• WWII because total deaths of WWI were 20000000,deaths of WWII over 62000000.
  • In my honest opinion..WWII.
  • World War II. Weapons were much more developed during World War II. The worst thing in World War I was probably the trench war.
  • They were both really fierce. However, WWI was fought a lot in trenches that protected the solders and involved fewer countries. WWII included lots more mobility and movement of enemy/friendly lines, was fought by more countries, was fought on more fronts (depending on the nation) and more continents. And total deaths were higher. So, WWII is my pick.
  • WWII hands down. Battle of Stalingrad: bloodiest battle in Human History(Wikipedia).
  • World War II was bloodier, and saw the arrival and use of the nuclear weapon, but I'm going to go with World War I. World War II improved on many of the weapons introduced in World War I, but the tank, the fighter, the bomber, the aircraft carrier, the submarine, were all World War I developments. Add to that the sheer brutality of trench warfare (perfected in World War I), and the creation and use of weapons so fearsome and brutal that no nation can ever conceive of using them again (the original weapons of mass destruction: chemical weapons [i.e., mustard gas, etc.]). Finally, the post-World War I treatment of Germany was so severe as to create an environment that made World War II possible.
  • ww1 was more fierce fighting than ww11,ww11 was was overall because of the amount of innocent people that died in the genocide and such,but fighting conditions for troops have never been so bad as they were in ww1 and it all proved to be over nothing,it never prevented any other wars or even ww11 just 20 years later,to say ww11 was worse because of fierce fighting such as what happened at stalingrad is just false,ww1 was stalingrad for 4 years. ww2 worse ovrall but ww1 was the worst fighting conditions ever for soldiers
  • i go with the crowd.... W W II
  • Fierce? I'd go with WWII because of technological advances. Miserable, brutal, and the one I would have least liked to fight in: WWI.
  • I'd say WWII there were more casualties, it was longer, involved more ppl over more area and we learned how to be more deadly.
  • 6-9-2017 Before the civil war, wars were fought entirely by professional soldiers, and war was identical to hunting. That is why men considered hunting to be a necessary hobby of any ruler, and a reliable measure of manliness. The civil war was a departure from that historic standard, and the cost of killing a man was very low. Since then, war has increasingly been a technological contest to see which side could produce more weapons than the other, and the cost per death has grown to be very high. the number of deaths has gotten high because so many soldiers are sent to war and the weapons tend to kill more than one at a time.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy