What war do you believe to be the bloodiest in US Hist. - Page 3




View Poll Results :Bloodiest war
Persain gulf war (1991) 0 0%
Vietnam War (1961-1973) 8 10.00%
Korean War (1950-1953) 0 0%
World War 2 (1941-1945) 15 18.75%
World War 1 (1917-1918) 1 1.25%
war with China (1900) 0 0%
Philippine-American War (1899) 0 0%
The Spanish American War (1898) 0 0%
Nez Perce war (1877) 0 0%
The Civil War (1861-1865) 56 70.00%
Wakarusa War (1855, 1856) 0 0%
War with Mexico a.k.a Mexican-American War (1846-1848) 0 0%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 10th, 2004  
rlbush
 
Civil War without a doubt. I have relatives that were with Quantrill's Raiders and later rode with Jesse James.
April 10th, 2004  
IrishWizard
 
Yeah without a doubt its the Civil War. But I see you forgot the American Rev. War and War of 1812 to. What about the Quasi War? :P. But CW was easily the bloodiest war with casualtys over 600,000 and a nation devastated with a war of attrition.
April 23rd, 2004  
SemperFi!
 
 
One of you guys was wondering about the spelling of a battle:

Antietam

I think WW2 was. Although i dont know a loit about the CW. I thought that the reason was that there were more American casualties that died in the Civil War than in any other war. I thought WW2 would be because you have: America 8)
Britain
France............."Resistance"
Germany
Italy
Canada
Russia
Japan
I Dont know if there is more but...
I would think that WW2 would have the most casualties.Hmmmm. Maybe im wrong. Correct me if im wrong.
--
April 23rd, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
Most casualties? I thin you're probably right. The eastern front was a casualty-making-machine. Anyone know the numbers (million+ right?)?

And while you're at it factor in the Jews ect.
April 23rd, 2004  
panzer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureRANGER
Most casualties? I thin you're probably right. The eastern front was a casualty-making-machine. Anyone know the numbers (million+ right?)

Numbers vary with 7.7 civilian casualties, 13.6 Million military casualties with a total of 20+ millions casualties is what most people suggest.

German casualties are around 3.8 million civilian, 3.2 million military casualties.
Hungary: 280,000 civilian, 120,000 military
Italy: 330,000 military (most in north africa and italian campaigns.)
Rumania: 465,000 civilian, 200,000 military
Finland: minimal civilian (someone from Finland may have more info on the civilian casualties.), 90,000 military

But the sources vary and the true number will never be known.
May 14th, 2004  
Achilles
 
 
rendersafe, correction, the casualty level was over 9 million killed and wounded total.
May 15th, 2004  
Darkmb101
 
rndersafe? he's not even in this conversation.
May 15th, 2004  
IrishWizard
 
Just for a fun fact. The Union had about 20 million soldiers in its army, while the South had 10 million in its army. Oh ya! 6 of that 10 million were slaves which would never be used in battle really. So when you think about it, if the South had had more industry they could of won the war. When the Civil War started, the South had ONE artillery factory that could produce cannons. Trains were not as normal as they were in the north. Only thing the South had that the Union didnt was more supplies.
May 15th, 2004  
Darkmb101
 
The south's main advantages were good generals and they only had to fight a defensive war.
May 17th, 2004  
Achilles
 
 
but many of the souths generals were overly bold and tended to be killed faster than the union generals.