Well at least according to USA Today.

USA Today article on WWII Memorial (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-18-cover-ww2_x.htm)

While reading this article this morning, this section really stuck out to me for some reason.

The story of how America finally built a memorial to the greatest war in history begins not on a distant battlefield or in the halls of Congress, but at the annual fish fry in Jerusalem Township, Ohio

First of all let me say that this post is in NO WAY meant to dimminish the sacrifices of any Veterans or other victims of this conflict. I just felt that with all the battles in the history of the world, I peronally would think twice about calling WWII the greatest. I guess that depends on one's definition of the greatest, but I am curious what you guys think. Was/Is WWII the greatest war in history??

It impacted the mostest number of people in history, involved the largest geographical regions, the most number of states etc. It defined the entire post-WW2 era, world-wide. It ended and destroyed the evils that were fascism and militarism (sort of).

"It killed militarism."
What drugs you are using? It really started militarism, US and Soviet Union... you remember?

And I also think fascism is better than capitalism. But this is, of course, only my opinion.

Warned, trolling. :rolleyes: - XIII

Do you know what Fascism is? How can you say it is better than capitalism? Those two are completely different. Fascism is a form of government, capitalism is an economic system. Fascism is a government based on superiority over another race! WWII is the greatest war ever because the largest amount of people were killed, the use of the atomic bomb, and the Holocaust.

I think he emans some of the tenants f facsim, not the whole hitler doctirne of it

And besides, fascism by its very definition involves extreme adherence to capitalism. A fascism is a government in which the leaders are closely tied to giant companies and industries and "unifies" (i.e. subjugates and suppresses alternative views) the country behind these economic engines.

The only use of nuclear weapons, the largest land invasion in history, nations from all inhabited continents involved in one way or another, battles taking place virtually everywhere (if one takes naval warfare into account), months-long battles with 1 million+ casualties, what else is there that could outdo it?

I don't like at all the idea to qualify world war 2 as the "greatest" as if it was super cool. Actually, I would qualify the world war 2 as the most devastating war but not as the greatest.

Americans often tend to change History making of it some kind of mythology of the good winning against the evil. That's a very dangerous game to play. It's exactly because either Britain, France or Germany had been over-confident because of past success that we've been lead to both world war 1 and world war 2. You should be careful, I don't want the US to do the same mistake.

Of course, I'm glad America was there, that's not the question. It's simply that please, don't call it anymore "greatest human adventure of all time", it's just a devastating conflict that would have been great to avoid. Unless you're a nihilist, you can't see any greatness in world war 2.

I think your reading "greatest" the wrong way. I think it was called "greatest" as in largest, not good/cool. Ofcourse some people may take it that way (good/cool) but I'm pretty sure its called greatest because of the size (of everything: armies, nations, casualties, weapons, destruction etc.)

Originally posted by blindside
I think your reading "greatest" the wrong way. I think it was called "greatest" as in largest, not good/cool. Ofcourse some people may take it that way (good/cool) but I'm pretty sure its called greatest because of the size (of everything: armies, nations, casualties, weapons, destruction etc.) Well that doesn't change a thing about it. We should consider it as "the most devastating conflict". There wouldn't be any misinterpretation possible then.

But it would still be the greatest. Mainly due to the fact that when talking about wars when one says great they mean big, and WWII was most certainly the biggest hot war yet. (that is, not counting the cold war which lasted longer and involved more people)

Originally posted by h4ppy
But it would still be the greatest. Mainly due to the fact that when talking about wars when one says great they mean big, and WWII was most certainly the biggest hot war yet. (that is, not counting the cold war which lasted longer and involved more people) The Cold War was not a war.

Actually, I seriously think American people don't know what a war is about. In Europe, we see what the war has done everywhere in the landscape. You go to Berlin and you'll see several church still destroyed. You go to Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Lo or Caen in Normandy and you'll see that those cities have been totally rebuilt in the 50's. The simply vision of those cities made of ugly cheap buildings make you think about ww2. A war is about destruction and nothing else. It's something coarse and ugly. It's a crime to romanticize it.

US has never had total war.
US has never suffered big casualties in wars.
So people in US dont know what the war is all about... that is simple as that.

About that faciscm... maybe I should talk about ecofaciscm then.
That means equality between species, it means taking care of the environment and it also means opposing the capitalism.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Americans often tend to change History making of it some kind of mythology of the good winning against the evil. That's a very dangerous game to play. It's exactly because either Britain, France or Germany had been over-confident because of past success that we've been lead to both world war 1 and world war 2. You should be careful, I don't want the US to do the same mistake. If the power apparatus of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan aren't evil, I don't know what evil means.

So far, post-WW2, the world hasn't seen another world war, so I think the Americans are doing a fairly good job at it. Though probably due to other reasons, rather than thru any conscious effort (like nukes e.g.).

Of course, I'm glad America was there, that's not the question. It's simply that please, don't call it anymore "greatest human adventure of all time", it's just a devastating conflict that would have been great to avoid. Unless you're a nihilist, you can't see any greatness in world war 2. 'Greatest' can simply be defined as the 'biggest' in this case; in no sense of being anything of boasting.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Actually, I seriously think American people don't know what a war is about. In Europe, we see what the war has done everywhere in the landscape. You go to Berlin and you'll see several church still destroyed. You go to Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Lo or Caen in Normandy and you'll see that those cities have been totally rebuilt in the 50's. The simply vision of those cities made of ugly cheap buildings make you think about ww2. A war is about destruction and nothing else. It's something coarse and ugly. It's a crime to romanticize it. Ever heard of a little episode in US history known as the US Civil War?

And I think the tens of millions of American servicemen who served around the world during the phases of WW2, as well as other confrontations, did get a first-hand inkling of what war is about.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
US has never had total war.
US has never suffered big casualties in wars.
So people in US dont know what the war is all about... that is simple as that. The US Civil War?

About that faciscm... maybe I should talk about ecofaciscm then.
That means equality between species, it means taking care of the environment and it also means opposing the capitalism.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/politiikka/ekofasismi.html Don't play with terms here; fascism and what you're describing are completely different creatures. Pls be specific. :rolleyes:

I was referring more to civilian casualties. There was no huge numbers of civilian casualties in US civil war. 600 000 soldiers dead i remember...

Europe has had 2 huge wars in its own soil 1914-1918 and 1939- 1945. Tens of millions civilians dead. Tens of millions soldiers dead.

And remember the victims of US terror in Dresden. US burnt 500 000 civilians alive with fire bombs. Evil terrorists!

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
[B]And remember the victims of US terror in Dresden. US burnt
500 000 civilians alive with fire bombs. Evil terrorists!No, you don't understand ! It was the good against the evil ! ;)

Of course I'm glad America has won the war, that's not the point. About 300,000 french citizens have been killed by the US Air Force during the bombings for our liberation. But there's no reason to complain about it since it has allowed the other French citizens to live freely in the right side of the Iron Curtain. However, we shouldn't romanticized too much all that.

Do you simply know how much cities have been reduced in ash by the US Air Force ? Rotterdam, Antwerp, Budapest, Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Nazaire, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc...

