Current Events > Donald Trump explains World War I

(+) Yeah! (+)

lol can you imagine?
---

Damn you got my hopes up
---

RebelElite791 posted...

Damn you got my hopes up

This. I know perfectly sane people who have trouble with it.

WW1, in a nutshell:

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Someone invented tanks.
3. Allies win.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WW1, in a nutshell:

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Someone invented tanks.
3. Allies win.

Actually completely wrong.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Probably either be permanently injured from gas attack or be killed by artillery.
3. Allies win.

Tanks were mostly absent from WWI. The majority of deaths were from artillery fire.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WW1, in a nutshell:

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Someone invented tanks.
3. Allies win.

That's not quite how it went
---

It's often called the great war. So let's make it great again.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

WW1, in a nutshell:

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Someone invented tanks.
3. Allies win.

That's not quite how it went

Well it kinda is, but tanks played no major role.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

WW1, in a nutshell:

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Someone invented tanks.
3. Allies win.

That's not quite how it went

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

It was a big war. One of the biggest. Lots of blood. Very bloody.

One of the bloodiest from the standpoint of blood.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

Yeah Mustard Gas really didn't kill many people.

It became iconic because it fucked people up.

But as this dude said, the vast majority of people killed on most fronts were killed by artillery shells.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

And disease, don't forget that.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

And disease, don't forget that.

As bad as disease was, especially the Spanish Flu, it's dwarved by death due to artillery.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

Alright, lets try this again.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Get dead when the other side blows your hole even bigger for you.
3. Allies win.

Questionmarktarius posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

Alright, lets try this again.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Get dead when the other side blows your hole even bigger for you.
3. Allies win.

Yeah, better.

Well, you know, it was all about who had the biggest nukes, and we did. We really did.
---

Chad-Henne posted...

Well, you know, it was all about who had the biggest nukes, and we did. We really did.

The US advantage in both wars was being able to do it remotely.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Chad-Henne posted...

Well, you know, it was all about who had the biggest nukes, and we did. We really did.

The US advantage in both wars was being able to do it remotely.

The US actually did relatively little in the first World War compared to Europe, but yes, their distance definitely gave them a significant advantage. Their centers of production and their resources would have been nearly impossible for enemies to bomb or seize, giving them an advantage the longer the war played out for.

RebelElite791 posted...

Damn you got my hopes up

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Chad-Henne posted...

Well, you know, it was all about who had the biggest nukes, and we did. We really did.

The US advantage in both wars was being able to do it remotely.

The US actually did relatively little in the first World War compared to Europe, but yes, their distance definitely gave them a significant advantage. Their centers of production and their resources would have been nearly impossible for enemies to bomb or seize, giving them an advantage the longer the war played out for.

Bombing really wasn't a big part of WW1 tho.

And America's distance meant that it took a long time for them to make an impact once they got involved in the war.

I don't really see how it was an advantage. Its not like Germany had any interest in War with the US
---

It was the deadliest war from the standpoint of death.

Funny that people bring up tanks, and skip right over the use of Airplanes in WWI.
Which is a really interesting topic in and of its self.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

And disease, don't forget that.

As bad as disease was, especially the Spanish Flu, it's dwarved by death due to artillery.

Hell even Hitler was terrified of and opposed chemical weapons in warfare.
---

World War I isn't just about the western front and trenches. A lot of the battles on the Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern fronts didn't involve trench warfare.

Godnorgosh posted...

It was a big war. One of the biggest. Lots of blood. Very bloody.

Many people are saying it. So big. Wow. Very big.
---

It was a war to end all wars, but of course because of the Germans it wasnt. Its always the Germans. The Germans. Germany. It was the bully of Europe and some say it still is. If it wasnt for our great great military we would all be Germans. Speaking German. Driving German. Always the Germans. I mean theyre all not bad but theyre not all good either. Have you seen this prime minister they have?

See, no one knows this but me but World War I the First World War. The whole world. Lots of battles lots of death you see you have all this fighting and planning and strategy but no one talks about the sheer size of this war. It was huge. They all thought this was it. It wasnt right. It wasnt. Cause then you have World War II and its even bigger than the last one. How can that be??

Ok I cant keep this going anymore
---

1. Sit in a trench for four years hoping you don't dir of disease or artillery fire
2. Wait for your turn to go over the top.
3. Go over the top and run towards machine gun fire as your friends get shot to fuck around you because the powers that be are fucking idiots.
4. Either get killed or make it back to go again.
5. Allies eventually win.
6. The US only got involved in 1917 after remaining neutral for almost 3/4 of it.
---

DD Divine posted...

See, no one knows this but me but World War I the First World War. The whole world. Lots of battles lots of death you see you have all this fighting and planning and strategy but no one talks about the sheer size of this war. It was huge. They all thought this was it. It wasnt right. It wasnt. Cause then you have World War II and its even bigger than the last one. How can that be??

Ok I cant keep this going anymore

this is p spot on, but you forgot to add in him bragging about himself compared to obama

something along the lines of "obama wanted world war three with north korea" and "i stopped another world war, boosted the economy, high number of support with african americans, won two elections when everyone said i wouldn't become president" and other pointless shit
---

I'd figure that he'd spend most of the time talking about America's presence in the war while neglecting the first ~4 years of it.
---

DD Divine posted...

It was a war to end all wars, but of course because of the Germans it wasnt. Its always the Germans. The Germans. Germany. It was the bully of Europe and some say it still is. If it wasnt for our great great military we would all be Germans. Speaking German. Driving German. Always the Germans. I mean theyre all not bad but theyre not all good either. Have you seen this prime minister they have?

See, no one knows this but me but World War I the First World War. The whole world. Lots of battles lots of death you see you have all this fighting and planning and strategy but no one talks about the sheer size of this war. It was huge. They all thought this was it. It wasnt right. It wasnt. Cause then you have World War II and its even bigger than the last one. How can that be??

Ok I cant keep this going anymore

9/10 imo
---

John Kerry thinks it was fought for "freedom," so, the bar for WWI comprehension may be lower than I thought
https://twitter.com/JohnKerry/status/1061454173907152896
---

"We were so good at World Wars, we won two of those things BACK-TO-BACK."
---

Antifar posted...

John Kerry thinks it was fought for "freedom," so, the bar for WWI comprehension may be lower than I thought
https://twitter.com/JohnKerry/status/1061454173907152896

In short it was caused by political butt fuckery and Ferdinands assasination was tge spark to set off something that probably would of happened sooner or later anyway.

Blackadder put it best. To try and stop war and empire building the world was solit into two. On one hand The UK, France and Russia and on the other Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other, The problam being that the plan was bollocks.
---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

ScazarMeltex posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah, It's weird that people chalk all of WW1 to the Western Front and think Tanks where the be all end all.

Fine.

1. Sit in a hole for four years.
2. Die a painful death from mustard gas
3. Allies win.

Also wrong. Mustard Gas was probably not going to kill you. It actually resulted in a shockingly small number of deaths. It was more likely to hospitalize you with long term injuries. It also was just as likely to injure the people deploying it as much as the people they were targeting if the wind shifted.

Again, the vast majority of casualties were the result of artillery.

And disease, don't forget that.

As bad as disease was, especially the Spanish Flu, it's dwarved by death due to artillery.

Hell even Hitler was terrified of and opposed chemical weapons in warfare.

Except, again, chemical weapons were the least of your worries. Artillery was the main killer, by a large margin.