There are many arguments in favor of World War I, but there is no denying that the second war was worse. It wiped out millions of people, and the combined cost of German and Japanese aggression was beyond comprehension. But which war was worse? This question is a complex one, and it deserves an answer. Let’s compare the two, and decide for yourself. Read on to find out what’s the real difference.
The biggest difference between the two wars is that World War II was a world war, whereas World War I was a conflict that lasted just a few years. It was fought mostly on land and sea, and was much more expensive than previous conflicts. Moreover, the cost of the second war was far more devastating for many countries than the first. As a result, Britain and much of continental Europe were forced to live on credit and aid. Germany’s campaign of extermination claimed eleven million lives, putting the toll of the war even higher than those of the first.
Despite the fact that both wars were bloody and tragic, the first was by far the bloodiest. There were over 57,000 British soldiers killed during the Battle of the Somme, and more than 8.5 million were killed on both sides. Over 20 million were wounded. Around 7.7 million ended up as prisoners of war. The second world-war, meanwhile, was less intense and more brutal. While there was no obvious difference between the two, there are some similarities that make the first more horrific.
Both wars claimed millions of lives, but World War I was much more deadly. Between 35 million and 60 million people were killed, and the total number of casualties in Europe was fifteen to twenty million. That’s more than double the amount lost in World War I. Another difference between the two wars is that six million Jews died in Hitler’s extermination camps. In both cases, women outnumbered men by seven million.
The first war, however, had its differences. The Russian and German empires both recruited millions of soldiers around the world. These wars also had a high casualty rate, but the Pacific war was more costly and fought for less territory. The European economy collapsed after the war and the Japanese did not surrender. Both were not better than the United States, but the latter had more military-related losses.
Both wars saw high rates of civilian deaths. In particular, the Russian and German empires recruited millions of men worldwide. Similarly, the Western Front experienced high casualty rates, with new pilots living an average of 11 days. The European military was much more advanced, but the two were not equal in terms of military and economic costs. The results of the first war were far more devastating, but the second one was much worse.
The Second World War saw the most death on the European continent. Non-European wars had even higher rates of mortality. But both were still terrible for their people. But the Third World War was no less horrific. The deaths and economic upheaval in Europe lasted until the end of the 1930s. The Soviet Union won the war, but the Soviet Union stayed. The Second Worldwar ended in a similar fashion.
In the West, the European war was the most deadly. Over 57,000 British soldiers died. On the other hand, over 8.5 million military men and 14 million non-European citizens died. The Soviet Union was the first to use atomic weapons. On the other hand, the Nazis also destroyed a great many cities. The WorldWar2 was a much more deadly, bloodier war than the first.
In the early twentieth century, the European and Asian empires both developed aggressive nationalisms led to war. As a result, both world wars were ultimately better for the world’s economies. Those of the two wars were worse for Europe. A few other factors were also to blame. For example, the two empires of Europe were driven to conquer Africa. In both, non-Europeans fought in the Second World War.