3 ms·

Wikipedia says this about WWII: "Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additio

Wikipedia says this about WWII: "Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:text=Deaths%20directly%20caused%20by%20the,deaths%20totaled%2050–55%20million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#:~:tex.... We should expect similar numbers for Gaza in terms of additional indirect deaths. But the current numbers for Gaza still are an undercount of direct deaths.

randunel 2y ago
WW2 was often at equilibrium. The bombing of Gaza is pretty one sided. A comparison might be better with other one sided conflicts.
- addicted 2y ago
  A good comparable is Russia’s attack on Grozny. 5000-8000 dead in a city with a population of about 200,000.
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    The population of Gaza is about two million so the proportional death toll would be in the 50K-80K range. In other words, not out of the norm for this type of warfare.
belorn 2y ago
A better (and more recent) conflict would be US war on terror, with a death count around 400 thousands to 6 millions. The numbers varies extremely. The US military claims that only a total of 20 civilians has died to drone strikes. At the other extreme, others has estimated that 10 civilians has died per killed military which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. In iraq, the Iraq Body Count project estimate a civilian casualty rate of 77%, which is quite similar to the 68% and 83% estimated given by B'Tselem and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. It should be mentioned that genocide is not defined by number of deaths or civilian casualty rate, but instead about the intention. US killing people with drones, even if the wast majority is civilians and committed for poor reasons, are not considered genocide. If that is fair or not is up to debate.
TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
The population of Gaza is (was?) around the two million mark.
afiori 2y ago
Gaza was already starving before the war (Israel counted calories to deter stockpiling) and there is nowhere that is away from the "front". Together with the deduction of almost every hospital I would expect indirect deaths to be significantly more than half of direct deaths

randunel 2y ago

WW2 was often at equilibrium. The bombing of Gaza is pretty one sided. A comparison might be better with other one sided conflicts.

addicted 2y ago
A good comparable is Russia’s attack on Grozny. 5000-8000 dead in a city with a population of about 200,000.
- jiggawatts 2y ago
  The population of Gaza is about two million so the proportional death toll would be in the 50K-80K range. In other words, not out of the norm for this type of warfare.

belorn 2y ago

A better (and more recent) conflict would be US war on terror, with a death count around 400 thousands to 6 millions. The numbers varies extremely. The US military claims that only a total of 20 civilians has died to drone strikes. At the other extreme, others has estimated that 10 civilians has died per killed military which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. In iraq, the Iraq Body Count project estimate a civilian casualty rate of 77%, which is quite similar to the 68% and 83% estimated given by B'Tselem and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. It should be mentioned that genocide is not defined by number of deaths or civilian casualty rate, but instead about the intention. US killing people with drones, even if the wast majority is civilians and committed for poor reasons, are not considered genocide. If that is fair or not is up to debate.

TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago

The population of Gaza is (was?) around the two million mark.

afiori 2y ago

Gaza was already starving before the war (Israel counted calories to deter stockpiling) and there is nowhere that is away from the "front". Together with the deduction of almost every hospital I would expect indirect deaths to be significantly more than half of direct deaths