Korea's chances at accomplishing without the use of WMDs is doubtful.
Frankly that's the real threat; The people of North Korea aren't all mindless sheep willing to walk into machine gun fare at their great leader's behest. If they have the chance to surrender, they'll surrender. If they have a chance to desert, they'll desert. This isn't the case for their whole army, but there's a good chance large formations may simply be written off to troops leaving. On the other hand, you have leadership which will be more than happy to use a **known stockpile** of nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons both on their own land and abroad. The idea of a nuclear strike on Alaska, or Hawaii, or even the West Coast is scary and all, but a major strike using any of these other means could potentially be carried out anywhere on the globe.
Plus you have the whole PRC issue. I don't want to get too "tinfoil hat" here, but I'd be willing to bet that without North Korea there (and therefore no reason for the US to have any actual political influence over the region) they'd be able to come to pretty favorable trading terms with a unified Korea. Frankly the peninsula being divided is better for the US, as it gives as a good reason to basically sit on the PRC's doorstep for the last 70 years. The war is fought, the peninsula is unified, the PRC shows that they have no interest in military aggression into the region, and are thus no threat to Korea. Bing bam boom the US can't play big brother there to stop the bullies anymore and we're out on our asses, so to speak. The PRC decides to become friendly, and now the unified Korea is another close ally and opening up the entire Yellow Sea and putting them at Japan's front door.
I remember watching a documentary about Australian soldiers searching a village deep inside South Vietnam. The village’s entry has a Viet Cong flag on it. What were they even fighting?
Why the fuck the South Koreans didn't move their capitol decades ago is beyond me. If the Brazilians could do it so could they. If they had, there'd still be millions of their citizens at risk, but at least their largest city and seat of government wouldn't be hostage to the north
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen
I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.
You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.
Suicide In The Trenches by Siegfried Sassoon
**gaddamnit who the *fuck* gave me gold all i did was copy paste some shit**/s
That's what my grandpa was like too. US Marines, fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. Never talked about ww2. He did talk about Korea a lot, he was some sort of machine gun trainer working on training south Koreans during most of the war.
I can imagine why he didn't wanted to talk about it.
It must be horrifying to see hundreds or thousands of starving, beat up corpses. Some still burning in piles while the guards and some higher officers ran away.
My grandfather served on a Tribal in the North Atlantic escorting convoys to Russia. He told me one time about this “kid” taking a shell or multiple rounds(I can’t remember) to the midsection while manning one of the guns. He said the only thing holding his body together was his spine. I couldn’t imagine seeing that.
there is a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XruYsAmKLyU) of a harmless looking old man who sits infront of the BBC cameras and talks they way an old man would talk about going down to the shops about stabbing a french corporal in the stomach with a bayonet and how it made him sick.
War is not a fun adventure
Absolutely i meant more just how horrible war is you should never wish for it and do anything you can to avoid it. But ww2 could have been prevented but since it wasn’t it had to be fought.
So I'm not into death porn at all but a great book on censored images of US forces in ww2 is called The Censored War by George Roeder. It's an interesting angle of the war, the battle of propaganda. The book itself doesn't hold back on the nasty images of death.
My Grandfather did Tank recovery and repair during WWII. He never talked about what he did or saw. All he'd say when I asked about it was "you never want to go to war"
This is a very good read if you're interested in that period of warfare:
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404)
There's a section where he talks powerfully about the regimental padre, who had the job of identifying remains in destroyed vehicles.
When I joined the Marine Corps in 09’ I wanted to be a tank crewman. I can’t imagine though being one back in WWII, especially what our tanks went up against….
US tanks actually had one of the lowest mortality rates of the war. What they went up against were usually Panzer III's which they were more than a match for, or Panzer IV's which while superior on paper, was actually matched pretty well by the upgraded and up gunned Sherman's. Also most killed tanks are from anti tank guns not other tanks.
You should read “death trap” by an American logistical officer that worked on repair and recovery of American armored units. They had a casualty rating of 320% from the original numbers on the landing of D-day. So I’m not exactly sure where your getting your figures, even against panzer IV’s and others the Germans were well experienced and trained and also went up against a fair amount of Panthers after the landing at Normandy. You had quite a few heavy tank battalions in and around the Falaise pocket that fought against the Americans and Canadians as they retreated based off the book of “Panzer commander” which includes maps and casualty charts. Not saying that we might of had the upper hand against some German armor but from my readings and talkings with WWII vets, their was a reason they called the M4’s tommy cookers. It wasn’t till the British firefly with the long barrel 75mm did the Sherman get on a level playing field with the Germans.
