The Death Totals of World War II

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
Interesting but not really surprising. Numbers vary but i know that they were in that region. I read a new history about something that wasn't spoken so much about. The many rapes that that the allied did on Germans. Cant compare with the sovjets but there were many of them. Especially after they discovered the concentration camps. It seems the sights they saw there made some of them lose it. Which isn't strange. I don't think you can prepare for such a sight. Forgot the title now but it was written about a german history woman and concentrated on the things that women suffered under the attacks on both the west and the eastfront. Based on interviews and documents so it seems relatively dependable. I mean it is not just a thesis unsopported by facts as some history books are.
 

swiftdog2.0

I tell you one and one makes three...
Mar 16, 2010
7,095
35,344
Macroverse
Interesting. Not surprising about the numbers (assuming they are accurate and they seem to be).

We are shifting away from the need for "boots on the ground" for conflicts. Soon it will be remote controlled war with drones, terminators. Better to lose hardware than soldiers.
 

Kurben

The Fool on the Hill
Apr 12, 2014
9,682
65,192
59
sweden
Interesting. Not surprising about the numbers (assuming they are accurate and they seem to be).

We are shifting away from the need for "boots on the ground" for conflicts. Soon it will be remote controlled war with drones, terminators. Better to lose hardware than soldiers.
Agree with that but we still have to find a way to win a war, if we decide to enter them, without boots on the ground. The thing i am afraid of with remotecontrolled wars is that longdistance weapons are available to many. Drones mean that civilian count will rise at the cost of soldiers that will decrease. And theres is nothing to say that that cant happoen in the other direction too in a near future. Horrible scenario but when longdistance weapons are there for many it is possible.
 

swiftdog2.0

I tell you one and one makes three...
Mar 16, 2010
7,095
35,344
Macroverse
Agree with that but we still have to find a way to win a war, if we decide to enter them, without boots on the ground. The thing i am afraid of with remotecontrolled wars is that longdistance weapons are available to many. Drones mean that civilian count will rise at the cost of soldiers that will decrease. And theres is nothing to say that that cant happoen in the other direction too in a near future. Horrible scenario but when longdistance weapons are there for many it is possible.

Not necessarily. One could make the argument that drones with state of the art AI can make more precise strikes, effectively obliterating strategic targets with minimal civilian or collateral damage.