One thing you might consider is the choices the United States made in WW2 that limited its casualties.

For instance, had the United States not extended lend lease to the Russians, then the US casualties almost certainly would have been significantly higher.

It was the our decision to help Britain maintain its fighting strength, and that saved the lives of US servicemen. We did the same by equipping units made up of French and Polish soldiers. We needed them, and they were more than willing, but the US could have gone on its own and at a much higher cost in men.

So I think there is a good case to be made that it would have been WW2 if not for the choices they made - good ones too.

Another thing is the vast improvements in the military's ability to save men on the battlefield. A large number of KIA's from the Civil War who would have survived with WW2-era medical care.

James M. McPherson states that at least 620,000 soldiers lost their lives out of a population of 32 million in the ACW.

Lincoln said about Gen Grant's drinking. 'Tell me what brand he drinks so I can give it to the rest of my officers". There were a lot of innovations in arms during the Civil War, breech loading carbines, cased bullets, grape shot in cannons. Then the repeating rifle, Henry, I think. The tactics stayed the same though, such as long bayonet charges against fortified troops.

I think you can define "bloodiest" two ways.

If you define it as the most costly in total deaths either by war total, most in a given battle, or most KIA in a single day then the US Civil War would unquestionably be the bloodiest.

If, however, you define "bloodiest" as being the most savage, the most ruthless and the most inhumane then I think WWII cleary would be that most bloodiest in US history.

What war do you believe to be the bloodiest in US History?

Two possible answers depending on what you are counting.
1.) World War II killed more people if you are counting deaths ans casualties from all nations involved on both sides.
2.) The Civil War killed or injured more Americans.

As a Brit can I have have a say on this, now the civil was was not just a battle it was a series of battles and being a civil war they are always fought hard, Now casualty figures being given out cover a number of years on most of these threads so are a little misleading when you are looking for the bloodiest American Battle. Now from my observation many Americans knowledge of their history revolves around the films or television dramas about these conflicts that they watch, now if none are made about a particular battle then it will go unnoticed by most Americans. [Now that should stir some one up] I have read and seen much about the American soldier in action in the Pacific and yes they fought bravely and died in large numbers and countless films have been made about their heroic deeds. Now lets ask you what you know about the Americans that fought in the Battle of Huertgen Forest in Europe in 1944. The casualties from this make Okinawa look like a picnic but you never hear or see any thing about this battle. Nearly 4 American Division were decimated by up to 80% of there strength, The 9th Infantry Division and 3rd Armoured division lost 7,000 men and the final total came to close on 24.000 men in fighting that only lasted a few weeks and was then over shadowed by the battle of the Bulge. It was said that non of the American commanders ever went near the front and that included General Bradley, all they could do was send message down to attack. There were even mass bombing runs by 1200 B17 which did not move the Germans an inch the bodies of the fallen were left for weeks were they had died. It made the landings on Omaha beach look like a fun day out. But if you are General that is looking for his place in history then you don't advertise your failures, you sweep them under the carpet so that no one can see them.
I thought I would look for a web site on this matter for any one that is interested and I came across this one.
http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/combat/HuertgenForest.html

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Yes,civil war.

I agree.

LeEnfield, I would be careful to generalize American views on history. Generalization about one country's people will only make them quite made. As for me, I am not mad. I am here to prove you wrong.

Now from my observation many Americans knowledge of their history revolves around the films or television dramas about these conflicts that they watch, now if none are made about a particular battle then it will go unnoticed by most Americans.

This is not always a bad thing my friend. I bet you did not know about the movie When Trumpets Fade. Let me quote what is on the back of the box. "Set during one of the Second World War's most shocking and unforgettable battles - the battle of Hurtgen Forest in the fall of 1944. American forces are under orders to secure a bridge flanked by enemy tanks. Men already trapped in a hellish minefield face death from all sides as shells rain down from the sky." I believe that this movie features your forgotten battle. In the movie, there is a scene where the soldiers complain about not seeing anyone over the rank of major in "weeks." As bloody as that battle was, the Civil War was way worse.

I do believe that 24,000 American fell at the battle of Antietam. May I remind you that the battle at Antietam lasted one day. The dead were in such great numbers that Antietam Creek turned red with blood. I remember watching parts of this battle unfold in the movie Glory. The bloodiest battle during the Civil War happened at Gettysburg where over 50,000 soldiers died in a 3 day battle. Need I not mention the movie Gettysburg which is a wonderful remake of the book Killer Angles.

As for British history, I do have a few movies that feature that subject. My titles include Zulu, the Great Escape, bridge on the river Kwai, a Bridge too Far,and the Battle of Brition.. I know those are probably not the greatest movies on British history, but they have taught me way more than any history class I have taken so far here in the US.

Those are my 2 cents

SGT Doody

Doody ole chum, of the six films you mentioned only two of them are close to being historically accurate, and they are A Bridge To Far and the Battle Of Britain. Zulu had many of the personal facts distorted to make the picture more interesting, the others are just pure cinema.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Doody ole chum, of the six films you mentioned only two of them are close to being historically accurate, and they are A Bridge To Far and the Battle Of Britain. Zulu had many of the personal facts distorted to make the picture more interesting, the others are just pure cinema.

That is why we have the international military forums so we can iron out all these misconceptions about ones history.

Thanks for the heads up on my British movie collection. I do believe most history related movies distort the facts here or there to make a better story. Those damn movie makers love to change things. That's why we must read up on a movie to see what is true and what is a farse.

BTW, am I allowed to include Monty Python's Quest for the Holly Grail as part of Briton's history? I know there are a few questionable parts, but I think as a whole the movie is a good take on factual history.[/i]