World War 1 more deadly than World War 2

[rainforests1]

Using Wikipedia's numbers, 16 million died in the war plus 50-100 million from the flu pandemic. It's impossible to know the exact numbers, but World War 1 may have been the most deadly war in human history. Do you think it should be talked about more than it is?

 

[Second Summer]

I think both world wars, as well as the subsequent cold war should be discussed more. I don't think our civilization has learnt nearly all the lessons it could have from those wars.

WW1 is perhaps considered less interesting than WW2 to the mainstream media because it's further back in history, but I suspect other factors contribute to this as well such as the lack of a clearly "evil" opponents like the Axis power regimes, and also a lack of clearly distinct ideologies (liberal democracy against fascism, national socialism, militarism/expansionism/emperor worship and Bolshevist communism).

 

[yally]

Why so many threads asking if we're discussing things enough? Why don't you just discuss them?

 

[rainforests1]

I think both world wars, as well as the subsequent cold war should be discussed more. I don't think our civilization has learnt nearly all the lessons it could have from those wars.

Based on my experience, World War 2 gets jammed down our throat while World War 1 gets brief mention. You'd have to talk about World War 1 more, which means World War 2 would be talked about less. I just finished Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States", and I feel like I learned more than I ever did in history class. It would also be nice to hear more about what kind of diets earlier humans had. There's a lot of things you could talk about, but less about World War 2 would certainly be appreciated.

 

[rainforests1]

Why so many threads asking if we're discussing things enough? Why don't you just discuss them?

Only two threads.

 

[Envy]

Because it's overshadowed by the 2nd World War in three regards.

1. The holocaust.
2. The concept of bringing war to the civilians instead of in trenches.
3. Having a clear and defined difference in ideologies.

Picture somewhat related.

Spoiler

 

[rainforests1]

Because it's overshadowed by the 2nd World War in three regards.

1. The holocaust.
2. The concept of bringing war to the civilians instead of in trenches.
3. Having a clear and defined difference in ideologies.

Picture somewhat related.

Spoiler

View attachment 2637

According to an encyclopedia I was reading recently, over 12,000,000 civilians died in World War 1. World War 2 wasn't the first war where civilians died in big numbers. This is one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

 

[Envy]

According to an encyclopedia I was reading recently, over 12,000,000 civilians died in World War 1. World War 2 wasn't the first war where civilians died in big numbers. This is one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

That was indirectly though.
And 12 millions sounds like a huge stretch.

Well, what I mean is that since WW1 was neither an "invading" war, nor a war wherein frequent bombings where plausible, I'd say that civilians weren't involved in the same manner.

 

[yakherder]

I don't think World War I ever really ended. Much of what came after and what we're still dealing with today is a direct result of the way the breaking of the Ottoman Empire was handled.

 

[rainforests1]

That was indirectly though.
And 12 millions sounds like a huge stretch.

Well, what I mean is that since WW1 was neither an "invading" war, nor a war wherein frequent bombings where plausible, I'd say that civilians weren't involved in the same manner.

The estimates I've read say 7 million or 12 million. I think historians disagree on how many civilians died in World War 1. Starvation is a more prolonged suffering than bombs generally are. If I had a choice I'd rather die from bombs than being starved to death. I don't see why the method of killing should be a major issue. I'm not saying both wars should be talked about equally, but World War 1 definitely deserves more attention.

 

[das_nut]

Using Wikipedia's numbers, 16 million died in the war plus 50-100 million from the flu pandemic. It's impossible to know the exact numbers, but World War 1 may have been the most deadly war in human history. Do you think it should be talked about more than it is?

I'm not sure if you can count the flu pandemic, since it struck war-fighting nations and neutral nations more or less equally.

But if you want to use Wikipedia's numbers, WWII is 60 million, or 2.5% of the world's population.

 

[rainforests1]

I'm not sure if you can count the flu pandemic, since it struck war-fighting nations and neutral nations more or less equally.

But if you want to use Wikipedia's numbers, WWII is 60 million, or 2.5% of the world's population.

