Remembering the dead?

DeletedUser

Guest
Exactly because there have been bigger, "better" wars.

Not really, they are just more recent... population percentage wise, some wars in history were just as costly.

What more, there is a visible trend in history. A decade in which wars cause huge civil casualties is followed by a decade where they are limited (obviously not ALL the time, but it's a general observation).
 

DeletedUser4

Guest
[tt]They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them

Is the only comment I would like to add to this [/tt]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Not really, they are just more recent... population percentage wise, some wars in history were just as costly.

What more, there is a visible trend in history. A decade in which wars cause huge civil casualties is followed by a decade where they are limited (obviously not ALL the time, but it's a general observation).

But what I'm saying is that because it covered such a large diverse amount of people it shall be remembered longer than any previous war. If you can find another war which had the same or more number of countries participating as was in the world wars then I'll accept your point.

You could argue that is to do with the population, population structure etc. of a country. Interestingly World War 2 began 21 years after WW1 ended. That's plenty of time for:
-Soldiers to return home
-Huge Baby Boom in both victorious and defeated countries (though possibly larger in victorious countries)
-20/21 years after the baby boom, a new world war with plenty of subscribers at perfect ages.
 
Top