this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
49 points (94.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43909 readers
869 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What with north korean soldiers fighting for Russia in Ukraine, where is the line drawn?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

Callously, when the survivors look back and decide to call it one. As far as I know there isn’t an agreed upon definition.

WW1 was originally called the War to End All Wars, I think, by many at the time. WW2 eclipsed it by taking place on at least 3 continents and across every ocean. Both are also known by other names that depend on the region. The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties. The Ukraine war isn’t likely to break records like that.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties

I'm maybe misunderstanding you here, but as far as I know there were about 100 times as many people killed in WW2 as in the US Civil war. 60 odd million vs 600,000 or so.

[–] baropithecus@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.

Dude, what?

[–] myopic_menace@reddthat.com 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
  • American casualties, not total
[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 12 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Ohhh, that's what they meant. Thanks for clearing that up, I was really confused by that unexpected US defaultism.

[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

@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.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 hours ago

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).

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 7 points 12 hours ago

The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The US Civil War eclipsed both in the number of casualties.

Uhh what? Wikipedia says ~1.6 million casualties (including wounded, ~650k dead) in the civil war, while WW2 has 24 million military deaths alone.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 15 points 12 hours ago

When will you savages learn that non-Americans are not people.