World War I was far more brutal than World War II

RE: WIKIPEDIAa). If Pro wishes to disqualify specific source material, particularly the single largest and most popularly referenced resource in the world, Pro needs to establish that rule as part of the challenge. b). Wikipedia's reliability as a general reference resource is well established. The most cited study was published in Nature in 2005. "In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies."Although Wikipedia may not always rank as highly as the most reliable encyclopedia, Britannica, it offers multiple advantages in terms of timeliness, number of articles (nine times as many articles as Britannica), and democratic processes. Although there are legitimate concerns about inaccuracies, vandalism, etc., there are few online resources that are not similarly vulnerable. The advantage of Wikipedia is that it is restlessly monitored by 72,000 administrators and editors (I'm one of them). Wikipedia offers the distinct advantage of reflecting common consensus on controversial points, rather than relying on the always biases of a few. So, for example, Pro relied on the expertise of a single author, Heather Wheeler, to supply a list of WW1 weaponry. Since Heather identified the use of zeppelins in WW1, Pro also provided this information even though Pro herself recognizes that airships were fairly ineffective as a weapon of war. Since Heather neglected to mention the important roles of artillery and barbed wire in WW1, Pro made the same omission. Wikipedia, on the other hand, notes the limitations of Zeppelins in warfare and remembers to discuss barbed wire and artillery. Wikipedia, as a competitive marketplace of expertise, sometimes proves superior to the unchallenged expertise of a few or a single author. Although no single source is guaranteed reliable, Con would match the reliability of Wikipedia against the majority of online sources which are more likely to be unedited and unchallenged. RE: SOLDIERS POINT of VIEWAnother rule Pro neglected to document up front. Since the astonishing number of civilians killed in the Second World War may be that conflict's most distinguishing characteristic, Con considers this new rule a significant and counter-historical handicap. Nevertheless, even only considering the experience of soldiers, the Second World War remains more brutal. RE: DEATH STATISTICSOn the contrary, death rates are probably the single most referenced statistic when assessing the magnitude of any conflict. So Pro does not find casualty rates convincing, how does she respond to the remainder of Con's arguments? RE: the LITTLEST DETAILSComparing the relative brutality of world wars is a big picture analysis. The details are less helpful here. Can you find specific soldiers' stories in the First World War that are more brutal than soldiers' stories in the Second? Sure, but focusing on anecdote would distort history. Making sweeping generalizations based on little details inevitably leads to inaccuracy. We're talking about trends and statistics here, bug picture stuff. RE: the GREAT WARIn Britain, the Napoleanic Wars were called the Great War until 1915, when it became clear that the magnitude of the current conflict would eclipse Waterloo. Similarly, after the fall of Paris in 1940, usage of the term Great War fell out of use to prevent confusion with a war of lesser magnitude. After 1940, Britains referred to the earlier event as the First World War. In America, the earlier event was typically referred to as the European War until 1940, after which World War 1 was more commonly used. RE: TERRORISMThere were plenty of features of WW1 that might be perceived as acts of terrorism. Assassination, for example, or blowing up trains. The line between terrorism and warfare is fuzzy at best. In order for this argument to support the notion that WW1 was the more brutal, there would have to be some indication that terrorism was present by some measure in excess of terrorism in WW2. Con can find no general trend in terrorism during the WW1 that was not matched or exceeded by WW2. RE:US as WORLD POWERThe rise of the US as a great power was not so much an event as it was a trend. The supremacy of the US economy was undeniable by 1890. Europeans tend to date the emergence of the US as a great military power from the Battle of Manilla Bay in 1898 when Dewey's small fleet destroyed the much larger Pacific Spanish Fleet in 90 minutes. Certainly, by the advent of WW1, the Triple Alliance considered America a sufficient threat that they were willing to make important concessions after Lusitania to prevent America's entry into the war. RE: WW1 CAUSED WW2No doubt the resolution of WW1 was a principle cause of WW2. Precedence, however, does not make the earlier war more brutal. RE:WW1 the "BRUTAL" WARI can't find evidence of this moniker, but if WW1 was called the Brutal War, the name was justly deserved. That label doesn't make it more brutal than WW2. RE:TRENCHESBy WW2 trenches had evolved into more shallow and less permanent foxholes. Considering that a soldier might be trapped under fire for days or weeks in either, which was better equipped to serve as dining room and toilet- shallow foxhole or deep trench? Foxholes were at least as bad as trenches. RE: GRAVESCon can't find any documentation to support Pro's assertion. RE: SHELLINGYes, and in no way exceeded WW2 bombardment by artillery and plane in quantity of tonnage or quality of destruction. In terms of tonnage of high explosive, WW2 dropped 180 times more explosives than WW1 in terms of tonnage of high explosive. RE: HOSPITALSMedicine advanced some, but not tremendously between the wars. The main difference is that because WW1 was relatively static, and because of the more civilized nature of WW1 minimized assaults on medical facilities, hospitals were often available. In WW2, hospitals were targets. In the early days of the Invasion of Poland, Hospital rooftops were painted with crosses to deter bombings until it became clear that the Wehrmacht were targeting hospitals. Russia estimated it lost 40,000 hospitals to the German Invasion. Dresden, Cologne, and many German cities lost most of their major hospitals to strategic bombing. Shima Hospital in Hiroshima was the hypocenter for the atomic bomb there.RE: FLAMETHROWERSFlamethrowers were not banned in WW2. All major combatants used manpowered flamethrowers. Some used flamethrowers mounted on tanks. RE: MUSTARD GASBy WW2, cyanide gas and carbon monoxide were the popular chemical weapons, used mostly in the Holocaust. The number of gas victims in WW2 were 20-30 times the number in WW1. Please note that Pro made no reply to the majority of my arguments, including:More brutal because WW2 was a war for survival.More brutal because of the dehumanization of the enemy.More brutal because prisoners were made to labor in the murder of their own.More brutal because the WW2 was fought are greater distance, sometimes never seeing the enemy.VOTE CON![1]http://m.livescience.com...