Which was worst...?

Question

Which was worst... world war one or world war two?

Answer 1

Hard to say. Most of WWI took place on battlefields leaving most civilians untouched. In that respect it wasnt' as bad as WWII but medical care was quite primitive and weapons such as Mustard Gas were used so it was far worse on the poor soldiers.

.

Answer 2

World War two had a higher mortality rate, introduced the Atomic age, created two moral super powers which then controlled the world for almost 50 years and sparked countless civil wars and independant war movements.

World War one created Poison Gas attacks, the destruction of the Edwardian dream and summer, stopped hope for a lot of colonies around the world to have a peaceful independance, caused the second world war, bankrupted most of the old world, created a vacum in Russia so allowing the Communists in.

They had there own bad points but WW2 was far the worst as it was the first true TOTAL war.

Answer 3

The Second World War (not world war 2. It was a conflict that cost millions of lives, not a goddam Hollywood film) was the most costly and destructive war ever fought. No other conflict even comes close. Admittedly the horrors of the trenches on the Western Front were at least the equal of anything endured by combatants in the later war, but what of Dresden, Hiroshima and Coventry?

Answer 4

World War II.

Answer 5

Since we (America) were more involved in World War two then I would go with that one. Not to mention the fact that the holocaust was during World war two along with the batam death march and sooo many other horrible things. Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, and on and on. But like they said earlier, it really depends on who you are. If you were in the military they maybe you would say World War 1 was worse but 2 did a lot of damage. Yeah I'm sticking with 2.

Answer 6

Wow this is hard to give a good answer to.

My Great grandfather fought in WW1 and my Grandfather fought in WW2. When I was little they use to argue about the same thing.

I think that they were before a very dramatic experience for anyone that lived through either.

As mentioned above in WW2 the civiliam population suffered more than in WW1. Just counting the victims of the bombing raids, and the final solution.

If you count it by just lives lost, more people lost there lives in WW2 than WW1, but WW1 was over a far shorter period. When you count lives per day of war then WW1 had a far higher daily body count.

As a former soldier I would have much rather fought in WW2 the WW1.

Answer 7

How do you wish to measure matters? In terms of casualties one would have to balance nearly a hundred thousand soldiers killed during a typical World War One battle versus nearly a hundred thousands civilians killed during a World War Two firestorm engulfing a city. On several levels technology raced ahead of woman/mankind.

At the start of World War One the machine gun decimated thousands upon thousands of soldiers and it was noit until two years passed before armored vehicles made theor appearance. Airplanes made a colorful appearance during World War One and won World War Two.

Using hindsight - - - yes my head is stuck up there - - - one would have to argue World War One because it was a lot like this answer - - - it went on forever. World War One was a meat grinder physially and emotionally. Having battled to a stalemate on the Western Front, it seem likely that the war would never end and when it did end everyone was shocked. Historians, especially rabid Conservatives hate admitting this, but Revolution ended World War One.

Rent by Revolution Germany's will to fight World War One ended suddenly. Conversely most intelligent people knew by 1942 at the least, that Germany had to fail . Hitler was an Idiot. The reason Churchill orchestrated Hitler's defeat is that he knew Hitler was an iditiot. Eventually an Idiot runs out of luck, Most Americans were confident the war would end by Christmas 1944 and surprised by German's stubborn fight under a madman like Hitler.

Gonna give the edge to World War One. The loss of that quaint relic the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was tragic - - - under Archduke Franz Ferndinand a United Stattes of Central Europe may have emerged to lead the World to Peace instead the beast of World War was unleashed twie during a century.

Peace.....

Answer 8

I'd say it's a draw, while world war one was bad because there was much more personal gore, and soldiers had to be face to face with the enemy more often and wholesale slaughter took place on the ground between troops. There was also very little restriction in place for chemical weapons, so mustard gas and other agents were used without restraint. World war two involved wholesale slaughter of innocents by Germany, with torture and killing, and gassing a daily event. The Japanese subjected prisoners of war to unbelievable pain and suffering including experiments to see how long it took someone to freeze to death, or drown, or die by poison, or any one of a dozen others. There are stories of Japanese military taking Korean and Chinese women as prisoners and making them perform sexually for the Japanese troops.

Answer 9

Its difficult to weigh the horrors of trench warfare with the horrors of the final solution.

I don't believe the final solution can really be described as an act of war, it was sheer evil pretreated by sick people.

As a totally pointless waste of lives thrown away at the whim of generals the muddy slaughter of the first world war has to be the worst.

Answer 10

I would go with WW2. We learn so much about it at school and yet hardly a thing about the first. There must be a reason for that.

Also, the technology used in WW2 was far more advanced (ie aircraft) this meant the war was far more devastating to those at home and not just the people out there fighting.

The impact it had was massive.