[Mazhi]

In case anyone is interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties







All countries, Total deaths (Civilian + Military):

1.Soviet Union: 23,100,000
2.Republic of China: 20,000,000
3.Nazi Germany: 7,233,000
4.Poland: 5,600,000
5.Indonesia: 4,000,000
6.Japan: 2,700,000
7.Indian Empire: 1,587,000
8.Yugoslavia: 1,027,000
9.French Indochina: 1,000,000
10.Romania: 833,000
11.Hungary: 580,000
12.France: 567,600
13.Italy: 454,500
14.United Kingdom: 449,800
15.United States: 418,500
16.Korea: 378,000
17.Lithuania: 353,000
18.Czechoslovakia: 345,000
19.Greece: 311,300
20.Netherlands: 301,000
21.Burma: 272,000
22.Latvia: 227,000
23.Philippines: 147,000
24.Austria: 105,500
25.Ethiopia: 100,000
26.Malaya: 100,000
27.Finland: 97,000
28.Belgium: 86,100
29.Micronesia: 57,000
30.Estonia: 56,000
31.Portugese Timor: 55,000
32.Singapore: 50,000
33.Canada: 45,300
34.Australia: 41,200
35.Albania: 28,200
36.Bulgaria: 25,000
37.New Zealand: 11,900
38.South Africa: 11,900
39.Norway: 9,500
40.Thailand: 5,900
41.Spain: 4,500
42.Denmark: 3,200
43.Sweden: 2,200
44.Luxembourg: 2,000
45.Brazil: 2,000
46.Malta: 1,500
47.Newfoundland: 1,100
48.Iraq: 1,000
49.Mongolia: 300
50.Iceland: 200
51.Iran: 200
52.Ireland: 200
53.Cuba: 100
54.Mexico: 100
55.Switzerland: 100

All countries, Military deaths:

1.Soviet Union: 10,700,000
2.Nazi Germany: 5,533,000
3.Republic of China: 3,800,000
4.Japan: 2,120,000
5.Yugoslavia: 446,000
6.United States: 416,800
7.United Kingdom: 382,700
8.Italy: 301,400
9.Romania: 300,000
10.Hungary: 300,000
11.Poland: 240,000
12.France: 217,600
13.Finland: 95,000
14.Indian Empire: 87,000
15.Philippines: 57,000
16.Canada: 45,300
17.Australia: 40,500
18.Albania: 28,000
19.Czechoslovakia: 25,000
20.Burma: 22,000
21.Bulgaria: 22,000
22.Netherlands: 21,000
23.Greece: 20,000
24.Belgium: 12,100
25.New Zealand: 11,900
26.South Africa: 11,900
27.Thailand: 5,600
28.Ethiopia: 5,000
29.Spain: 4,500
30.Norway: 3,000
31.Denmark: 2,100
32.Brazil: 1,000
33.Newfoundland: 1,000
34.Iraq: 1,000
35.Mongolia: 300
36.Sweden: 200
37.Iran: 200

Jewish Holocaust Deaths by Country:

1.Poland: 3,000,000
2.Soviet Union: 1,000,000
3.Romania: 469,000
4.Czechoslovakia: 277,000
5.Hungary: 200,000
6.Nazi Germany: 160,000
7.Lithuania: 141,000
8.Netherlands: 104,000
9.France: 83,000
10.Latvia: 80,000
11.Greece: 71,300
12.Yugoslavia: 67,000
13.Austria: 65,000
14.Belgium: 24,400
15.Italy: 8,000
16.Estonia: 1,000
17.Luxembourg: 700
18.Norway: 700
19.Albania: 200
20.Denmark: 100
Total: 5,752,400

[Strikeman]

Indian Empire?

[Dave]

The Raj was technically an Empire, with the King of England as the Emperor of India. A very strange way to describe it, never the less...

[Zagadka]

What is the point of this thread and why is it in Gorkiy?

[SF edit: Moved to WWII.]

[stalker]

Actually according to modern data Soviet military deaths were 8.8mn, and 27mn overall (i.e. not 10.7/23.1).

[QatzelOk]

I would like to challenge the distinction made between civilian and military deaths in that war (and WW1).

Why make a difference between a family being fried to death in an aerial bombardment, and a group of late teens (who were drafted) who are fried in an aerial bombardment?

How is being killed by the thousands by machine guns and bombs a "military" death?

