4 ms·

Being curious I looked up the numbers. UK death toll: 326,000 military and 62,000 civilian. Russia: 10 million each. "Absolutely titanic" is about right.

by znowi 13y ago

ternaryoperator 13y ago
While it doesn't compare to Russian deaths, 388,000 UK deaths is a staggering number in its own right.
- vacri 13y ago
  Compare it to US deaths in Vietnam (60,000) and in Iraq/Afghanistan (~7,000). The irony is that for all the warmongering politics of the US, the population are highly sensitive to actually losing soldiers in battle. There were single days in WWI (and the US Civil War) that saw single countries having more combat deaths than the US has seen this century in total. The US public wants wars it can win effortlessly (conscription anyone? rationing perhaps?) but has no stomach for the realities of war. Hell, every time Australia lost a soldier in Afghanistan, the papers would do a double-page spread with portraits of all the soldiers lost so far. It's not a particularly difficult war if you can fit portraits of all the lost soldiers after 10 years in the field on a newspaper page. We've lost 40 soldiers... and in the same timeframe, we've lost 36 police officers in the normal course of civilian duty. We really have no idea what it's like to actually be a society at war.
  - carlob 13y ago
    This just goes to show how asymmetrical Afghanistan and Iraq are in terms of war. We just don't know what is like to be on the receiving end of war. Think about it: an Australian soldier in Afghanistan has made a choice (maybe forced by her economic condition, sure) to risk her life in Afghanistan. Afghan civilians didn't really have that choice. The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k, around 20k for Afghanistan and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for this quagmire the US has put themselves in, so I really don't know what you mean by not a particularly difficult war.
    - ansible 13y ago
      The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k... That's just the best estimate for those killed in and around main areas of conflict. With all the ethnic cleansing, and general privation from the destroyed infrastructure of the Iraq nation, the total death toll is estimated to be 1 million or more. War is more horrible than most people (who haven't directly experienced it) can imagine. We the voting public should not take any decision to go to war lightly. As we have in the past.
    - simonh 13y ago
      That's entirely true, but did that Afghan civilian not have that choice "to get embroiled in a war pushed on them by Western imperial overreach", or did they not have a choice "to be dominated by an extremist militant Jihadist movement that imposed a ruthless ideological dictatorship and pursued an aggressive terrorist agenda, which we are attempting to free ordinary Afghans from". Yes we have lost dozens of soldiers, but the US also lost thousands of civilians on 9/11. The UK lost 67 people that day. Even Australia lost 11. There are reasons we are in Aghanistan. Whether you believe those are good reasons is the issue.
    - vacri 13y ago
      so I really don't know what you mean by not a particularly difficult war. To me it's blindingly obvious that I'm talking about the experience of the Western nations in these wars. You seem to be more choosing to be obtuse rather than not actually understanding what I'm saying: that we as citizens of western make effectively zero sacrifices in pursuing these wars.
      - carlob 13y ago
        I got what you meant to say don't worry. It's only that I find it revolting that we are so sheltered from the wars we wage.
  - anovikov 13y ago
    Huge deaths in WWII were made possible by totalitarian ideologies which made societies insensitive to losses. It only shows how much totalitarianism sucks (and it sucked most in case of Soviets vz Nazi which were BOTH totalitarian).
    - lgieron 13y ago
      I wouldn't say the societes were "insensitive to losses". It's just that anyone who expressed their views would be killed/imprisoned.
      - anovikov 13y ago
        No there were. A lot of people volunteered knowing they will be almost certainly killed. In a democratic country it wasn't possible. And it was the main reason why so many people were killed - they were prepared to die and kill (purges of the 1930s, on both sides, devalued the human life, it was okay to report your neighbor to NKVD knowing he will be shot just out of jealousity). WWII is a crime of totalitarian regimes - on all sides - and is a lesson to learn that totalitarianism is unacceptable and never makes anyone happy.
- arethuza 13y ago
  If you think that is bad then consider WW1 - UK 995,939 deaths, France 1,697,800. No wonder people here were rather skeptical about another war. On the subject of Soviet deaths though - my father, who served in the RAF during WW2, always said if I asked who beat the Nazis that it had been "the Soviet people". The suffering that country had to endure in the 20th century is staggering - WW1, the Revolution and Civil War, the famines and purges of the 30s and then WW2...