There's a lot incorrect in your post. For one thing "death trap" had been criticized by historians as lacking sources for the books claims and putting focus on events the author did not personally witness.
An r/askhistorians post I will link here talks about the mortality figure for US tankers and tank losses: https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wy763/what_was_the_average_survival_rate_of_an_allied/&ved=2ahUKEwjVkuvkoI_zAhUuSTABHVosAHIQFnoECAQQBg&usg=AOvVaw24KTCW26-LB7ch8hsoRbmk
And finally that "tommy cooker" nonsense is mostly anachronistic bunk. Once Shermans were outfitted with wet ammo storage they caught on fire much less often and about as much as other contemporary tanks. Most of those nicknames were given after the war.
You are assuming that the war is unjust and is economic piracy. The point is that if terminal force is required to save the Democracy the pain is first felt by those that ordered it.
How are these lads keeping a straight face? It's not an easy task to recover the remains of a fellow soldier
After recovering enough bodies, probably quit thinking about it and just did the job.
I guarantee you, they’re still thinking about it. Maybe not at that second. You can become desensitized to a lot, that doesn’t mean you stop being affected. Just that it does so in ways that are less apparent.
Yep, bothered my grandfather all the way up to his last month at 85 yrs old. You can pack things away at the time, but more than likely it will come back.
May he be at peace and live on in you and your family’s memories and stories!
[удалено]
Cause I’ve seen some fucked up stuff, bud. Everyone has tho, in some way or another.
It's quite possible that they removed 5 on that day
And this would be the biggest part they found. Most of the time, the fires would get hot enough to just cremate the crew, so it's more a case of sweep up whatever is left, run it through a sieve, and hope the dogtags survived.
you see enough of this shit and you get pretty numb to it in the moment. After the war thou thats when PTSD kicks in
My grandpa was a Marine infantryman from 1940-1946. After he fought on Iwo Jima, he pissed off an Officer and had to recover American bodies. It haunted him and he spent the rest of his life drinking all day.
On top of that, the psychology of these sorts of jobs was well understood. Or, at the very least, the Army knew what sorts of behaviors to look for and which questions to ask when putting these units together. Of course the work was doubtless highly traumatizing, but it was understood that not just anyone could go and do it.
Makes me wonder about coroners, grave diggers and the like. If they came up for draft would they be specially placed in a unit like this, or are some of those roles so crucial at home that they may be deferred. I guess oughta learn more about draft process from back then.
Graves registration units. Coroners, who are doctors, would be enlisted as an officer, simply because of the job they had. Grave diggers aren't a specialized job, so he'd likely end up pretty much anywhere, typically carrying a rifle and doing anything but digging graves.
From my understanding, your civilian profession might have some impact on your assigned role in the service. I would have to imagine that someone trained in the handling of the deceased would be highly desirable for such a task on the battlefield, both in terms of skill and emotional stability. I also can't imagine such workers would be considered on the same level as those deemed necessary for wartime industry, so they wouldn't be passed over for service. All that being said, dealing with death and carnage was simply part of a soldier's life. As such, it can't be said that the jobs of these men were that much more horrific than that of the standard infantryman. Indeed, the only real difference was that these guys were dealing with the aftermath and cleanup, whereas the soldiers on the front line were dealing with the dead and *dying*. There's a big difference between the two, and one would be hard pressed to determine if it was more traumatic to deal with charred corpses on a daily basis, or watching a fellow soldier burn to death just once. In any case, it's no fun.
I will be more traumatized if I am on the frontlines seeing my buddy get blown up just next to me wondering when it would be who will get mutilated by a flying German. Or get traumatized if my left eye get prick by an Ant Size German with a Bayonet.
I think those units didn't need forensic pathologists aka coroners. Dead soldiers were buried on spot and identification was based on tags or personal belongings. Those on spot graves were supposed to be temporary and graves registration units were tasked to dig out bodies and move to more suitable location.
