Many people believe that World War 2 was a more devastating war, and there are people who believe that World War 1 was a more devastating war. This researcher believes that World War 1 was more devastating than World War 2. During Both wars, there were casualties, military tactics being used, different transportation, and a soldier’s lifestyle. This paper will bring in facts that will help show how World War 1 is more devastating to World War 2. The way the wars started play a big part in choosing which one is more devastating. The first war started due to Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated by Gavrilo Princip. The assassination started a series of events to lead up to the war to begin. Austria sought out to fight with Serbia, but they had Russia who was defending them and would not allow them to start a war. Austria used the assassination as a means to begin a battle with Serbia, and Russia could not say anything about it (World War 1 history, 2017). Overall this war began due to a chain of events happening, which all led up to Austria getting what they want to be able to begin war on Serbia. World War 2 was when France and Britain declared war against Germany because Germany tried to send an invasion through Poland. Even though that is what began the war, but there …show more content…
The countries that were fighting alongside Germany against the allies had to give up land to pay towards the countries that fought with the allies. A big task to accomplish was to rebuild Europe up to where they were before the war had occurred (Results and aftermath of World War 2, n.d.). The war did not help the world economy because a lot of money went into the war, and also a lot of it went into rebuilding the countries that fought in the war. This researcher believes that the outcome of World War 1 was more devastating because it caused a lot more bad outcomes that were a big hit for the