I've really enjoyed our discussions about World War I in class. I feel like I'm many situations World War II gets all of the glory when it comes to European wars, but World War I could be identified as the permanent shift in how wars were fought. Tanks were introduced, chemical warfare was first used, airplanes were young, but their potential was great. Like we've noted time and time again, tactics had not caught up to weaponry. Calvary charges led to a lot of dead men and horses at the hands of machine guns.
I looked up some casualty statistics and I think the numbers are horrendous. Russia had over 9 million men killed, wounded, captured, or missing between 1914-1918. That's over 75% of the 12 million men they mobilized. Germany had over 7 million casualties out of their 11 million men mobilized. Russia had nearly 1.5 million permanently disabled people after the war, and while Russia and Germany have the highest numbers of casualties, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Austria all have gaudy casualty percentages.
It's really quite remarkable to me the drop off in casualties from then to now. Like Jennifer said in class, Afghanistan and Iraq combined, which are conflicts that have been going on longer than WWI (albeit on a much smaller scale), have only claimed the lives of 1500-6500 American soldiers.
While I would not advocate war as a viable option to solve problems, and I definitely don't like the thought of people getting killed, it does make me happy to know that our gains in tactical understanding, defensive technology, and medical technology and ability have helped to reduce casualty rates from the horrific percentages we saw in the Great War.
With casualty rates as high as 75%, it's no wonder people got upset after the war was over, and imagine what would happen today if the military was still doing things that defied since like running at machine guns on horseback? Can you say, "Cell phone video on Youtube" and then someone's resigning from their post? And today, the public would never tolerate anything remotely close to 75% killed, wounded, or missing.
So for me, while war is interesting to study and not something I would ever want to live through, I'm glad we've made some improvements that give people a better chance of survival.
Although it is great that our technological advances has significantly dropped the total death toll in wars, I believe that there is still just as much opposition in every war. The war against terrorism has seen much critisism because of the threat that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After the weapons were not found, many Americans opposed the war because we were still fighting a war when what we were looking for wasn't there. I am for the war against terrorism but I still believe that there are just as many people against this war as every war the America has ever fought in.
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to know that soldiers have access to the benefits of technology but the criticism of war comes and goes. Quantifiable reasons are needed to get Americans behind a modern war. Even though there is much criticism about Iraq now, President Bush’s approval ratings were at a high when we first went into Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20 so looking back it is easy to disagree with our current Middle East conflicts but at the time many Americans were applauding the decision. Every individual is different but as a whole people are reactionary and will rally to a cause, whether it is suspected weapons of mass destruction or the sinking of the Lusitania and intercepting of the Zimmerman telegram. The casualties have decreased but the fact still remains that given a basis for war many people will support it and when things don’t go according to plan many people will denounce it. Great post, it is hard to grasp some of those numbers.
ReplyDeleteI see where you are going and I agree that WWI is often overlooked when wars are talked about. I think that WWII is talked about on a much greater scale because of the mass murders that were committed by Hitler and the SS. These deaths were not casualties of war and they were not soldiers. I also think that the emergence of Hitler as Germany's leader and dictator had a big effect on WWII being the center of conversation. People are always interrested when a man can turn a country upside down with words.
ReplyDeleteI think that your discussion of casualty figures highlights why WWI is still viewed as such a turning point. Prior to this war, that type of death and destruction were unimaginable, just as prior to Hitler, institutionalized and organized genocide was largely unthinkable. I also think that the lower casualty figures for post-WWII conflicts indicate their limited scale (fewer combatants on all sides) which I also think stems in some ways from the unwillingness of societies to again tolerate such senseless slaughter.
ReplyDelete