I don't understand why a bunch of people who have clearly zero academic experience with this subject are so passionately attached to their uneducated opinions, to be frank.
Well well. Here we have a classic case of a know-it-all reddit douche who read a couple academic papers and now considers themselves an expert on the topic.
So far from your comments I've learned:
You read Carrington, an apologist for WWI, and from him you learned that WWI was actually a lot of fun.
Despite the fact that you are quoting a noted war apologist, your statements downplaying the horror of WWI are actually anti-war. Those of use talking about the horrors of that war are in fact pro-war, somehow
You are willing to base your entire argument on dubious numbers compiled by a single, biased individual, about a single army, during a specific period of the wart, while dismissing other peoples conclusions as anecdotal.
The impact of industrial and technological progress on warfare is irrelevant in your opinion. War in 1815 was just as bad as war in 1915. Presumably you must also believe that warfare with nuclear weapons in 2015 would be just as bad as war in 1815.
You think casualty rates in WWII were “as high if not higher than in WWI.” This is demonstrably false.
You think that engagements, such as the Somme, lasting more than one day cannot be considered “battles,” for reasons only known to you.
You found out that the armies who went to war in 1914 were the same size as those that went to war in 1871. This apparently means something.
You don't like Dan Carlin, but you can recommend a bunch of books that you've never read.
In conclusion, you are full of shit. Fortunately for you, reddit loves any clown who can act like a self confident expert.