Casualties of War - Putting American Casualties in Perspective

[Malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm

The United States of America has a somewhat unique relationship with war. While the America is considered to be the most militarily powerful country in the world today Americans as a whole have never experienced war in the way that many other countries of the world have. There is a huge disparity between the American experience of war and the global experience. This may have an impact on American attitudes towards war. Presented below are various statistics on causalities of war. The information is useful for reference material, but it is also useful for gaining an understanding of the human cost of war, and the cost of war for Americans compared to the rest of the world, which may be helpful in understanding cultural attitudes about war.

The total number of Americans killed in action from all major wars combined, the ten listed below, is 2,757,196, which, while a disheartening number, is about the same as the number of Vietnamese that died in the Vietnam War.

 

[phildonnia]

The disparity is almost certainly due to the geographic isolation; when the war is _in_ your country, it is absolutely devastating. The last war on US soil killed over 600,000.

 

[Richard G]

The total number of Americans killed in action from all major wars combined, the ten listed below, is 2,757,196, which, while a disheartening number, is about the same as the number of Vietnamese that died in the Vietnam War.

Thats because we kick ass. The only disparity between us and the rest of the world, is that we've won 90 percent of the major wars we have become involved in.

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting statistics.

I do have one question: On the chart labeled "American Casualties of Major American Wars", the lines are yellow then red, with the red labeled "killed in action". Do you know what the yellow represents?

 

[Ladewig]

The disparity would be even greater if the statistics showed the number of combat deaths per civilian population.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

In WW1 about 60,000 Australians were killed or about 2% of its population of the times. If America had the same proportion deaths on the battle field, it would be around 6 million.
I cannot rule out that possibility in this
New American Century.

CDR

 

[The Don]

Interesting statistics.

I do have one question: On the chart labeled "American Casualties of Major American Wars", the lines are yellow then red, with the red labeled "killed in action". Do you know what the yellow represents?

Wounds non fatal and missing in action

 

[patoco12]

The Spartans didn't like losing soldiers either. Why? Because they had so much invested in them.

The U.S. spends more money on its military than most of the world combined.

The U.S. would probably suffer more casualties if our soldiers were armed with baseball caps and rocks. But we don't like to lose people.

We also don't allow war to break out onto our own streets.

 

[ceo_esq]

In WW1 about 60,000 Australians were killed or about 2% of its population of the times. If America had the same proportion deaths on the battle field, it would be around 6 million.

It's about the same percentage of total population as perished in the American Civil War, however (at which time the U.S. population was roughly 31 million).

 

[crocodile deathroll]

It's about the same percentage of total population as perished in the American Civil War, however (at which time the U.S. population was roughly 31 million).

Although a better statistic would the number of injuries, because medicine has improved so much since the 19th century especially with burns injuries and major infections which could not be well treated during the Civil War. They would of just drained puss from bullet wounds, burns and given crude amputations without an anesthetic. That was the usual way to treat them, poor sods.

Aren't we lucky we are living in the 21st century.

 

[Malachi151]

One of the stats I found interesting was the civilian British vs Japanese vs German deaths.

Everyone complains about the nuclear bombing of Japan, but look at thier civilian deaths compared to Germany.

Everyone talk about the bombing of Britan, but again look at British civilian deaths compared to Germany.

In truth the British were the first to start bombing civilian targets in WWII, and the fire bombing of Germany caused more damage and death than the nuclear bombing of Japan did.

They caused fire tornados it was so bad.

It was not until after the British started bombing the German civilians that the Germans responded in kind.

Of course the Germans had already been doing plenty of damage to civilians in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Also the civilian slaghter wrought by the Japanese on the Chinese was far worse than the Germans did on anyone, and the Japanese were the only ones to use biological weapons in WWII.

Certianly though the concept of sacrafice in America is much different than in most other countries.

Mounring military dead is somethign done everywhere, but people break into tears seeing Arlington Cemitary and the like, yet that is a virtually infignificant fraction of the real cost of war, and in truth Americans have paid hardly anything compared to many others.

 

[blackpriester]

Take it from a German, Junge:

One of the stats I found interesting was the civilian British vs Japanese vs German deaths.

Everyone complains about the nuclear bombing of Japan, but look at thier civilian deaths compared to Germany.

Everyone talk about the bombing of Britan, but again look at British civilian deaths compared to Germany.


-->You are correct in pointing out that Germany suffered more civilian deaths than either of these nations. SO?


In truth the British were the first to start bombing civilian targets in WWII, and the fire bombing of Germany caused more damage and death than the nuclear bombing of Japan did.


