I think it would be earlier than ww1...around the time of world wars people tried to avoid whole sale slaughter of innocents... earlier wars not so much.

i think in the end more than 1 million people died at the Somme


i've read that more people died in the first 2 hours than the entire D-Day landings.

 

-----signature-----

More people died in a single battle in WWI than died in most wars, including the Civil war. We are talking millions dead. However WWII had 60 million casualties vs. 35 million in WWI. The problem is the undefined word, "gruesome". Some might take the death toll to mean "gruesome". Others the horrid conditions the war was fought in. For me the most "gruesome" is WWI. Nevertheless I would not argue anyone who chooses Civil war or WWII.

 

-----signature-----

Once Ezio (or whatever his name will be in AC3) gets done with the fighting, the body count will be higher than in any of those other wars!

 

-----signature-----

and a donkey..

 

-----signature-----

True.

 

-----signature-----

Name a single battle with more than 1 million casualties?


Or are you trying to supplant Joe Biden?

 

-----signature-----

For me, I think WW1 was worse overall, not in terms of casualties, but in terms of "What the heck did they accomplish?" In WW2, yes, Hitler took over a lot of territories, but you could see moving battlefields and lines changing constantly, so you had a sense of how things were going (except if you were Hitler, and relied on phantom armies on paper to save you).

In WW1, in the Western (European) Front anyway, the lines were fairly static. It may have changed a little bit here and there, but usually any gains you made were ultimately undone either due to lack of reinforcements or heavy enemy counter-attack. Both sides essentially just ground each other down in the hopes that one side or the other would cave so they could do a traditional "start pushing the enemy back and scatter them about" thing. And when the war ended, the lines were still more or less the same, minus a few million men who ultimately died for nothing.

And it was stuff like this why people like British Prime Minister Chamberlain sought for a long time to avoid engaging in yet another war with Germany. You have to keep in mind that WW1 was still fresh on their minds, and they didn't want another few million men being ground to dust for a little bit of land here and there. So yeah, in hindsight guys like him seemed really stupid, but if you were alive at the time, and didn't have the foresight to see even worse atrocities in WW2, you probably wouldn't want to see another WW1 scenario either.

I sometimes wonder what would've happened if the British and French simply marched/attacked their way into Germany when Hitler was busy in Poland, instead of staying put in the Maginot Line. The war probably would've ended before it could start, since Hitler wouldn't of had enough reinforcements to fight on both sides of Germany at the time (notice all his early victories were because he was able to shift the entire German military towards one foe at a time, until he attacked the Russians before finishing off the British).

Japanese slaughter of millions of Chinese during WW2, chemical weapons, biological weapons and human experimentation, mass civilian killings, torture, cannibalism, forced labour, comfort women, burning POW's alive, they pretty much had it covered.

 

-----signature-----

yeah but that was against the Chinese, doesn't really count.


It's like pouring gas on a ant hill and lighting it on fire...

 

-----signature-----