Oh trust me I have. The "total war" the Chinese saw for example has little to do with the USA. Although American units and assets were involved it was almost an entirely Chinese/Japanese affair. And I wasn't disputing that Germany and Russia had seen "total war" at all, I was only observing that they did not have the sole experience of it. FWIW I have been a student of world history for more than 40 years now. All aspects of it have been an interest of mine since I was about 12. Including my bachelors degree in Political Science from Syracuse University, military history is also taught of course in officer's training by the Army as well.

Originally Posted by Charge_7

"the concept of 'total war' cannot be applied to them in the same way as it was to Germany and especially the Soviet Union, whose very existence as a people and a nation was at times perilous"

Oh yes their existence as nations and as people's was perilous. You need to read a bit more about something other than Europe I suspect.

I probably do. I make no secret of my fascination for WW2 and the Eastern Front in particular. Not to say that I don't have knowledge of other theatres/eras ect because I do. I just don't have nearly the knowledge that I do of the Eastern Front, IMO the greatest conflict between 2 nations in modern times and perhaps in all world history.

Thats a tough one. There were fierce battles all over the place in WW2.

The Pacific Theatre was horrendous as we all know. The Japanese usually fought to the last. Treatment of allied POW's was appalling.

I'll still plum for the Eastern Front. For reasons of scale, ethic and ideology, treatment of prisoners on both sides, as well as shocking treatment of non-combatants. I could go on.

Picking a battle. Have to be Stalingrad. Some say it was like a WW1 blood feast.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Thats a tough one. There were fierce battles all over the place in WW2.

The Pacific Theatre was horrendous as we all know. The Japanese usually fought to the last. Treatment of allied POW's was appalling.

I'll still plum for the Eastern Front. For reasons of scale, ethic and ideology, treatment of prisoners on both sides, as well as shocking treatment of non-combatants. I could go on.

Picking a battle. Have to be Stalingrad. Some say it was like a WW1 blood feast.

Well then WW1 would be the choice....

I think people are focusing way to much on the death toll.... Imagine a squad of LRRP's or special forces stumbling onto a enemy company or more, not noticing them until they are 10 feet away. How could it get more fierce then that? Death toll does not = fierce.

I think it does... LRRP's may have fought some crazy fights and had some horrible experiences, but I think that being under a sustained artillery bombardment for days at a time... seeing death everyday so much that it becomes a way of life sort of out weighs LRRP's experiences. You can not compare reconnasiance troops having chance contact to Conventional battle.

Originally Posted by Pete031

I think it does... LRRP's may have fought some crazy fights and had some horrible experiences, but I think that being under a sustained artillery bombardment for days at a time... seeing death everyday so much that it becomes a way of life sort of out weighs LRRP's experiences. You can not compare reconnasiance troops having chance contact to Conventional battle.

I could say that a front line soldier doesn't know the horrors of going on week long patrols behind enemy lines, knowing that the only thing thats going to get him out alive is himself and the few buddies he has around. A front line soldier has the comfort of knowing he has thousands of people around to aid him. You cant debate one over the other, war is hell for any combat soldier, not just the front line guy getting bombarded.

Originally Posted by Big_Z

I think people are focusing way to much on the death toll.... Imagine a squad of LRRP's or special forces stumbling onto a enemy company or more, not noticing them until they are 10 feet away. How could it get more fierce then that? Death toll does not = fierce.

That's why there really need to be categories.

Okay then what are we discussing here?? This isn't the "which unit has the toughest job" discussion, this is the most fiercest battle one. Of course soldiers who go out on patrol behind enemy lines have a tough job, but 99% of the time their job is to remain hidden from the enemy, you say that the line soldier has the comfort of his buddies being around him, but what happens when all he can see is his buddies dying around him. I don't think you can compare the horrors that recce (recon) soldiers in places like vietnam to Soldiers that fought in places like Vimy or the Somme or on the Eastern Front in WW2... It is not on the same level. War is always bad, but in some circumstances it can be unimaginably bad...
Oh yeah... And regular front line soldiers in the First World War did go out behind enemy lines on trench raiding parties... Think about it... Go on patrol for a week or get out of your trench and attack that machine gun position that is firing at you and killing everyone around you.

Originally Posted by Pete031

Okay then what are we discussing here?? This isn't the "which unit has the toughest job" discussion, this is the most fiercest battle one. Of course soldiers who go out on patrol behind enemy lines have a tough job, but 99% of the time their job is to remain hidden from the enemy, you say that the line soldier has the comfort of his buddies being around him, but what happens when all he can see is his buddies dying around him. I don't think you can compare the horrors that recce (recon) soldiers in places like vietnam to Soldiers that fought in places like Vimy or the Somme or on the Eastern Front in WW2... It is not on the same level. War is always bad, but in some circumstances it can be unimaginably bad...

You misunderstood my post, I was using the LRRP's as an example to draw people away from the big front line masterpiece battles. People tend to look at the scope of the battle, importance, and statistics. I was in no way saying that a run of the mill infantry guy couldn't fight just as fierce as the best SF guy. As human beings I believe there is a limit to how fiercely we can fight and i'm sure that limit has been reached many many times before. Its not about the numbers on the field or the losses, its the urgency of defeating your enemy and surviving. Oh and the original post was intended for other members who were remarking that the largest death toll meant the fiercest.