It wasn't fun to fight Hitler. People had to do ugly things they've regreted during the rest of their life. If I'm saying so, it's simply to make you understand that no matter how good were the US, we should all remain humble about such a devastating event.

It was easily the biggest war, so I'd say that makes it the greatest. I don't think that's romanticizing it.

World War I was dubbed "The Great War", and probably not because it was so much fun.

That said, there will always be some degree of romance involved in war. Much of it deserved, I think. War destroys, that is true, but it also allows us to excel in ways we don't in times without struggle. It's only natural to celebrate overcoming those struggles.

Even though he was American and therefore didn't know about war, Robert E. Lee put it best -

"It's a good thing war is so terrible, or else we would grow too fond of it."

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Even though he was American and therefore didn't know about war, Robert E. Lee put it best -

"It's a good thing war is so terrible, or else we would grow too fond of it." Indeed he doesn't know about war.

Three main points:

-It is the biggest armed conflict ever. WW2 effected hundreds of millions of people.

-We have veterans of WW2 still among us (though this number is declining rapidly), people who can remember the horrors of it. The memory's effect the everyday lives of many of these people. Not just those who lived through it, but also the many kids who never met their grandfather etc. The effects are still being felt today.

-It is a very easy subject to bring to film or dramatize becuase of the Good Guys v The Bad Guys thing. With so many films exploiting this, people are naturally going to be much more aware of it.

Maybe it was because the Second World War is the only war that can be, if you understand, justified in a way. For some, anyway. For the Russians it was a fight for their very survival.
Also, it introduced many new concepts; RADAR, The first recognisable and effective tanks, Blitzkrieg, jet aircraft.
Remember also it was the first TOTAL war. Everyone was involved whether thy liked it or not.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Maybe it was because the Second World War is the only war that can be, if you understand, justified in a way. For some, anyway. For the Russians it was a fight for their very survival.


Almost every war can justifyed in that way.

The first world war is unjustifiable. People died in the trenched for a few Generals who had stupid ideas of attrition. "Lions led by donkeys".

Read my post again. Notice anything, like the word "almost" perhaps?:p

The attacked nation can almost always attempt to justify war by claiming that they were fighting for their very survival.

Rellay. Austria Hungary was going to destroy Serbia because a Serbian teenager shot the Archduke. Yeah, that is really fighting for the survival of their country. And I suppose Britain, France and Russia thought that old Austria Hungary stood a good chance of conquering all of them. Germany seemed to think that the Allies would conquer Germany. The Americans thought the sinking of their ships meant that the whole American population would be destroyed, I suppose.

Read my posts again...

I have never once tryed to justify WW1.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by nonconformist
Rellay. Austria Hungary was going to destroy Serbia because a Serbian teenager shot the Archduke. Yeah, that is really fighting for the survival of their country. And I suppose Britain, France and Russia thought that old Austria Hungary stood a good chance of conquering all of them. Germany seemed to think that the Allies would conquer Germany. The Americans thought the sinking of their ships meant that the whole American population would be destroyed, I suppose.

I agree that WW1 was just a huge, horrible, unessesary mess, but your arguement is kinda faulty...

Example:

The Americans thought the sinking of their ships meant that the whole American population would be destroyed, I suppose.

The sinking of American ships is a threat to the survival of America. Americans died, a ship was lost, a blow was struck against America. If thats not a threat then I dont know what is.

See?

An American ship being sunk is a threat to America's survival. How? An Ametrican ship in Irish waters? Potentially delivering arms? Though the sinking of the Lusitania was unjust, it is by no means a reason to declare war. Especially 3 years after the incident took place. The ship was in no way critical to the U.S.A.

Originally posted by Darth_Pugwash
I agree that WW1 was just a huge, horrible, unnecessary messWhat you say is true. However, you can't blame France to have defended its territory. Remember where was fighting the troops. :rolleyes:

That's what I love the most with americans, they always blame French people for being surrendering monkeys and when they don't surrender, they are guilty of being responsible of a huge horrible and unnecessary mess. :p

NB : I know you were talking "in general"... however "in general", ww2 was also a huge, horrible and unnecessary mess. So it's kinda pointless.

This is true. As a fellow Frenchperson, I find France's part in the First World War is often overlooked; they held the Marne, also Ypres I think and the "Chemin des Dammes".

Indeed, the great contributions and sacfrices made by the French during WW1 is something that should never be forgotten.

But we seem to have dragged ourselves away from the point here; my initial point (somewhere at the top of the page) was that many nations, not just Russia, can claim to have fought wars purely for survival. I think I worded the post wrongly. I was not attempting to say that every war in which a nation has been attacked (every war ever, lol) can be morally justifyed, which is how you seem to have interpreted it.

So, if we have cleared that up, perhaps we can get back on topic.:)

But the Russians didn't only claim to be fighting for survival, they WERE fighting for survival. All of the races that the Nazis considered "Untermenschen" were going to be exterminated by the Nazis-they were fighting for their right to live.

Yes, I know.

Nonconformist:
"But the Russians didn't only claim to be fighting for survival, they WERE fighting for survival. All of the races that the Nazis considered "Untermenschen" were going to be exterminated by the Nazis-they were fighting for their right to live."

Russians also sometimes had people who shot all escapees.
They had machine guns and if the attacking russian soldier tried to retreat, he/she was shot.
I believe this was the case in Stalingrad.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"I believe this was the case in Stalingrad.

You've obviously watched 'Enemy at the gates' then.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori

Russians also sometimes had people who shot all escapees.
They had machine guns and if the attacking russian soldier tried to retreat, he/she was shot.
I believe this was the case in Stalingrad.

This has been used by Russians since Trotsky's leadership during the civil war; the NKVD, or blocking squads. Yes, they were violent an unnecesary; but the Russians couln't afford to have deserters when figghting for their survival.

Anyway, upon reflection, are some of the murders after "extraordinary events" really so different to the British shooting of deserters in WWI?

Deserters generally throw away their uniform and leave their assigned area. The NKVD mowed down untrained and in some cases unarmed conscripts fleeing under fire. Deserters also got a court martial/trial.

Its the gratest war because of the large number of killed people and the Technology of this war
For that time it was the modernest war ever
In that time the atomic bomb was discoverd and used.
The speed of this war was amaizing
Germany Coquered the half of europe in only 2 years
no other war was bigger than this war
Thats because the war is being considered as the Greatest war ever

Zardnaar: when I used the term deserters, I was using it in the Soviet sense; or rather the "Enemy of the homeland". Soviet troops were shot for: desertion, cowardice, incompetence at shooting, or other aspects, not being patriotic, crossing over to the enemy, surrendering, among other "crimes".

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
The Cold War was not a war.

Actually, I seriously think American people don't know what a war is about. In Europe, we see what the war has done everywhere in the landscape. You go to Berlin and you'll see several church still destroyed. You go to Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Lo or Caen in Normandy and you'll see that those cities have been totally rebuilt in the 50's. The simply vision of those cities made of ugly cheap buildings make you think about ww2. A war is about destruction and nothing else. It's something coarse and ugly. It's a crime to romanticize it.

