4 ms·
For Europe at least, WW1 was worse than WW2. Arguably it's just one 31-year war with a generation-long cessation of hostilities in the middle to mature more ca
by garmaine 6y ago
For Europe at least, WW1 was worse than WW2.
Arguably it's just one 31-year war with a generation-long cessation of hostilities in the middle to mature more cannon fodder for the meat grinder.
- watwut 6y agoI guess this depends on your definition of "Europe" and "worst".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shadowprofile77 6y agoBy every single concrete measure, you're simply mistaken in saying that. In terms of death toll, sheer human misery and displacement, destruction, impoverishment, post-war political catastrophe (the Iron Curtain being just one part of this) and possibly even psychological scarring, World War II was so much worse for Europe than the first War. If we look at physical infrastructure alone, the vast majority of Europe at the end of the first war was mostly intact. At the end of WWII, even this wasn't the case, whole cities and large parts of the continent's man-made landscape had been shattered into twisted ruins. I am sincerely curious to see how you would qualify such a statement that WWI was worse for Europe than WWII.
- mannykannot 6y agoI am with you on the second point; WW2 in Europe was a continuation of WW1, while concurrently there was an Asia-Pacific war starting with Japanese incursions into Korea and Manchuria.