posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 02:32 AM
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov
It is an easy mistake to make, unless you had two grandfathers who were in the thick of the Second World War, and would speak about it from time to
time, which lends one an innate familiarity with the subject, and renders one easily capable of telling the two apart at a glance!
Generally speaking, if there is a focus on trench warfare, and a no mans land features heavy in the tale, you can be pretty sure that the story
relates to the First World War. Obviously it was not the only example of trench fighting, but it is one of the most discussed examples, since so much
of that war was fought by people who were up to their eyeballs in mud and corpses. The tactical approach to the Second World War was much more fluid
and mobile, with paratroopers, beach landings, tanks, outflanking manoeuvres, bombing runs, bouncing bombs. The First World War was static where the
second was in constant motion.
If the allies had been using First World War tactics during the Second World War, they would have had German tanks roll over them and crush their
entire force. Luckily the response to the lightning war was as fierce and fluid as was required to counter the threat, and beat those Nazis till their
The other difference is, that the civilian death toll during the Second World War was higher, between the gassing, burning, and other sundry
executions of unarmed non-combatants by the Nazis, and the industrial slaughter by air raids which both sides participated in, not to mention the use
of nuclear weapons near its end. The First World War however had a static battlefront, so aside from the odd drift of chemical weaponised gas floating
over and taking out a village, and sickness caused by blockade, it was mostly combatants who died. First World War casualties list about forty percent
of their number being non-combatant, where as the Second saw between sixty and sixty seven percent of casualties being inflicted upon those who were