WOW!!! for someone who doesn't like it when other people from different countries make accusations and generalizations about all French people, you are quick to make some of your own accusations and generalizations about Americans

so I say to you, HOW DARE YOU!!! have such arrogance in presuming that we Americans don't know what war is really about. My fellow country men and women know full well the cost of war, the brutality, the destruction, the uselessness of it.

My country has seen the destruction of war in our homeland or have you not heard of the American Civil War, we have seen the human costs, I personally have family members and friends who have been sent out to the front lines. In fact I have never met a fellow American who has ever glorified or romanticized war, only remember its cost and the sacrifices our heros

so DO NOT presume to know what we Americans think or make generalization about all Americans based on our President

I think the point she was making is that America has never experienced total war, and the civilian population of America has never been affected the same way as in Europe.

Originally posted by nonconformist
I think the point she was making is that America has never experienced total war, and the civilian population of America has never been affected the same way as in Europe.

Ever heard of the American Civil War? In case you don't know, entire towns, like Atlanta, were destoryed by fighting. People's lives were uprooted. That was total war.

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/civil_war/images/civil_war_112.jpg

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/civil_war/images/civil_war_113.jpg

http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/civil_war/images/civil_war_117.jpg

Pictures like those could be taken of any town in eastern Europe or Asia these days.

What if we hadn't won? Would it still be the "greatest war ever?"

Threadjack: Some might say that the Civil War comes close as the "greatest war" ever too? Hmm for which side? Anyone below the Mason-Dixie line could tell you otherwise.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Indeed he doesn't know about war.

LOL ... look up Robert E. Lee

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Ever heard of the American Civil War? In case you don't know, entire towns, like Atlanta, were destoryed by fighting. People's lives were uprooted. That was total war.


Yea I agree

The American Civil War, i read somewhere, was the first truly modern and 'total' war

Never before had there been so much destruction, i.e. cities burnt to ground, scorched earth tactics, first use of trenches

Originally posted by theage
LOL ... look up Robert E. Lee
Or Sherman's March, or Wounded Knee, or Gettysburg, or The Surrender of Charlestown (American Revolution), or any number of battles. Just because we win our wars does not mean we don't know about war.

Originally posted by theage
Yea I agree

The American Civil War, i read somewhere, was the first truly modern and 'total' war

Never before had there been so much destruction, i.e. cities burnt to ground, scorched earth tactics, first use of trenches
Churchill said: "The American Civil War was truely the first modern, and last romantic war."

The most destruction and death ever in Western warfare, the last time war was viewed as romantic.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to remember America being bombed prtty much everyhday by formations of bombers dropping incindiary bombs. Also, the threat was internal; there was no threat of invasion. The U.S was not fighting a war against foreigners threatening to invade their country for whatever purpose, but were fighting fellow countrymen.
And why stop at the American cvil war?
Were are also:
-English Civil war
-French Revolution
-Spanish Civil War
to name but a few.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to remember America being bombed prtty much everyhday by formations of bombers dropping incindiary bombs. Also, the threat was internal; there was no threat of invasion. The U.S was not fighting a war against foreigners threatening to invade their country for whatever purpose, but were fighting fellow countrymen.
And why stop at the American cvil war?
Were are also:
-English Civil war
-French Revolution
-Spanish Civil War
to name but a few.
Would you rather have a bomb that might hit you if you were under it, or a Federal or Confederate soldier thrusting a bayonet at you and tossing a torch on your house?

What difference does it make if the people attacking you are your fellow citizens, your formerly fellow citizens, or foreigners?

It's still the same death and destruction.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to remember America being bombed prtty much everyhday by formations of bombers dropping incindiary bombs.

Entire cities almost totally destroyed by the fighting. Did you see those pictures that Riesstiu IV posted?

Originally posted by nonconformist
Also, the threat was internal; there was no threat of invasion. The U.S was not fighting a war against foreigners threatening to invade their country for whatever purpose, but were fighting fellow countrymen.

So? If anything that makes the ACW worse; brothers fighting brothers etc...

Originally posted by nonconformist
And why stop at the American cvil war?
Were are also:
-English Civil war
-French Revolution
-Spanish Civil War
to name but a few.

How exactly does that refute anyones arguement?

My point is, the ACW does not compare to WWII, or WWI or even possibly the Spanish Civil War.

The World Wars were massive, their political and economic effects on Europe and teh world at large are uncomparable to any other conflict in history.
Its considered teh greatest war most likely due to he media coverage. tabloids and radio spread news of war to teh people. In a multinational war people have never been so encompassed in the war. You talk of teh ACW as being a rival for such a tital but how can it be compared? Some towns were completly destroyed, it may be so but it doesnt compare to teh destruction of cities such as Coventry, Dresden and Stalingrad. I wont pretend i have good knowledge on the ACW but when on teh eastern front teh war was so intimate and brutal every part of life was put into the war and it affected everybody from Burma to England. It was a war of a multitude of nations each individually fighting for independance, freedom or what they belived was right. to compare a mere squabble to such thoughts and reasons is absurd.

Originally posted by nonconformist
My point is, the ACW does not compare to WWII, or WWI

So why did you not post that before, instead of that tripe about America never fighting a war on its own soil...

Originally posted by Sgt.Hellfish
The World Wars were massive, their political and economic effects on Europe and teh world at large are uncomparable to any other conflict in history.
Its considered teh greatest war most likely due to he media coverage. tabloids and radio spread news of war to teh people. In a multinational war people have never been so encompassed in the war. You talk of teh ACW as being a rival for such a tital but how can it be compared? Some towns were completly destroyed, it may be so but it doesnt compare to teh destruction of cities such as Coventry, Dresden and Stalingrad. I wont pretend i have good knowledge on the ACW but when on teh eastern front teh war was so intimate and brutal every part of life was put into the war and it affected everybody from Burma to England. It was a war of a multitude of nations each individually fighting for independance, freedom or what they belived was right. to compare a mere squabble to such thoughts and reasons is absurd.


listen clearly the point we are making is NOT that the ACW is comparable to WW2, what we are saying is that we Americans DO understand what war is about and we HAVE experienced the devastation of war in our own backyard, the ACW is just one example

to simply claim that we Americans can't appreciate the costs of war because we haven't suffered as much as others is nothing more than arrogance

Originally posted by Sgt.Hellfish
The World Wars were massive, their political and economic effects on Europe and teh world at large are uncomparable to any other conflict in history.
Its considered teh greatest war most likely due to he media coverage. tabloids and radio spread news of war to teh people. In a multinational war people have never been so encompassed in the war. You talk of teh ACW as being a rival for such a tital but how can it be compared? Some towns were completly destroyed, it may be so but it doesnt compare to teh destruction of cities such as Coventry, Dresden and Stalingrad. I wont pretend i have good knowledge on the ACW but when on teh eastern front teh war was so intimate and brutal every part of life was put into the war and it affected everybody from Burma to England. It was a war of a multitude of nations each individually fighting for independance, freedom or what they belived was right. to compare a mere squabble to such thoughts and reasons is absurd.

