One sentence sums it up-an enormously huge and pathetic waste of human life and resources and all because of a handful of deranged lunatics.I'm still wondering what we could have done with the resources and energy that was used in the war.
The War! Sorry, but I thought all wars were a waste of humanity. Surely the First World War cost more lives? <IMAGE SRC="http://www.bermuda-online.org/RemembranceDay.jpg" ALIGN RIGHT>
If WWII never happened, the odds are it would have been fought later against the Soviets. There'd be no UN, but still a League Of Nations. There would be half billion people more on Earth, by now. Society would have thought radically different, who knows how many Freuds, Einsteins or other geniusus were killed during the Holocaust or the war at large. The British empire would still remain. There's a chance that the US and UK may have gone to war. (British war plans between the two wars had actually been designed for a naval conflict between the States and Britain.) That's a few suggestions. P.S. Good posts Omegaseven, keep up the good work.
Much of our current technology would not exist without the advent of World War II. What we lose in life, we gain in ability.
I tend to agree with spankyface. It is a sad comment upon our species that most of our technological advances have come in the pursuit of how to better kill our fellow creatures. But it true none the less.
Also, quite a bit about what we know of typhus, extreme starvation, and other maladies brought about by cramming so many people into confined, unsanitary conditions such as exists in many underdeveloped countries (and some quite developed ones) we gained in expediency via WW2. Biggles-Yes, WW1 had the highest human cost of any war fought in America's time (since 1776). I don't know how it stacks up against other wars before then. If the war hadn't been fought, I think Hitler would have wheedled his way into Britain. He really didn't want to fight the UK. He felt a kinship to the British, apparently through the royal houses and eons of saxon-celtic intermingling. I think he would have taken his time (most likely to the frustrations of his generals) and found a sneaky way to get his agenda in the door. Prior to the declaration of war from the UK, he was trying to work his way in diplomatically. Hess just jumped the gun when he pulled his stunt. It would have taken a few more years of recovery from the great expenditure of war before Nazi Germany could have been able to cross the pond and put any kind of decent foothold in the Americas. He most likely would have used the Japanese to keep us expending our resources until he could sink his teeth in. After taking the entire Western world, he would then, of course, set his sights on the Orient. I don't know why, but I don't think he would have succeeded in that endeavor. I do know that if the war had never have happened, my dad would have been stuck working in a copper mine, never would have been on leave in San Jose, never would have fallen in love with the town, never would have moved there, never would have met my mother, and I wouldn't be typing this right now, and you wouldn't be reading it. I owe a great deal to the war. I think it created as many new human beings as it destroyed, if not more. I think of war like a natural forest fire. When a forest gets too overgrown, fires spread more quickly and do more damage. New life springs up from the ashes. When the population gets too overgrown, wars are more likely to start, which cuts down on the population, and new life springs from the ashes. That is, provided we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion. I don't think forests do that to themselves... (Look out! The Chinese Elms have nuclear capabilities!)
In general, war might be just another part of human nature. It could be a natural counterbalance to mans need for procreation.
WWI didn't cost that many American lives. The Civil War was resoponsable for more American deaths than the first and second World Wars.
Bowser ... If war might be a 'natural counterbalance', then it is a rather poor one. All you have to look at is the world's population increase during the nineteen hundreds. Up ... up ... up!
curly- I was referring to the human cost in general, not just the Americans. It only stands to reason that the American Civil War would cost more American lives than those form any other nation because it was mostly Americans who were fighting it. I mean, how many Americans died in the Spanish Civil War compared to how many Spaniards? World War 1 cost the most lives across the board, thanks in large part to Verdun and the Somme. What sort of asinine tactic was that? Everybody stay out there killing each other until there's only one side left. No tactical retreats, no falling back to reassess the plan, in fact there didn't seem to be a plan at all. I think I read somewhere that after the battles of Verdun and the Somme that the commanders decided that it wasn't such an important piece of ground after all. Almost as bad was the fact that the flying forces flew without parachutes. Aerial command thought it would be "bad for morale". They felt that it instilled in the air crews that there was a possibility that they might get shot down. Gee, how about that?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Compare the tactics of World War 1 to modern warfare and you'll see that we may still be stupid enough to have wars, but at least we're a little smarter about surviving them. Of course, I'm also reminded of the Redcoats having their collars so rigid that they couldn't see the guy next to them getting shot. Just like the parachutes, the commanders thought it would be bad for morale if the troops thought they might actually get hit. My favorite tactic? From Biloxi Blues: What would you do if the whole Japanese army was coming at you? Surrender and get some sleep. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bowser ... No idea ... Unfortunately, I'm not psychic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, how many people died in the wars of the last two centuries? Try multiplying those numbers by the average number of offspring typical for each war generation. Then multiply that number by the average number of offspring typical for each postwar generation. Continue to multiply each new generation forward with the average offspring for each. When done, I think you would find a substantial increase in the total population. It's not a perfect counterbalance, but I think it fits into the natural order of things--right there with desease and other natural calamities
Here's a thought. If the WTC had not been destroyed and the 4000+ victims were still alive, how many generations/years would be required before their lineage reached one billion?
Yeah, war is okay in terms of population control. I would personally prefer compulsory euthenasia though. Logans Run here we come. Any ideas on the criteria for deciding who faces the axe?
CC, The above is just an observation. As for your question, young males are always the first to go--when you thin out a population of deer, your hunting tags authorize you to shoot only bucks.
Its now thought he was planing a co-invastion with the IRA, as the Germans did with the Russain regarding Poland, in cooperation for there help the Germans would give ireland back to the irish.