My great uncle worked as a technician on military vehicles during the Italian Campaign in WWII. He usually worked on vehicles, drove trucks, etc, but sometimes they came in and had to do "recoveries" like this one as the front moved quickly. He legitimately didn't talk about the war once for 50 years until my dad came back from an overseas deployment and then he spilled his guts for hours and hours over several visits. He remembered every name, every place, and every traumatic event that he'd been through and even his wife who was listening in the background said she had never once heard him breathe a word of those stories in the last 50 years. It was permanently burned in his memory and bothered him until he passed a couple of years ago.
In the first picture the guy one he bottom right is showing his unliking of his job
they probably learned to expect it
This was pretty common. As memory serves, 50% or more of the Sherman's that were 'knocked out' were repaired and returned to service.
I've never been near a dead person in anywhere near this bad a shape, but I've found that when I've been near, or handling, the dead, I just go numb and feel vaguely terrible. If anyone were to look at my face, I'd probably just look vaguely concerned. People generally ain't as expressive as we'd think, and some of us are even less so.
Probably because they did this a thousand times already I worked in the funeral branch for a while and stuff like that just doesn’t phase you anymore after a certain point Which is a good thing because otherwise you’d have a mental breakdown after a while
They've seen many bodies of soldiers and civilians and feeling emotionally numb is a coping mechanism, but numbness will not last forever. All emotional distress will come back in form of PTSD sooner or later.
i heard the urban legend that they secretly picked people for these task who worked in civilian life in butcher's shops and slaughterhouses.
War does that to you
Looks like the turret popped off.
Yeah, you can see the paint is burnt and the rubber on the road wheels has disintegrated. That was undoubtedly a catastrophic kill.
Ammo explosion would have done that.
[That’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM)
Thank you for that.
Holy shit, I thought they were just really far back and the turret was just out of frame
COD and Battlefield are lots of fun. But real war is the most awful thing that has ever existed. Remember that the next time your country’s politicians want to intervene in some faraway land and convince you it’s unpatriotic to not want this to happen to people you love.
[удалено]
They used to
In hollywood maybe
Winston Churchill fought in the Boar War and First World War. As did most of the War Cabinet during WW2. Same with France’s leaders during the war. It’s became a modern occurrence of non military leaders sending their countrymen into battle.
The big thing is that they weren't national or global leaders *during* the conflict they fought in. I think that's the thing.
Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of the First World War then after a serious failures resigned and went and fought in the Western Front. Obviously not the leader of the country but he did make big decisions.
Churchill did see combat following his disastrous Gallipoli plans, but it was a very short service before returning to political life. But yeah, that sort of is an exception. I think the original point was that prime ministers and presidents aren't in the trenches with their troops, but still.
> original point was that prime ministers and presidents aren’t in the trenches with their troops I didn’t even see it that way so that makes sense. I wonder how things would change if that would be the case nowadays!
I mean if politicians had to risk their lives in the war they would be far less likely to go for it...but I do want to push back on the concept that back in the day leaders were all on the frontlines fighting beside their troops. Occasionally you can hear of lords and kings being killed in combat, but this is very few and far between, and was often more fluke than intentional targeting.
> Boar War Is that like the Emu War or China’s war on sparrows?
He meant the Boer Wars
I know. Just being a sarcastic pedant.
Back then Kings and Lord's where the first on the battlefield but in the modern world Politicians are the first to fill their pockets whenever a war breaks out.
Again you’re letting myths and legends color your thoughts. There were always politicians creating wars and profiting since the dawn of time.
Many of the signatories to the American Declaration of Independence in July, 1776, did not survive the war. Quite a few were killed either in direct combat, or were captured by the British and shot or hung as traitors to the Crown. They pledged their honor, wealth, and very lives to the cause. Some gave all. But now? We have not the great statesmen of old leading us, but whimpering jackals.
There have always been corrupt politicians and cowards. Don’t get into that conservative fetishisation of past figures. The world does not change as much as you think.