Yeah, the WW's utterly dwarf every other conflict in human history. They were fought on completley different scale to anything else ever, including the ACW.

However, Americans did experience the brutal realities of war on their doorstep during the conflict. That is the point people are making, they are not trying to say that the AWC was bigger etc than WW2.

Anyway, millions of American fought and died in Europe during the WW's. Try telling them that they have no idea just how brutal war is.

The point I am making is that the American public (or the majority of) have never look up to see droves of bombers flying overhead. They have never had intense bombardment from 15 inch guns. They have never had the threat of a full scale invasion with landing craft, fighters and paratroopers. The American homeland has never been threatened since the 18th century. Almost every European nation,bar maybe Switzerland has experienced this.

you are wrong the British did invade the US and burn the Capital in the 19th century or have you not heard of the war of 1812

yes and in that point you and others are presuming that because most of us never had to take cover from enemy bombers that we Americans can't appreciate what war really is all about and that logic is very flawed

thats like saying that the Native American peoples can't apreciate what war is because they were wiped-out, in the genocidal conquests by the Europeans, way before there were bombers and tanks so it doesn't count :rolleyes: where is the logic

Originally posted by nonconformist
The point I am making is that the American public (or the majority of) have never look up to see droves of bombers flying overhead. They have never had intense bombardment from 15 inch guns. They have never had the threat of a full scale invasion with landing craft, fighters and paratroopers. The American homeland has never been threatened since the 18th century. Almost every European nation,bar maybe Switzerland has experienced this.

The vast majority of Europeans haven't either. The war ended in 1945, that was 59 years ago.

Originally posted by theage

Never before had there been so much destruction, i.e. cities burnt to ground, scorched earth tactics, first use of trenches

so i assume youve never heard of the penisula war between france and britain and her allies, portugal and spain.

Because trenches were used here; the famous lines of Torres Vedras.

Also the scorched earth policy was used by wellington as well so that the French Army in front of the lines would have long supply lines which the partisan brigades could attack.

Before you make such sweeping comments like that if you dont know your histroy please.

Or you could back in time to an even more famous episode the mongols who destroyed entire cities and used the scorched earth policy

Originally posted by nonconformist
The point I am making is that the American public (or the majority of) have never look up to see droves of bombers flying overhead. They have never had intense bombardment from 15 inch guns. They have never had the threat of a full scale invasion with landing craft, fighters and paratroopers. The American homeland has never been threatened since the 18th century. Almost every European nation,bar maybe Switzerland has experienced this.

And you have? Please, the Europeans have no monopoly on tragedy in their history. And I would say the average American knows the cost of war thanks to the Civil War as much as I would say you know a damn thing about the cost of war thanks to a war (WW2) your father wasn't even alive during.

No. I lost a lot of family in that war. None of them in combat.
Europe does not have the monopoly of war horror. It has experienced total war more than any other continent.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No, you don't understand ! It was the good against the evil ! ;)

Of course I'm glad America has won the war, that's not the point. About 300,000 french citizens have been killed by the US Air Force during the bombings for our liberation. But there's no reason to complain about it since it has allowed the other French citizens to live freely in the right side of the Iron Curtain. However, we shouldn't romanticized too much all that.

Do you simply know how much cities have been reduced in ash by the US Air Force ? Rotterdam, Antwerp, Budapest, Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Nazaire, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc...

It wasn't fun to fight Hitler. People had to do ugly things they've regreted during the rest of their life. If I'm saying so, it's simply to make you understand that no matter how good were the US, we should all remain humble about such a devastating event.
Rotterdam has been bombed by the Luft Waffe..

27 Million people of Russia/USSR died in WW2...
The Russian Front and the Chinese Front were the most horrific of the war.
We Westerners should take this into account aswell as our own dead.

Dresden was bombed by 796 British RAF Lancaster Bombers, to be followed up by 311 USAF bombers....so it was mainly a British operation.
Hamburg was also leveled by the British and Canadian bombers with firebombs, to put things in perspective..

Marla, thank you for defending France, but by doing to much you will end by being counter productive...

A few clarification. The French casualties during WWII were about 550000. Among them, 67 078 were civilians killed by Allied bombing (not 300000).

About WWI: at the end, France may have been fighting for "survival", and I agree the French "poilus" were sacrified a lot. However, consider a few points :
- French was also seeking revenge for the 1870 war, and to take back Alsace - Lorraine from Germany. So the motive were not survival.
- Imperial Germany was not Nazi Germany. If the German had won, they would have requested territories, compensation or whatever, but the Survival of France was not in danger I think.
- In some battles, there were dozens of thousands casualties, if not hundred of thousands, in just a few days, for absolutly nothing.

So I agree WWI is the most stupid war in history, when you consider the cost against what was at stakes. WWII had more casualties and destruction in total, but at least their were some "ideal" behind it. There were non in WWI.

A few other figures. I won't give figure for other European countries, as I don't have them.
Since the 14th century, France has been at war 455 years. A lot of these wars were fought on its own territory. During the last century (20th) alone, France has been at war 45 years, 29 of them being decolonization wars. The French casualties during all these wars are more than 4 230 000 people. This includes 1 550 000 during the Napoleonic wars, 1 600 000 during World War I, 550 000 during World War II (including 330 000 civilians), and 87 000 in Vietnam. At the same time, the Ameican casualties were 617 000 during the American Civil War, 117 000 during World War I, 291 000 during World War II, 38 000 in Korea and 58 000 in Vietnam, and very few civilians during these wars (except ACW).

In the Napoleonic wars, French casualties were more than 1.5 million, for a population of 20 millions. Just imagine. 7.5% of the population in 15 years. Without machine guns or Weapons of Mass Destruction. Like if 19.5 millions Americans have died since the first Gulf War... In Indochina war (the "French Vietnam war"), French casualties were 87000, many of them being prisonners that never went home. Yes, that's 50% more than America, and for America Vietnam is still a national tragedy.

However, French casualties are small compared to Russia..

You also have one major think to keep in mind. I think very few Americans have a living relative who was told of ACW by someone who was really there. My mother was very young when she fled Paris with her familly in 1940, but she still remembers it. My father was 20, and remembers it even better.

"France has been at war 455 years"

I think Britain can safely claim at least 150 of those :D

the point i tried to make was that whilst the ACW was a war and was fought in teh USA and civilians were kiled it was nothing. look at belgium after the great War that is damage. look at London, coventry, Dresden, hamburg, Berlin, Warsaw, Stalingrad, Naples, Anzio, Arnhem all of these were ravished by war. entire nations crippled by the effects. The US shook of the war and carried on it wasnt total war. it didnt bankrupt them like WW2 did britain. It didnt starve the +30million people as in Germany and Britain in WW1

I agree 100% with Sgt. Hellfish, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Make it better next time. Your first post was misleading:

Originally posted by nonconformist
America has never experienced total war, and the civilian population of America has never been affected the same way as in Europe.