Let's take India as an example. They suffered a lot from the flu. British troops came into India returning from the war, and likely spread the flu. India wasn't involved in much of the fighting, but they were one of the countries that suffered the most. We'll never know how many deaths would have happened if there had been no World War 1, but it's safe to say the flu would have been much less severe.

 

[das_nut]

Let's take India as an example. They suffered a lot from the flu. British troops came into India returning from the war, and likely spread the flu. India wasn't involved in much of the fighting, but they were one of the countries that suffered the most. We'll never know how many deaths would have happened if there had been no World War 1, but it's safe to say the flu would have been much less severe.

Would it? By 1918, world-wide travel was mostly in effect.

Even 30 years before, the Russian flu managed to spread around the world rather quickly, killing one million people in the process. No war needed.

 

[rainforests1]

There was no war, and the number of deaths was much, much smaller. It doesn't help your case now, does it? It's just a guessing game as to what would have happened, so there's no sense in doing it.

 

[ledboots]

Both wars were horrific. All wars are horrific.

My grandfather was in the US navy in WW1, and he came back to the states with the flu. They tried to put him in the hospital, but he saw everyone dying, so he walked from New York home to Boston with the flu. He said he knew his mom could fix him. He lived to 87.

 

[das_nut]

There was no war, and the number of deaths was much, much smaller. It doesn't help your case now, does it?

The 1918 flu was unusual as a flu pandemic. In most flu pandemics, those who are weaker (the very young, the elderly) tend to be the vast majority of the deaths. But in the 1918 flu pandemic, the flu worked in such a way to turn the body's immune system against itself - thus healthier people would die.

 

[ledboots]

The 1918 flu was unusual as a flu pandemic. In most flu pandemics, those who are weaker (the very young, the elderly) tend to be the vast majority of the deaths. But in the 1918 flu pandemic, the flu worked in such a way to turn the body's immune system against itself - thus healthier people would die.

Yes, that's why the avian flu a few years ago was a threat, it was a similar kind where the young and healthy die.

 

[rainforests1]

The Wikipedia article on the 1918 flu clearly gives the war large responsibility on the deaths that happened. I thought das_nut uses Wikipedia as a trusted source, but apparently you just pick and choose when it suits your interests.

The 1918 flu was unusual as a flu pandemic. In most flu pandemics, those who are weaker (the very young, the elderly) tend to be the vast majority of the deaths. But in the 1918 flu pandemic, the flu worked in such a way to turn the body's immune system against itself - thus healthier people would die.

I understand all of this. I'm not sure how it refutes anything I said. My point is nobody has any idea how serious the flu would have been if there had been no World War 1. Even scientists don't know. The sad thing is people who didn't want war in the 1930's are criticized today but given the misery that World War 1 caused(including the flu) it makes sense.

 

[das_nut]

The Wikipedia article on the 1918 flu clearly gives the war large responsibility on the deaths that happened. I thought das_nut uses Wikipedia as a trusted source, but apparently you just pick and choose when it suits your interests.

Oh? What Wikipedia says is: "The close quarters and massive troop movements of World War I hastened the pandemic and probably both increased transmission and augmented mutation; the war may also have increased the lethality of the virus. Some speculate the soldiers' immune systems were weakened by malnourishment, as well as the stresses of combat and chemical attacks, increasing their susceptibility."

You may need to read closer.

I understand all of this. I'm not sure how it refutes anything I said. My point is nobody has any idea how serious the flu would have been if there had been no World War 1. Even scientists don't know. The sad thing is people who didn't want war in the 1930's are criticized today but given the misery that World War 1 caused(including the flu) it makes sense.

Well, depending on where you are at, the people who were criticizing WWII were the same sort that were into appeasement. In retrospect, that wasn't a very viable strategy for large parts of the world.

 

[rainforests1]

Oh? What Wikipedia says is: "The close quarters and massive troop movements of World War I hastened the pandemic and probably both increased transmission and augmented mutation; the war may also have increased the lethality of the virus. Some speculate the soldiers' immune systems were weakened by malnourishment, as well as the stresses of combat and chemical attacks, increasing their susceptibility."

You may need to read closer.

How does that possibly refute anything I said? The war made it worse than it would have been otherwise. The Wikipedia article agrees with me.