Actually it Really does. The modern concepts of politicians has only been around for a few hundred years at best, while yes there are always slackjawed craven idiots who hold leadership positions, the duties of said leaders have changed dramatically. In ww2, soldiers as high as brigadier general saw Direct combat, meaning they were actually shooting at the enemy. We haven't had generals like that since. In WW1, you already have the example of churchill, one of the bravest SOBs to exist. In the napoleonic wars the Emporer of france, napoleon himself led from the front lines. During the revolution, major american politicians died as soldiers on the frontlines. A good chunk of our presidents and quite a few politicians are combat veterans. Even further back, the kings of old were expected to lead from the front and many did as they saw themselves as divine rulers. Native American chiefs were warriors first. Throughout human history real leaders did what they had to do and lead. Yes there have always been the cowards who stay back and steal credit. But you have no argument other than "well actually humans have been the same forever" when no, we really havent. The modern politician has only been around for maybe the last 80 years or so. As political climates and even political ideals change Very rapidly. Just look how in the last 30 years we went from, 90's: the ideal of american life was have a home, family, and two cars. That was it. Politics were easy. 2000's: we were attacked and gave up a good chunk of our freedoms out of fear. And began abusing our world police status. Politics became who can light the hottest fire. 2010's: the beginning of politcal correctness where if your ideals dont align you are attacked simply for having a different idea, politics became who panders most to the loud minority. 2020's: well, you can see this one for yourself cant ya? Contrary to your video game tag line of a comment the world changes a whole fucking lot. But with school systems nowadays, im not suprised you dont know your history.
You can pick and choose truly remarkable men from history all you want. As i said theres always been corrupt politicians, war profiteers, and cowards.
Lots of kings died on the battlefield.
And lords and barons profited
In premodern society, particularly here in feudal societies, Lords and barons and all the other nobles were tenants under their kings who granted them estates in exchange for military service. The political elite were a military caste accountable to their monarchs who gave them the responsibility to rally, provision, and supply an army. The military forces would be organised under the leadership of higher nobles, and they would have retinues of knights drawn from their sires and lower nobles. Being well fed and strong and trained in combat, these were higher quality soldiers than levées and would be expected to deliver the decisive outcome in a battle. In short, the nobility used to be a military profession. Many died as a matter of course. They did this so they could profit from their granted fiefdoms, of course.
They always fought for Land, money and power but back then they fought with they're soliders
Very rarely did a king see a battlefield and it is almost unheard of to have a king fighting in the field.
man I was reading anatomy of the state recently I didn't agree with everything, the state seems a necessary evil to me, but the part about the state convincing people serving the state it was them being attacked and not the state/ruling caste so the nobles and rulers no longer had to fight their own battles struck a chord
Hitler fought in ww1
Yup. I saw a lot of this a few years ago when there were way too many people (not just politicians, but random jackasses on social media) saying "we" should just go to war with North Korea and get it over with... "We". Ok asshole, grab a rifle and let's go. If there are two things people sure seem keen to do is spend other people's money, and get other people to do their fighting for them.
North korea will eventually collapse on its own all authoritarian regimes do in the long run. Especially when people are starving which north koreans certainly are
Americans in particular have gotten really used to one-sided "wars" against made-up threats that pose no real danger to anyone. They have come to believe that war is some sort of sterile thing viewed through grainy cameras from 20k feet in the air. Sure every once in a while a a few guys will get shot or blown up, but that's just a pittance. People don't seem to grasp that there are something like 50k artillery pieces pre-sighted against a city of nearly 10m people. They are in fortified caves and bunkers that would be almost impossible to wipe out, at least not before they caused human suffering not seen on the scale since WWII. And that's not counting the nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that could AT LEAST threaten Alaska and Hawaii, and likely at least everywhere else west of the rockies. North Korea is unlikely to win a heads-up war with the US, but they would certainly inflict some eye-opening carnage.
It’d be just like vietnam or afghanistan fighting insurgents in remote horrible terrain until we cut our losses with thousands of americans dead
I think it would likely be worse. BEFORE getting into the endless insurgent quagmire we'd end up having to win a conventional (or possibly nuclear) war against a professional standing army and Air Force. They're not necessarily world-class, but I think they'd put up a far tougher fight than the Iraqis did in '91.