Otherwise I agree. WW2 was worse than the ACW. But that in no way detracts from all the generally unpleasant happenings of the ACW.

i don't think it was the greatest war...war isnt great anyways.

the battle at thermopyle was much greater i'd bet. (for a spectator)

I think if some people seriously compare the impact of the American Civil War on the (American) population at large with that of the Second World War (on those of many European countries as well as China, Japan and others) they have absolutely no idea about the scope of those conflicts.

Now of course this doesn't make it any less catastrophic for those who were caught up in the middle of it but despite being a bloody conflict it wasn't in any way exceptionally worse than many other conflicts of its time and even earlier (the Thirty Years War as just one example).

Due to the technological standard (of the weapons) of the time and especially the comparatively low amount of sheer hatred (it was a civil war about power within a country, not about the annexation or even annihilation of another one and its people) it is in no way comparable with the big wars of the 20th century.
"Total war" in the Goebbels sense didn't exist at that time, for the reasons given above.

It is indeed quite true that America has (fortunately) never been directly (at home) affected by such warfare, something which quite logically is manifested in the public view of war in general, if you compare it with places like Britain, France, Germany, Russia or Japan.
The "hurray" view on war existed everywhere in the world at the beginning of the 20th century (thus after the American Civil War). It has since then been reduced, but to different degrees in different countries.

And yeah, "great" is a bit unfortunate as a term for a war...

@Hitro read my post I never said that the ACW was the greatest war, all I said was that you cannot simply say that the US has never experienced war in "there own backyard" and that Americans don't know what war really is all about, because the US has experienced it


Originally posted by Revolutionary
listen clearly the point we are making is NOT that the ACW is comparable to WW2, what we are saying is that we Americans DO understand what war is about and we HAVE experienced the devastation of war in our own backyard, the ACW is just one example

to simply claim that we Americans can't appreciate the costs of war because we haven't suffered as much as others is nothing more than arrogance

Originally posted by Revolutionary
@Hitro read my post I never said that the ACW was the greatest war, all I said was that you cannot simply say that the US has never experienced war in "there own backyard" and that Americans don't know what war really is all about, because the US has experienced it
But the point is that the Civil War is not comparable with the World Wars. All wars of the 19th century and before did not change much (if anything) about the usual public view of it as something rather glorious (if you win at least) and honourable. That only changed later, beginning with WW1 (think of the "war to end all wars" idea) and culminating in WW2. And in the 20th century, when technology had reached a level that made "total war" possible, the U.S. was not involved in it "on the recieving end", so to speak. Unlike most other countries, and practically unlike all other countries that are economically and politically influencial today.

Originally posted by Hitro
I think if some people seriously compare the impact of the American Civil War on the (American) population at large with that of the Second World War (on those of many European countries as well as China, Japan and others) they have absolutely no idea about the scope of those conflicts.

Now of course this doesn't make it any less catastrophic for those who were caught up in the middle of it but despite being a bloody conflict it wasn't in any way exceptionally worse than many other conflicts of its time and even earlier (the Thirty Years War as just one example).

Due to the technological standard (of the weapons) of the time and especially the comparatively low amount of sheer hatred (it was a civil war about power within a country, not about the annexation or even annihilation of another one and its people) it is in no way comparable with the big wars of the 20th century.
"Total war" in the Goebbels sense didn't exist at that time, for the reasons given above.

It is indeed quite true that America has (fortunately) never been directly (at home) affected by such warfare, something which quite logically is manifested in the public view of war in general, if you compare it with places like Britain, France, Germany, Russia or Japan.
The "hurray" view on war existed everywhere in the world at the beginning of the 20th century (thus after the American Civil War). It has since then been reduced, but to different degrees in different countries.

And yeah, "great" is a bit unfortunate as a term for a war...

My point exactly Hitro.

oh please :rolleyes: nobody in America ever glorified the ACW

we didn't need WW1 for us to know what war is really all about, unlike what others are saying

Originally posted by Hitro
But the point is that the Civil War is not comparable with the World Wars. All wars of the 19th century and before did not change much (if anything) about the usual public view of it as something rather glorious (if you win at least) and honourable. That only changed later, beginning with WW1 (think of the "war to end all wars" idea) and culminating in WW2. And in the 20th century, when technology had reached a level that made "total war" possible, the U.S. was not involved in it "on the recieving end", so to speak. Unlike most other countries, and practically unlike all other countries that are economically and politically influencial today.

Yes, anybody with half a brain cell can tell you that WWII and WWI were worse than the ACW, but we brought up the American civil war after viewing this.

Originally posted by nonconformist
I think the point she was making is that America has never experienced total war, and the civilian population of America has never been affected the same way as in Europe.

All we're saying is that America has experienced total war. Is it that hard to understand?

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
All we're saying is that America has experienced total war. Is it that hard to understand?

All we're saying is that :
- What Americans consider a total war is not what Europeans consider a total war (sorry guys, but we are not exacly playing in the same league here)
- The closest thing you have, ACW, happens 50 years before WWI, and 80 years before WWII. Thus, the memories of that have somewhat fade out, as you no longer have direct witnesses of the event, when we still have witnesses of WWII. It would be as if France still used reference to the Napoleonic Wars to depict the horror of wars, instead of using reference to WWI or WWII.

Is it that hard to understand?

Originally posted by Steph
All we're saying is that :
- What Americans consider a total war is not what Europeans consider a total war (sorry guys, but we are not exacly playing in the same league here)
- The closest thing you have, ACW, happens 50 years before WWI, and 80 years before WWII. Thus, the memories of that have somewhat fade out, as you no longer have direct witnesses of the event, when we still have witnesses of WWII. It would be as if France still used reference to the Napoleonic Wars to depict the horror of wars, instead of using reference to WWI or WWII.

Is it that hard to understand?

I don't deny that Europeans have had bigger wars and that dwarf America and that more of the population was effected. I don't denty that memories of WWII still exist in the population. All I was doing was responding to posts like this.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

Actually, I seriously think American people don't know what a war is about. In Europe, we see what the war has done everywhere in the landscape. You go to Berlin and you'll see several church still destroyed. You go to Le Havre, Cherbourg, St Lo or Caen in Normandy and you'll see that those cities have been totally rebuilt in the 50's. The simply vision of those cities made of ugly cheap buildings make you think about ww2. A war is about destruction and nothing else. It's something coarse and ugly. It's a crime to romanticize it.

Originally posted by nonconformist
I think the point she was making is that America has never experienced total war, and the civilian population of America has never been affected the same way as in Europe.

Do you realize how arrogant messages like these are? My great grandfather fought in France during WWI and he's still alive today! He experienced total war. He saw death, destruction, pain, and suffering. To say that something like "Americans don't know what war is" makes me very mad. My ancestors fought in the Civil War and one died of starvation in a confederate concentration camp. So what if a war is 50 or 100 years old? It can still have an effect on the population.

Arrogant, uninformed messages saying that "Americans don't know what war is" are just as bad if an American said something like "French people cannot fight and surrender to Germans." It is totally untrue. We have a history too.

It's like talking to a brick wall...

Please read my posts again. You seem to have taken the wrong end of the stick. What I said is that the majority of American civilians have never experienced total war. I have nothing but respect for the brave and honourable people who served in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Pacific, North Africa and all over the world. However if we are to take these excerpts from Wikipedia:


Total war is a neologism to describe an international war wherin countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war. The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late nineteenth century that total war was recognized as a separate class of warfare. Total war is most easily distinguished from other forms of warfare through a blurring and combining of strategy and grand strategy.


Examples of Total Warfare Strategies

Punic Wars. During the Punic Wars, Rome and Carthage fought with navies and armies, across several theatres. In the end, Rome destroyed the city state of Carthage, and destroying the empire's ability to wage war by enslaving or committing genocide on the populace.

World War I. Almost the whole of Europe mobilized to conduct the war. Young men were removed from production, and were replaced by women. Rationing occurred on the home fronts.

World War II. In the Second World War, Britain and Germany made a distinct attempt to destroy the other's ability to produce war materials. They did this by bombing each others cities' at night.

Forgive me for any misunderstandings, and if I seemed at all arrogant, but what I meant is that America has never experinced total war. Ameica, as every nation on earth, has been ravaged by war, and has seen its share of horrors. I will leave it at that.

nonconformist's post above (or on the last page...) very well gets it to the point. Nobody says that no single American was ever involved in any "total" war, that's obviously wrong. The point rather is that the American civilian (!) population was never involved in one.

The main point that distincts "total" war from war in general is the attempt, as nonconformist's quote put it, to destroy "the [enemy's] ability to wage war by enslaving or committing genocide on the populace."

The genocide part is the important one here. In a "total" war as it is usually understood the extermination of at least the war-able part of the (enemy's) population or even the whole of it is a clear goal of warfare. The terror bombings carried out by the airforces of WW2 are the prime example for that (albeit just one example) and though Americans were involved in that on the offensive side they haven't been on the defensive one.

And, which is the point of the discussion here, the American Civil War did not involve a component like described above. The Confederation didn't aim at wiping out the industrial and economical core of the Union (population wise) and neither vice versa. Which is certainly not a bad thing (nothing good about having waged a genocidal war) but it is still a fact.

Originally posted by nonconformist
Please read my posts again. You seem to have taken the wrong end of the stick. What I said is that the majority of American civilians have never experienced total war. I have nothing but respect for the brave and honourable people who served in Europe, the Mediterranean, the Pacific, North Africa and all over the world. However if we are to take these excerpts from Wikipedia:

Forgive me for any misunderstandings, and if I seemed at all arrogant, but what I meant is that America has never experinced total war. Ameica, as every nation on earth, has been ravaged by war, and has seen its share of horrors. I will leave it at that.

I'll right, we'll leave it at that. Perhaps I shouldn't have overreacted like that but I've been really depressed and angry lately. One of my good friends just came back from Iraq missing his right leg and right arm, and another one of my friends is about to be shipped off in a week. War sucks... :(

It sure changed the world forever. The map of Europe changed, the Cold War started, and the US emerged as a true superpower and broke its isolationist attitude.

Along with the politics, technology expanded too.

ok if you guys only meant it like that then I'll also leave it at that

I'm sorry Riesstiu.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Do you simply know how much cities have been reduced in ash by the US Air Force ? Rotterdam I just thought I'd point out that Rotterdam has not been bombed by the US but by the Germans. Where do you get your information? :p

Oh, and WW2 is the biggest (greatest if you will) war ever.

I just thought I'd point out that Rotterdam has not been bombed by the US but by the Germans. Where do you get your information?Come on. Everyone is panicking simply because of Rotterdam. That doesn't mean that all other bombings didn't happen : Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Budapest, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Yokohama, Le Havre, Saint-Lo, Cherbourg, Caen, Kassel, Hannover, etc...

And to answer to Steph, please stop about those stupid accusation of me being a blind defender of France. There's nothing more stupid than that. I spend my time to complain about that stupid country I don't even consider as mine. I can't stand anymore to be considered like that simply because of your stupid prejudices on me.

@Marla

Come on. Everyone is panicking simply because of Rotterdam. That doesn't mean that all other bombings didn't happen : Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Budapest, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Yokohama, Le Havre, Saint-Lo, Cherbourg, Caen, Kassel, Hannover, etc...

Why is it whenever the Allied strategic bombings are brought up it's always the US Air Force? In actuality the policy of "carpet bombing" and "fire bombing" German cities was started by the RAF. It was the RAF that bombed at night because they weren't even pretending to be aiming at military or industrial targets. Most of the European cities on that list were levelled by the RAF and not the USAF. Why do people always ignore the British and condemn the Americans?

Anyway, there was a very simple way for Germany and Japan to not have the UK and US level their cities. Not start the war. Not attempt to take over the world. Not attempt to slaughter millions of people because they were "inferior" in their eyes. It's a very simple plan and things would have gone a lot better if Germany/Japan had followed it.

If you attempt to kill somebody with a knife and they shoot you with a gun you're really in no position to start screaming "excessive force".

Why is it whenever the Allied strategic bombings are brought up it's always the US Air Force? In actuality the policy of "carpet bombing" and "fire bombing" German cities was started by the RAF. It was the RAF that bombed at night because they weren't even pretending to be aiming at military or industrial targets. Most of the European cities on that list were levelled by the RAF and not the USAF. Why do people always ignore the British and condemn the Americans?Because I'm obsessed with the feeling that Americans remember World War 2 as a great adventure and I'm so much scared about that that I want things to change. Most Europeans including Brits learned that it was before everything the most awful event in Human History. I know Americans know that too, but not enough.

Actually, I'm not scared only about the US, I'm also scared about China. Both of those countries consider wars as an option. I simply don't want to see more disasters on Earth. If World War 2 had a "purpose", maybe it was to tell to the world that we can destroy ourselves, and that it's not because we can that we should try. I'm truely scared about that. And Russians are a bit the same too.

Well anyway, my message was just that war is something ugly. That's all. Even the good guys who freed my country from both Hitler and Stalin had to do things they would have liked better not to happen. That's all.

Sincerly, I say so for all of us.
:)

@Marla

Because I'm obsessed with the feeling that Americans remember World War 2 as a great adventure and I'm sso much cared about that that I want things to change. Most Europeans including Brits learned that it was before everything the most awful event in Human History. I know Americans know that too, but not enough.

This is true. But it's also important to remember that one side wanted the war and one side didn't. When someone declares war on you there's not much choice to what you can do. I think the American romanticisizing of WW2 comes in large part from the fact that we strongly believe were on the "right" side rather than the actual fighting was "cool".

Actually, I'm not scared only about the US, I'm also scared about China. Both of those countries consider wars as an option.

Well I wouldn't worry too much about it. The US,China, and the EU all have far more to gain through peaceful trading and all realize it. Noone wants a war of that scale.

Well anyway, my message was just that war is something ugly. That's all. Even the good guys who freed my country from both Hitler and Stalin had to do things they would have liked better to not happen. That's all.


As someone who has fought and who's father and uncle fought and who's grandfather and grand-uncles fought and on and on for both the UK and the US I certainly hope we're coming to the end of this nonsense. Hopefully my future sons/daughter won't have to do the same.

