Ww2 had the largest loss of human life of any war in history. Over 60 million people. 3% of the world's population at the time. By comparison, world war 1 killed around 18 million, and vietnam killed at most around 3.5 million. Sorry, world war 2 is the most horrific war in human history. It is often more glorified because it was a war that had to be fought, but that doesn't change the terrible nature of that war.
WW2 was easily morally justified, and some of history's greatest generals and officers were in charge. WW1 was started by one senseless killing and followed by millions more. On top of that, the men in charge were trying to use tanks and portable automatic weapons as though they were horses and primitive guns.
I look at military conduct and the reasons behind the conflict, rather than body count, and with that in mind, the War to End All Wars was the worst conflict of it's century.
But ww2 was completely preventable. If you're talking about the reasons behind the conflict, those were so avoidable you could call them equally senseless.
Well I tend to look at the world wars as more like THE world war, parts 1 and 2. To me, the situation could have been defused with a more lenient treaty. Instead that little "family dispute" escalated after a two decade cease fire into a genocide, and while I agree that that should be dealt with harshly, don't imagine that the allies reentered the war to save the Jews. Many of them, including the us knew about the final solution fairly early, and did nothing until their own interests were threatened.
I guess my point is that in terms of what was preventable or justifiable cause, both wars (or phases of the war if you prefer) fit the category of senseless, and nobody was particularly justified.
Well, they got dealt a crappy hand, that's for sure. But every generation has to deal with the problems handed down to them from the last. Some do better than others.
An Isaac Asimov quite comes to mind.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
It's a little idealistic, and maybe not a applicable to all situations. It's just interesting to think how a different group of ppl might have dealt with the problems--leaders and followers alike.
Maybe 2016 is worse compared to the other 16 years in the 21st century, but I must say it's a lot better than the times of WW1, WW2, etc. 2016 almost became the best year in my life if it wasn't for one factor.
Even if you put them all together.
I look at military conduct and the reasons behind the conflict, rather than body count, and with that in mind, the War to End All Wars was the worst conflict of it's century.
Then perhaps no war is morally justifiable.
I'd say that the former always warrants a violent response.
I guess my point is that in terms of what was preventable or justifiable cause, both wars (or phases of the war if you prefer) fit the category of senseless, and nobody was particularly justified.
An Isaac Asimov quite comes to mind.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
It's a little idealistic, and maybe not a applicable to all situations. It's just interesting to think how a different group of ppl might have dealt with the problems--leaders and followers alike.