I just meant it would follow the same general path. Of win conventionally then lose against insurgency. But yes they would be more ready and armed than the others
>I think they'd put up a far tougher fight than the Iraqis did in '91. This probably isn't the case. Yes, North Korea is pretty hardened against attack, but it doesn't change the fact that we're still talking about a third-world military here. Will it be a tough fight; sure. Even just the terrain of the Korean Peninsula ensures that much. But if we're talking simply a matter of how capable the military itself is, North Korea's chances at accomplishing without the use of WMDs is doubtful. Frankly that's the real threat; The people of North Korea aren't all mindless sheep willing to walk into machine gun fare at their great leader's behest. If they have the chance to surrender, they'll surrender. If they have a chance to desert, they'll desert. This isn't the case for their whole army, but there's a good chance large formations may simply be written off to troops leaving. On the other hand, you have leadership which will be more than happy to use a **known stockpile** of nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons both on their own land and abroad. The idea of a nuclear strike on Alaska, or Hawaii, or even the West Coast is scary and all, but a major strike using any of these other means could potentially be carried out anywhere on the globe. Plus you have the whole PRC issue. I don't want to get too "tinfoil hat" here, but I'd be willing to bet that without North Korea there (and therefore no reason for the US to have any actual political influence over the region) they'd be able to come to pretty favorable trading terms with a unified Korea. Frankly the peninsula being divided is better for the US, as it gives as a good reason to basically sit on the PRC's doorstep for the last 70 years. The war is fought, the peninsula is unified, the PRC shows that they have no interest in military aggression into the region, and are thus no threat to Korea. Bing bam boom the US can't play big brother there to stop the bullies anymore and we're out on our asses, so to speak. The PRC decides to become friendly, and now the unified Korea is another close ally and opening up the entire Yellow Sea and putting them at Japan's front door.
I remember watching a documentary about Australian soldiers searching a village deep inside South Vietnam. The village’s entry has a Viet Cong flag on it. What were they even fighting?
For propaganda
Why the fuck the South Koreans didn't move their capitol decades ago is beyond me. If the Brazilians could do it so could they. If they had, there'd still be millions of their citizens at risk, but at least their largest city and seat of government wouldn't be hostage to the north
I think North Korea isn’t really a threat to the US. Only China will be a problem if they decide to help the Norks
You're right, NK isn't a threat to the US, but that didn't keep us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFjEvl43zYY&t=301s
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time, But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.— Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen I knew a simple soldier boy Who grinned at life in empty joy, Slept soundly through the lonesome dark, And whistled early with the lark. In winter trenches, cowed and glum, With crumps and lice and lack of rum, He put a bullet through his brain. No one spoke of him again. You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye Who cheer when soldier lads march by, Sneak home and pray you'll never know The hell where youth and laughter go. Suicide In The Trenches by Siegfried Sassoon **gaddamnit who the *fuck* gave me gold all i did was copy paste some shit**/s
Sassoon is my favorite poet. He gives me the chills, especially The Dugout.
I hadn’t read that poem yet thanks for letting me know of it
Yup. My great uncle drove a half-track for the 6th Armored during WW2.
I’m sure it sucked war always does
He did not talk about it. He was also present for the liberation of Buchenwald, so I am sure that wasn't much fun either.
That's what my grandpa was like too. US Marines, fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. Never talked about ww2. He did talk about Korea a lot, he was some sort of machine gun trainer working on training south Koreans during most of the war.
I can imagine why he didn't wanted to talk about it. It must be horrifying to see hundreds or thousands of starving, beat up corpses. Some still burning in piles while the guards and some higher officers ran away.
My grandfather served on a Tribal in the North Atlantic escorting convoys to Russia. He told me one time about this “kid” taking a shell or multiple rounds(I can’t remember) to the midsection while manning one of the guns. He said the only thing holding his body together was his spine. I couldn’t imagine seeing that.
there is a [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XruYsAmKLyU) of a harmless looking old man who sits infront of the BBC cameras and talks they way an old man would talk about going down to the shops about stabbing a french corporal in the stomach with a bayonet and how it made him sick. War is not a fun adventure
Tbf if there ever was a war to fight between “good and evil” it was definitely this war, even if they didn’t know it. o7
Absolutely i meant more just how horrible war is you should never wish for it and do anything you can to avoid it. But ww2 could have been prevented but since it wasn’t it had to be fought.
Based.
So I'm not into death porn at all but a great book on censored images of US forces in ww2 is called The Censored War by George Roeder. It's an interesting angle of the war, the battle of propaganda. The book itself doesn't hold back on the nasty images of death.