True. We are all lucky to be born in such relatively "uninteresting" times, instead of having to live with bombs and bullets like our grandparents did. May we, and our children and children's children etc, never have to live through such horror again.

World War 2 was the greatest war this planet has every suffered.

It involved the greatest amount of countries.
It involved the greatest amounts of people
It saw the greatest leap in innovation and technology every seen
It saw great empires fall and new ones rise
It saw the destruction of most of Europe, North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific Rim
It saw the greatest sacrifice
It saw the greatest evil ever seen

And is saw the greatest amount of dead every before seen

That is why it was the greatest war ever.

I will also add. My Grandfather died in November 1945 in Italy. He was a Wing-Sergeant in the RAF Reserve and was the radio-op on a Lancaster. He was from a neutral Southern Ireland, yet he went to war, on the side of our traditional enemy (this was only 20 years after we were at war with the UK) to fight the evil of fascism.

I note also that some people have mentioned Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. I will mention China, Singapore, Burma, Manchuria, Korea, Poland, The Slavs, Ukraine, London, Coventry, Liverpool, Malta, Eindhoven, The Einsatzgruppen , Belzec, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Chelmno, Dachau, Drancy, etc…….

I note also that some people have mentioned Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. I will mention China, Singapore, Burma, Manchuria, Korea, Poland, The Slavs, Ukraine, London, Coventry, Liverpool, Malta, Eindhoven, The Einsatzgruppen , Belzec, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Chelmno, Dachau, Drancy, etc…….

Hear hear. Let's remember who the aggressors were.

World War 2 was the greatest war this planet has every suffered.

It involved the greatest amount of countries.
It involved the greatest amounts of people
It saw the greatest leap in innovation and technology every seen
It saw great empires fall and new ones rise
It saw the destruction of most of Europe, North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific Rim
It saw the greatest sacrifice
It saw the greatest evil ever seen

And is saw the greatest amount of dead every before seen

That is why it was the greatest war ever.

I will also add. My Grandfather died in November 1945 in Italy. He was a Wing-Sergeant in the RAF Reserve and was the radio-op on a Lancaster. He was from a neutral Southern Ireland, yet he went to war, on the side of our traditional enemy (this was only 20 years after we were at war with the UK) to fight the evil of fascism.

I note also that some people have mentioned Dresden. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. I will mention China, Singapore, Burma, Manchuria, Korea, Poland, The Slavs, Ukraine, London, Coventry, Liverpool, Malta, Eindhoven, The Einsatzgruppen , Belzec, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Chelmno, Dachau, Drancy, etc…….
Definetly. My granduncle died in a prison camp after the Japanese captured Singapore (he was part of the British-Indian army). Another one spent most of the war in a POW camp in France, and both my grandfathers fought as well.

There is an American anecdote that I’ve never been able to verify whether true or not but it goes something like this:

In 1881, the American inventor Hiram Maxim was attending the Paris Electrical Exhibition, hawking some new gadgets he had created when he was (so the story goes) told by a fellow American that if he really wanted to make his fortune he would ditch the kitchenwares and farm equipment, and invent some contraption that would help Europeans kill each other quicker. Whether this story is true or not, Maxim of course went on to invent 3 or so years later the Maxim machinegun, which for decades was the most popular machinegun in many of the world's armies. The Soviets were still using Maxim machineguns up until the Battle of Moscow in 1941. Driving in Cape Cod this weekend, I saw two 1910 model Maxim machineguns mounted on a World War I monument in some small town (obviously inert).

The side-argument about who has suffered more or who has any real experience of “total war” is a bit ridiculous, for a few reasons.

1. Who suffered more is a very relative term. France suffered much moreso than the U.S. in the war, but as one goes eastward in Europe the level of destruction and death caused by the war skyrockets. Poland lost 6 million killed in the war (5.35 million of them civilians), while the USSR lost 20 million. I don’t know that it is something to brag about, coming from a country where the losses were so great that it is still today very difficult to find a Polish family who did not lose members to the war. I have whole sections of my extended family who went missing in the war, and we have no idea what happened to them.

2. The argument that more experience with war automatically equals greater levels of pacifism or aversion to war is not necessarily true. Again, much of Eastern Europe understands the need for greater security attention in Europe, which means credible militaries. The mass death and destruction of World War II in Eastern Europe created a desire for peace, but peace protected by security arrangements and alliances.

3. With the exception of former Yugoslav citizens, few in Europe or the West today has any direct experience with total war. I am one of the older folks in these forums, and I was born 23 years after World War II ended. The generation that fought that war is rapidly succumbing to oblivion.

4. The Americas absorbed tens of millions of immigrants from Europe after both World Wars, as destitute or desperate Europeans fled for opportunities in Chile, Peru, the U.S., Brazil, Canada, etc. If the societies at large did not experience total war directly, millions of the new immigrants who settled in the Western Hemisphere did.

5. Pacifism as a mass movement in Europe is relatively new, developing and spreading in the 1980s. It is more of a by-product of the waning Cold War than World War II.

Ultimately I don’t think the experiences of total war are as significant as many seem to think, for the simple reason that I mentioned in No. 1 above, which is that not all Europeans reached the same conclusions on war and peace after 1945. There wasn’t a single European experience of the war. In Britain today one can still find so many Roman ruins virtually intact, while in many Polish cities it is difficult to find authentic buildings older than 60 years. There isn’t a single, obvious lesson to be had. The war had a severe social impact on Poland, doing things like almost over-night advancing the cause of women’s rights simply because so few men were left by 1945 but it also left its mark on American society: through the “Levittowns”, the Americans invented the suburb and the 30 year mortgage to make housing available and affordable for the 14 million returning military personnel after the war, a move that would profoundly change American society.

The bottom line is that we did not all experience the war in the same way, and we therefore have reached different conclusions about it and its impact on the world. Everyone seems to have drawn different conclusions and lessons from the war, and from a historical perspective they all have at least some level of validity to them.

And that brings me nicely to my main point, which was to address the core question of the thread: Why is WW II considered the greatest war ever? Our modern heritage is a large part of the answer. World War II was only 60 years ago, and its effects have profoundly influenced our world today. My wife is from a part of Poland that in 1939 wasn’t a part of Poland, as indeed my family is from a part of Poland that was in 1939 but is no longer in Poland. Many modern European borders were born (or re-affirmed) by the post-World War II settlements. The U.N. was created in the closing months of the war, as well the E.U. was created from the ashes of the war. We still today live in the shadow of World War II, and so it looms large in our historical memory. For Germany, the Thirty Years War was worse in terms of destruction and loss of life (Bohemia too), but that is ancient history for modern Germans, easily eclipsed by the events of 60 years ago. Materially, World War II has indeed been overall the most destructive war the planet has seen, but in 300 years it may just be reduced to a few questions on some student’s history quiz, rather like how we treat the Punic Wars today.

