New Section -- Other Conflicts

[Whiterook]

An interesting addition to the site. A good component to these additions is the chance to learn more about other wars, and maybe how they impacted WWII is some ways, or how WWII impacted them.

[Brin]

Klaus,

Fair point, I would guess that there are no direct comparisions in terms of technology, unless looking for common themes across the different conflicts/wars from these additional areas.

But, perhaps the additional areas would increase the usage of the site, 'as variety is the spice of life' is a saying here in the UK. From a personal persective of the initial two areas mentioned; I will be honest in that I know nearly nothing or nothing about. So reading any of the useful posts will be interesting. Plus any 'sabbatical' from WW2 will heighten the interest level on returning.

Perhaps if it is successful a section regarding ancient Rome and its military organisation and tactics may be a later option.

[cyberia]

I think you nailed it, Brin!

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Klaus

I don't mean to be european: But what has the american civil war got to do with WWII? I know that I am wrong. But please enlighten me.

Klaus mein guter Freund, you can't help but be European.

Seriously, this is a good discussion point. This is meant to be an area where members can explore their "other related interests". Many who might study World War II might have interest in other conflicts. The subforums that were chosen were not meant to necessarily relate to World War II but rather to reflect what was perceived to be areas of interest to the membership. While international membership has grown substantially, I think the site is still primarily populated with American users. American Civil War is a subject that interests a great many Americans and some non-Americans as well.

All wars up to 1989 are "on the table". To understand Word War II one should have some understanding of World War I. Similarly, to understand that conflict, one may want to understand the Franco-Prussian War (or as some call it, 1870 War). To understand that, one must look at the Napoleonic Wars and perhaps the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. The American Civil War remains America's bloodiest war prior to World War II.

waramcas.jpg

That was our first taste of casualties of that magnitude and it only affirmed what George Washington said in his farewell address to the nation at the end of his presidency:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Thomas Jefferson, our third President reiterated those sentiments in his inaugural address:

peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Understanding all of that may help understand why America stayed out of World War I for so long. The aftermath of World War I explains why she stayed out of World War II until directly attacked, and even then popular sentiment was to stay out of the war in Europe. Hitler had other plans as we know, much to his later regret I'm sure.

I guess that my point is that events do not exist in a vacuum. There are reasons and consequences. Understanding them only helps us understand our "main interests" better.

Honestly, the American Civil War has never been a big interest of mine. I've become a bit more interested in it over the last six years since I moved to the home state of the Confederate capital. Most people outside the US, and many here at home believe that the American Civil War (or the "Civil War" as it's referred to here) was about slavery. It wasn't really that as much as it was about economics and state's rights. Four "slave states" (Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, and Delaware) stayed in the Union and the state of West Virginia was created out of the northwest part of Virginia as a slave state loyal to the Union in 1863, during the war. Why did the Union win the war? There were many reasons but one was the superiority in transportation (railroads in particular). Maintaining supply lines has always been important in warfare, but this may have been the first time that railways were used in warfare. Railways may well have been the decisive factor in the Franco-Prussian War.

One conflict follows another and those who learn lessons from the last one and adapt to modern technologies often come out the victors. Anyway history lesson is over.

Originally Posted by Brin

But, perhaps the additional areas would increase the usage of the site, 'as variety is the spice of life' is a saying here in the UK.

That's the hope. We say that in the US also.

Originally Posted by Brin

Perhaps if it is successful a section regarding ancient Rome and its military organisation and tactics may be a later option.

As I said, everything is "on the table". The main sections are for discussions of all major conflicts and campaigns. If the demand is there for additional subforums then they can be easily created.

[sniper1shot]

The American Civil War remains America's bloodiest war prior to World War II.

I had always read the American Civil War had more Americans killed than all wars up to and including WWII combined.
The graph shows me differently.

As far as new topics...there does have to be line drawn somewhere. How far back are we going?? Is 1989 as far forward that we are going?? If we are going to talk on implications from WWII then Korea HAS to be in there as that conflict stemmed directly from WWII, and involved most of the major Allied countries that were involved in WWII, though now on opposite sides.

Change is difinately good for sure.......my opinion is just don't change to fast.

[Brett]

Jim what was your source for US war casualties?

There's a courthouse near where I live with a Vets office
that as I recall shows Civil War deaths ~ 600,000; WWII
around 400,000.

That seems to jibe with other reading I've done (unfortunately,
I can't quote a source), that says the Civil War was deadliest
in US history.

Perhaps I got confused with casualty rates (US pop in 1860s was
around 35M, in 1940s ~ 130M -- so the rough 150K I see in your
chart for Civil War vs. 300K in WWII would mean Civil War killed
~ 1 in 200, vs. ~ 1 in 4,000 in WWII).

Partly the Civil War was so deadly because of disease. I've read
that WWII was the 1st war in US history that more military died
from enemy action than disease.

Could your chart have shown just 1 side in the Civil War? (Union
or Confederate?)

[Brett]

Math error - WWII based on that chart is ~ 1 in 400 to 500

(I know I've seen other people say the edit their posts, but
I couldn't figure it out)

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by sniper1shot

I had always read the American Civil War had more Americans killed than all wars up to and including WWII combined.
The graph shows me differently.

As far as new topics...there does have to be line drawn somewhere. How far back are we going?? Is 1989 as far forward that we are going?? If we are going to talk on implications from WWII then Korea HAS to be in there as that conflict stemmed directly from WWII, and involved most of the major Allied countries that were involved in WWII, though now on opposite sides.

Change is difinately good for sure.......my opinion is just don't change to fast.

I had read that also, but I researched it on several sites before posting that graph. Here's data from another site:

Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union)	2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union)	140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union)	224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union)	281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.)	1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.)	74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.)	59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.)	unknown

World War II (1940–1945)
Total servicemember	16,112,566
Battle deaths	291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater)	113,842
Nonmortal woundings	671,846
Living veterans	3,242,0001

If you also count "nontheater" deaths ACW is higher. I'm guessing those were due to diseases unrelated to combat. It would make more sense that more soldiers died of pneumonia, exposure, malaria, etc. in the 1860's than in the 1940's. The figures above also do not take into account the many thousands who died in Union prisons.

[Horch]

Originally Posted by Klaus

I don't mean to be european: But what has the american civil war got to do with WWII? I know that I am wrong. But please enlighten me.

What'v ya been doin, hiding under a rock? Good to see ya back! You do have a good point. The war of northern aggression is not WW2. Neither would the French Revolution,War of the roses etc.

[McCoy]

No, it's not WWII but it's history n' history in general is a great interest for me but my heart is with WWII history but since 'bout five years back I've developed an interest for ancient history.

The reason for this new section is to spice up the Zone a bit n' lurin' in people that don't have WWII as their main history interest in the hope that we can spread the gospel on WWII history to 'em later on.

History isn't what it's all about, everything is history! - U. G.