The First World War saw two very different fronts. The Western front was a deadly stalement while the Eastern Front was very mobile with one side dominating the other. No one will argue that it would be demoralizing to fight on either front. Which do you think would have been the most frustrating front to be a part of? Why?
personally i feel that the western front was more demoralizing because of the lack of ground gained over each death, the eastern front was more mobile
ReplyDeleteI think fighting on the eastern front would have been better, however fighting on the western side would have more action. I would be avoiding the action though. so fighting on the eastern side would have been better for me from fighting from an American side of view. if i was a german on the eastern side, i would be laughing, thinking we would have won the war. -db
ReplyDeleteBoth fronts were demoralizing. On the Eastern Front the Russians were beat and beat hard. They suffered millions of losses and Their political situation worsened. On the Western Front there was a stalemate that lasted for years. Very little ground was gained at a time and for that ground gained lives were lost by the thousands. I believe the Western Front would be more frustration for both sides because they battled for a very long time and probably never felt as though they were accomplishing anything. The Eastern Front was probably frustrating for the Russians more than anyone however the Western Front would have been brutal in my opinion.
ReplyDelete-Gavin Meikle