History is always perspective. When traveling, take a look at the history section of local bookstores to see what are the “hot” topics. Here in the U.S. it is invariably World War II, Vietnam and the American Civil War. In Britain there is a long fascination with World War I, but until recently there was very little popular interest in World War I in the U.S. Polish bookshelves brim with World War II histories, but Hungarians prefer the pre- and post-World War I era, eras that immensely impacted their history. I remember once in the mid-1990s flying into Toronto and poking around the airport bookstore, finding a dozen books dedicated to the history of Federalism in Canada and the West; a relevant topic for a country straining under the political storms then raging in Quebec and the western provinces.

Whatever the greatest war is, let us never forget the Second World
War. We must always remember, so that it may never happen again.

There is an American anecdote that I’ve never been able to verify whether true or not but it goes something like this:

In 1881, the American inventor Hiram Maxim was attending the Paris Electrical Exhibition, hawking some new gadgets he had created when he was (so the story goes) told by a fellow American that if he really wanted to make his fortune he would ditch the kitchenwares and farm equipment, and invent some contraption that would help Europeans kill each other quicker. Whether this story is true or not, Maxim of course went on to invent 3 or so years later the Maxim machinegun, which for decades was the most popular machinegun in many of the world's armies. The Soviets were still using Maxim machineguns up until the Battle of Moscow in 1941. Driving in Cape Cod this weekend, I saw two 1910 model Maxim machineguns mounted on a World War I monument in some small town (obviously inert).

The side-argument about who has suffered more or who has any real experience of “total war” is a bit ridiculous, for a few reasons.

1. Who suffered more is a very relative term. France suffered much moreso than the U.S. in the war, but as one goes eastward in Europe the level of destruction and death caused by the war skyrockets. Poland lost 6 million killed in the war (5.35 million of them civilians), while the USSR lost 20 million. I don’t know that it is something to brag about, coming from a country where the losses were so great that it is still today very difficult to find a Polish family who did not lose members to the war. I have whole sections of my extended family who went missing in the war, and we have no idea what happened to them.

2. The argument that more experience with war automatically equals greater levels of pacifism or aversion to war is not necessarily true. Again, much of Eastern Europe understands the need for greater security attention in Europe, which means credible militaries. The mass death and destruction of World War II in Eastern Europe created a desire for peace, but peace protected by security arrangements and alliances.

3. With the exception of former Yugoslav citizens, few in Europe or the West today has any direct experience with total war. I am one of the older folks in these forums, and I was born 23 years after World War II ended. The generation that fought that war is rapidly succumbing to oblivion.

4. The Americas absorbed tens of millions of immigrants from Europe after both World Wars, as destitute or desperate Europeans fled for opportunities in Chile, Peru, the U.S., Brazil, Canada, etc. If the societies at large did not experience total war directly, millions of the new immigrants who settled in the Western Hemisphere did.

5. Pacifism as a mass movement in Europe is relatively new, developing and spreading in the 1980s. It is more of a by-product of the waning Cold War than World War II.

Ultimately I don’t think the experiences of total war are as significant as many seem to think, for the simple reason that I mentioned in No. 1 above, which is that not all Europeans reached the same conclusions on war and peace after 1945. There wasn’t a single European experience of the war. In Britain today one can still find so many Roman ruins virtually intact, while in many Polish cities it is difficult to find authentic buildings older than 60 years. There isn’t a single, obvious lesson to be had. The war had a severe social impact on Poland, doing things like almost over-night advancing the cause of women’s rights simply because so few men were left by 1945 but it also left its mark on American society: through the “Levittowns”, the Americans invented the suburb and the 30 year mortgage to make housing available and affordable for the 14 million returning military personnel after the war, a move that would profoundly change American society.

The bottom line is that we did not all experience the war in the same way, and we therefore have reached different conclusions about it and its impact on the world. Everyone seems to have drawn different conclusions and lessons from the war, and from a historical perspective they all have at least some level of validity to them.

And that brings me nicely to my main point, which was to address the core question of the thread: Why is WW II considered the greatest war ever? Our modern heritage is a large part of the answer. World War II was only 60 years ago, and its effects have profoundly influenced our world today. My wife is from a part of Poland that in 1939 wasn’t a part of Poland, as indeed my family is from a part of Poland that was in 1939 but is no longer in Poland. Many modern European borders were born (or re-affirmed) by the post-World War II settlements. The U.N. was created in the closing months of the war, as well the E.U. was created from the ashes of the war. We still today live in the shadow of World War II, and so it looms large in our historical memory. For Germany, the Thirty Years War was worse in terms of destruction and loss of life (Bohemia too), but that is ancient history for modern Germans, easily eclipsed by the events of 60 years ago. Materially, World War II has indeed been overall the most destructive war the planet has seen, but in 300 years it may just be reduced to a few questions on some student’s history quiz, rather like how we treat the Punic Wars today.

History is always perspective. When traveling, take a look at the history section of local bookstores to see what are the “hot” topics. Here in the U.S. it is invariably World War II, Vietnam and the American Civil War. In Britain there is a long fascination with World War I, but until recently there was very little popular interest in World War I in the U.S. Polish bookshelves brim with World War II histories, but Hungarians prefer the pre- and post-World War I era, eras that immensely impacted their history. I remember once in the mid-1990s flying into Toronto and poking around the airport bookstore, finding a dozen books dedicated to the history of Federalism in Canada and the West; a relevant topic for a country straining under the political storms then raging in Quebec and the western provinces.


Very good points and well made. In Ireland it is easier to find our own history that WW2 in the book shops. In fact offically, WW2 never happened, we just had an "Emergancy" from 1939 - 1945.

The greatest tragedy about WW2 is that the seeds of the conflict were sown in 1918.

The legacy of World War 2 is the World we live in today. The greatest legacy is the EU.


And to the 10 new states, welcome to the Club!

@Vrylakas

I completely agree with your points, peoples and societies do not become more antiwar with more experience in wars

and I also agree that the arguement about who has any real experience of “total war” is ridiculous and pointless

Because I'm obsessed with the feeling that Americans remember World War 2 as a great adventure and I'm so much scared about that that I want things to change.

Where do people get this idea?

"Whooo hooo! Bataan death march, baby!" :rolleyes:

Americans remember WWII as a war that needed to be fought. Americans at the time never wanted to join the war. They still had the lovely images of the European death factory of world war I stuck in their head. But we were attacked by the Japanese and then Germany declared war. There was no question at that time that America had to join.

As for remembering WW2 as somesort of 'adventure,' that is ludicrus.

oh yes and all you people making generalization about how/what all Americans think (i.e. like Marla Singer) lets get one thing straight all peoples in the US and any other nation for that matter do NOT and I repeat do NOT all think the same way, a nation is NOT an organic living entity with the united consciousness of its people, this everybody knows so it is impossible for "Americans remember World War 2 as a great adventure" you make it sound like all Americans think the same way like we can only have one opinion.

so stop making generaliztions about how the people of America or any nation think

and how in the world can you possibly know how all Americans think

it is very idiotic to make generaliztions about how a society thinks based on what a few individuals from that society believes, and there is almost no possible way for you to know what all or at the very least the majority of people of any nation truly believes