Could very well be American casualties only. I didn’t look it up. I was remembering a history class where we were discussing the effects of illness and disease during wars some 20 - 25 years ago. I do remember that our teacher’s statement did not include those killed in the concentration camps, but did include those lost to illness and disease.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Nah, from a solely US perspective it’s correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it’s kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).
Ohhh, that’s what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.
@myopic_menace@reddthat.com
Could very well be American casualties only. I didn’t look it up. I was remembering a history class where we were discussing the effects of illness and disease during wars some 20 - 25 years ago. I do remember that our teacher’s statement did not include those killed in the concentration camps, but did include those lost to illness and disease.
Of course, Alabama school, it’s entirely possible that the lesson was complete nonsense.
Nah, from a solely US perspective it’s correct. There were ~1.6 million military casualties in the civil war, and ~1.07 million in WW2. But there were a few more parties involved in WW2, so it’s kind of weird to frame it as less bloody. If you include civilians, estimates range from 70 to 85 million dead worldwide (not including the >20 million wounded soldiers and unknown number of wounded civilians).