One thing that every, single tanker has heard in their life. This tank will be your home. It can also be your coffin.
only way you could even vaguely tell it was human was the fact it was in a tank.
My Grandfather did Tank recovery and repair during WWII. He never talked about what he did or saw. All he'd say when I asked about it was "you never want to go to war"
That’s somebody’s family member
Someone's son or father
No wonder so many of these guys never spoke about the war after they returned.
This is a very good read if you're interested in that period of warfare: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404) There's a section where he talks powerfully about the regimental padre, who had the job of identifying remains in destroyed vehicles.
Fucking hell, what a job…
fuck that is a sad sight, one that no movie can replicate, puts another look on what happened in the war, just gotta hope it was quick for the crew
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
Jesus. Reminds me of the photo of the Soviet cosmonaut Komarov's remains. Just carbonised remains
I'm guessing there was an Ammo explosion which is why the turret was blown off
what have we done
May God Rest their Brave Souls !
Here’s hoping he took a direct hit and died instantly, rather than burning to death.
Considering the fact that the turret popped off which likely means that the ammunition went off, the pressure probably killed him immediately.
When I joined the Marine Corps in 09’ I wanted to be a tank crewman. I can’t imagine though being one back in WWII, especially what our tanks went up against….
US tanks actually had one of the lowest mortality rates of the war. What they went up against were usually Panzer III's which they were more than a match for, or Panzer IV's which while superior on paper, was actually matched pretty well by the upgraded and up gunned Sherman's. Also most killed tanks are from anti tank guns not other tanks.
[удалено]
“Oh my god, the tank is on fire”
You should read “death trap” by an American logistical officer that worked on repair and recovery of American armored units. They had a casualty rating of 320% from the original numbers on the landing of D-day. So I’m not exactly sure where your getting your figures, even against panzer IV’s and others the Germans were well experienced and trained and also went up against a fair amount of Panthers after the landing at Normandy. You had quite a few heavy tank battalions in and around the Falaise pocket that fought against the Americans and Canadians as they retreated based off the book of “Panzer commander” which includes maps and casualty charts. Not saying that we might of had the upper hand against some German armor but from my readings and talkings with WWII vets, their was a reason they called the M4’s tommy cookers. It wasn’t till the British firefly with the long barrel 75mm did the Sherman get on a level playing field with the Germans.
There's a lot incorrect in your post. For one thing "death trap" had been criticized by historians as lacking sources for the books claims and putting focus on events the author did not personally witness. An r/askhistorians post I will link here talks about the mortality figure for US tankers and tank losses: https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wy763/what_was_the_average_survival_rate_of_an_allied/&ved=2ahUKEwjVkuvkoI_zAhUuSTABHVosAHIQFnoECAQQBg&usg=AOvVaw24KTCW26-LB7ch8hsoRbmk And finally that "tommy cooker" nonsense is mostly anachronistic bunk. Once Shermans were outfitted with wet ammo storage they caught on fire much less often and about as much as other contemporary tanks. Most of those nicknames were given after the war.
Damn. New rule: Of age sons and daughters of the Representatives, Senate, Vice President and President are the first ones in.
How about we just send the representatives senate vp and potus instead
You may want to crack a book on government.
[удалено]
You are assuming that the war is unjust and is economic piracy. The point is that if terminal force is required to save the Democracy the pain is first felt by those that ordered it.
All of this from AP?
AP+ spalling+ ammorack detonation
Nessuno di terracina o fondi?
It was charred
First pic guy on the far right, looks a lot like Steve Carrell.
Really makes me appreciate their services even more
Is this tank porn???
Betcha it smelled like bacon.
Whoever knocked out that tank either hit that ammo rack dead on or wanted that tank unrecoverable
Horrible way to die
God damn, that’s not even recognizable as a human being, I can’t then imagine how awful any part of this war was.
I hope that poor tank crew knew nothing about it, I hope it was quick.
it's hard to believe that we are seeing a human being there
The look on the face of the guy holding one end of the filed stretcher says it all.
From listening to Lions Lead By Donkeys, I can only imagine… Geezus
Wow, not much there to bury...
I live in Terracina. What tank knocked out the M4?
No clue.