Being curious I looked up the numbers. UK death toll: 326,000 military and 62,000 civilian. Russia: 10 million each. "Absolutely titanic" is about right.

by znowi 13y ago

Being curious I looked up the numbers. UK death toll: 326,000 military and 62,000 civilian. Russia: 10 million each. "Absolutely titanic" is about right.

ternaryoperator 13y ago

While it doesn't compare to Russian deaths, 388,000 UK deaths is a staggering number in its own right.

vacri 13y ago
Compare it to US deaths in Vietnam (60,000) and in Iraq/Afghanistan (~7,000). The irony is that for all the warmongering politics of the US, the population are highly sensitive to actually losing soldiers in battle. There were single days in WWI (and the US Civil War) that saw single countries having more combat deaths than the US has seen this century in total. The US public wants wars it can win effortlessly (conscription anyone? rationing perhaps?) but has no stomach for the realities of war. Hell, every time Australia lost a soldier in Afghanistan, the papers would do a double-page spread with portraits of all the soldiers lost so far. It's not a particularly difficult war if you can fit portraits of all the lost soldiers after 10 years in the field on a newspaper page. We've lost 40 soldiers... and in the same timeframe, we've lost 36 police officers in the normal course of civilian duty. We really have no idea what it's like to actually be a society at war.
- carlob 13y ago
  This just goes to show how asymmetrical Afghanistan and Iraq are in terms of war. We just don't know what is like to be on the receiving end of war. Think about it: an Australian soldier in Afghanistan has made a choice (maybe forced by her economic condition, sure) to risk her life in Afghanistan. Afghan civilians didn't really have that choice. The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k, around 20k for Afghanistan and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight for this quagmire the US has put themselves in, so I really don't know what you mean by not a particularly difficult war.
  - ansible 13y ago
    The estimates for civilian deaths in Iraq are above 100k... That's just the best estimate for those killed in and around main areas of conflict. With all the ethnic cleansing, and general privation from the destroyed infrastructure of the Iraq nation, the total death toll is estimated to be 1 million or more. War is more horrible than most people (who haven't directly experienced it) can imagine. We the voting public should not take any decision to go to war lightly. As we have in the past.
  - simonh 13y ago
    That's entirely true, but did that Afghan civilian not have that choice "to get embroiled in a war pushed on them by Western imperial overreach", or did they not have a choice "to be dominated by an extremist militant Jihadist movement that imposed a ruthless ideological dictatorship and pursued an aggressive terrorist agenda, which we are attempting to free ordinary Afghans from". Yes we have lost dozens of soldiers, but the US also lost thousands of civilians on 9/11. The UK lost 67 people that day. Even Australia lost 11. There are reasons we are in Aghanistan. Whether you believe those are good reasons is the issue.
  - vacri 13y ago
    so I really don't know what you mean by not a particularly difficult war. To me it's blindingly obvious that I'm talking about the experience of the Western nations in these wars. You seem to be more choosing to be obtuse rather than not actually understanding what I'm saying: that we as citizens of western make effectively zero sacrifices in pursuing these wars.
    - carlob 13y ago
      I got what you meant to say don't worry. It's only that I find it revolting that we are so sheltered from the wars we wage.
- anovikov 13y ago
  Huge deaths in WWII were made possible by totalitarian ideologies which made societies insensitive to losses. It only shows how much totalitarianism sucks (and it sucked most in case of Soviets vz Nazi which were BOTH totalitarian).
  - lgieron 13y ago
    I wouldn't say the societes were "insensitive to losses". It's just that anyone who expressed their views would be killed/imprisoned.
    - anovikov 13y ago
      No there were. A lot of people volunteered knowing they will be almost certainly killed. In a democratic country it wasn't possible. And it was the main reason why so many people were killed - they were prepared to die and kill (purges of the 1930s, on both sides, devalued the human life, it was okay to report your neighbor to NKVD knowing he will be shot just out of jealousity). WWII is a crime of totalitarian regimes - on all sides - and is a lesson to learn that totalitarianism is unacceptable and never makes anyone happy.
arethuza 13y ago
If you think that is bad then consider WW1 - UK 995,939 deaths, France 1,697,800. No wonder people here were rather skeptical about another war. On the subject of Soviet deaths though - my father, who served in the RAF during WW2, always said if I asked who beat the Nazis that it had been "the Soviet people". The suffering that country had to endure in the 20th century is staggering - WW1, the Revolution and Civil War, the famines and purges of the 30s and then WW2...