Well it clearly should have killed even more cuz most survivors immediately became freikorps and then nazis.

"Ooh the youth of yurop was extinguished in the mud in a senseless infight"

Sadly not all of it, and I don't want to even think what would have looked like had they pointed their armies only outward, 100 vietnams but 50 years early

  • Sinister [none/use name, comrade/them]B
    ·
    2 years ago

    I thought that was WW2? Also don’t forget the french and the brits immediately started killing africans, asians and arabs again lol

    • RNAi [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Yes exactly, I don't see how WWI wasn't a typical colonialist carnage but at home. It had less genocides I guess.

      I mean, I guess the difference is german/british/french armies hadn't met against armies with machineguns, gas and planes before.

      • Dolores [love/loves]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It had less genocides

        looks at the balkans and middle east just before and just after

        • RNAi [he/him]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Oh, in WWI too? Fuck

          I knew about the Armenian genocide, but not sure if it's directly linked to WWI, besides being done by the Ottomans

          • Dolores [love/loves]
            ·
            2 years ago

            ottoman massacres of non-turks were fueled by ethnonationalists who only got more humiliated and empowered as the ottoman position collapsed due to war(s). so it was based on revanchist nationalism boiling for a few decades but escalated due to ww1

            the post-war division of ottoman territories had the british & french & multiple minorities scrambling to carve pieces off what'd become modern turkish borders---when the french & greeks lost this is when the most severe phase of ethnic cleansing began & armenians were practically erased from greater armenia & cilicia, and greeks were kicked out of western turkey.