-->Second part of your statement is correct, first part is not. The Germans bombed London as early as September 1940, purely civilian targets. The English flew bobing missions against cities from 1942 on.


They caused fire tornados it was so bad.

It was not until after the British started bombing the German civilians that the Germans responded in kind.


-->See above.


Of course the Germans had already been doing plenty of damage to civilians in Eastern Europe and Russia.


-->I would call that a gross understatement.



Also the civilian slaghter wrought by the Japanese on the Chinese was far worse than the Germans did on anyone, and the Japanese were the only ones to use biological weapons in WWII.

Certianly though the concept of sacrafice in America is much different than in most other countries.

Mounring military dead is somethign done everywhere, but people break into tears seeing Arlington Cemitary and the like, yet that is a virtually infignificant fraction of the real cost of war, and in truth Americans have paid hardly anything compared to many others.

 

[Luke T.]

The Germans did bomb English civilians first, however it was not a part of their policy to do so. The bombing was accidental. The British did not know this, though, and so responded in kind. This then escalated into protracted bombing of civilians on both sides.

War is hell.

As far as American casualties, it is precisely because our losses are usually so low that many Americans begin to pale and talk about running away as soon as the death toll begins. The opposition knows this is our weak spot. All they have to do is kill a mere handful of our guys and we turn tail and run.

 

[Skeptic]

Everyone complains about the nuclear bombing of Japan, but look at thier civilian deaths compared to Germany.

Everyone talk about the bombing of Britan, but again look at British civilian deaths compared to Germany.

You seem to be implying that, the more casualties someone suffered, the more "just" their cause is and the more "deserving" they are to win, and that the mere number of casualties is "proof" of the "evil" of (you guessed it) those evil capitalistic nations--the USA and Great Britain.

I suppose that, on this view, the REAL way to fight a war should be for every army to bomb ITS OWN country, is it not? Hell, it would also save fuel for the bombers, and would be comforting to the population.I can see a news bulletin from a Malachi-Style war:

"Last night, our air force bombed our capital, causing immense damage to the government secotor. Our anti-aircraft defense worked well, and shot down three of our bombers after a strong resistance. In retaliation, the enemy bombed its port city for three hours with its naval guns. According to the enemy's latest communique, the port is still on fire..."

Of course, if the nefarious enemy refuses to fight fair and does not bomb itself with perfect fidelity, like a Malachi wars requires, all that you need to do is declare war on it. Very simple.

 

[blackpriester]

Actually, I have to clarify to Malachi - the British DID drop the first Bombs, it's just that the Germans were the first to do it in an organized fashion.

Unless you count in guernica, then the Germans were really the first .

 

[Luke T.]

"Last night, our air force bombed our capital, causing immense damage to the government secotor. Our anti-aircraft defense worked well, and shot down three of our bombers after a strong resistance. In retaliation, the enemy bombed its port city for three hours with its naval guns. According to the enemy's latest communique, the port is still on fire..."

"Wing Commander Milo Minderbinder passed out chocolate-covered Egyptian cotton to commemorate the event..."'

 

[peptoabysmal]

One of the stats I found interesting was the civilian British vs Japanese vs German deaths.

Everyone complains about the nuclear bombing of Japan, but look at thier civilian deaths compared to Germany.

Everyone talk about the bombing of Britan, but again look at British civilian deaths compared to Germany.

In truth the British were the first to start bombing civilian targets in WWII, and the fire bombing of Germany caused more damage and death than the nuclear bombing of Japan did.

They caused fire tornados it was so bad.

It was not until after the British started bombing the German civilians that the Germans responded in kind.

Of course the Germans had already been doing plenty of damage to civilians in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Also the civilian slaghter wrought by the Japanese on the Chinese was far worse than the Germans did on anyone, and the Japanese were the only ones to use biological weapons in WWII.

Certianly though the concept of sacrafice in America is much different than in most other countries.

Mounring military dead is somethign done everywhere, but people break into tears seeing Arlington Cemitary and the like, yet that is a virtually infignificant fraction of the real cost of war, and in truth Americans have paid hardly anything compared to many others.

So what you're trying to say is that America hasn't suffered enough and therefore doesn't have the right to mourn it's citizens who have died in battle?

 

[Malachi151]

As usual, I'm just presenting the facts. What you make of them is up to you.

 

[peptoabysmal]

As usual, I'm just presenting the facts. What you make of them is up to you.

Warn me before you say something like this again, will you? I had a hot cup of coffee and just about spilled it all over myself laughing.

 

[Skeptic]

As usual, I'm just presenting the facts. What you make of them is up to you.

...which, of course, won't stop you from whining, when we DO JUST THAT, that we are "unfairly misrepresenting what you meant".