18 million "military" deaths in Europe is not about hand-to-hand combat between willing combatants. There is only a distinction made in order to protect the elites interests. The elites' death would have been the only "military" death since they were entirely responsible for the war.

[Siberian Fox]

The Raj was technically an Empire, with the King of England as the Emperor of India. A very strange way to describe it, never the less...

It distinguishes the territory from Modern day India. The Indian Empire contained the modern day countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), Nepal and Bhutan. Since 'Indian' units of the British army were probably recruited form all over the British Indian Empire territory it is a better term to describe it. To just say "India" would be incorrect. Also, not all of the Indian Empire was governed directly by the British.

Map: "Political divisions of the Indian Empire"

Also, the Raj was an entity within the Indian Empire (like a state within a state). The King of England was not the Raj, but Emperor of India (i.e. ruled the Indian Empire). When the Indian Empire was split up the Indians swept away the last remnants of the Raj, as despite it's great wealth the Raj was reliant on Britain militarily and without the British was unable to defend itself.

[Dave]

Also, the Raj was an entity within the Indian Empire (like a state within a state). The King of England was Emperor of India (i.e. ruled the Indian Empire). When the Indian Empire was split up the Indians swept away the last remnants of the Raj, as despite it's great wealth the Raj was reliant on Britain militarily and without the British was unable to defend itself.

Are you referring to Rajputan? It was common to refer to the British Indian Empire as the British Raj, in the same way it was common to refer to the East India Company period as the Company Raj. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hyderabad State the only princely state which actually fought against the Indian Army (albeit briefly)?

[Siberian Fox]

Are you referring to Rajputan? It was common to refer to the British Indian Empire as the British Raj, in the same way it was common to refer to the East India Company period as the Company Raj. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Hyderabad State the only princely state which actually fought against the Indian Army (albeit briefly)?

I might be, it's been so long since I read about it that I don't recall.

Basically the British kept the Raj intact (Indian kings/princes and the like) presumably to make governing India more simple. It wasn't until after Independence that the Indians got rid of them. The point I was making (or trying to) was that they were Indian princes, and that the term "British Raj" refers to the Raj under British rule (as part of the Indian Empire), and that the King of England was Emperor of the whole thing, whereas the Raj only administered parts of the Indian Territory.

I would have to go look it up on a book to find out the answer to your second question. I don't know which state it was but yes the last ruler of the Raj had a small army with outdated equipment to defend his state which was totally overwhelmed by the Indian army in very short order.

(I'm by no means an expert on Indian history mind you, that is just as I recall).

[Dave]

Most of India by population was under British administration though, despite the presence of the princely states after Britain abolished the East India Company and its associated doctrine of lapse.

[Igor Antunov]

India's foreign policy was controlled by britain but india itself was a self governing territory (not as a whole but by many princes/kingdoms), overseen by britain's representatives in the region.

[Vigil of Reason]

Why make a difference between a family being fried to death in an aerial bombardment, and a group of late teens (who were drafted) who are fried in an aerial bombardment?

The difference is made because there is a difference. If your point is that no one wanted to die, then why make a difference between the deaths from different countries? And not all soldiers were drafted, and those who are not guaranteed to be not willing to fight.

[QatzelOk]

not all soldiers were drafted,

No, but those that are, are actually being killed by their own state. Or by the superpower that forced their state to sacrifice its youngest adults.

And those that aren't drafted can still be forced by other means - like poverty - into letting their own state kill their youngest adult males.

[Vigil of Reason]

There is still another difference between civilian death and military death, though. All the civilians you know were killed while they were not doing anything, while most soldiers killed were trying to kill other soldiers (whether or not they were forced). And of course it makes the statistics more detailed.

[Thunderhawk]

Do dead partizans count as military or civilians deaths?

[QatzelOk]

There is still another difference between civilian death and military death, though. All the civilians you know were killed while they were not doing anything, while most soldiers killed were trying to kill other soldiers

Most soldiers were killed while shitting their pants in front of a machine-gun or under a chemical cloud of poison, if we're talking about the two world wars.

The idea that those millions of young soldiers are killers in their hearts is a fabrication of military indoctrination and propaganda. Especially when talking about young males who have been drafted to coached into it by authorities at a vulnerable age, they are actually TOLD to go kill, and then are KILLED by machines in an empty field.

The elites just provide the machines and a few professional button-pushers, and thousands of soldiers are killed without having fought anything other than hunger and cold.

So after the elite has your son killed, the same elite builds up a story about how heroic and valorous these young men were.

And the older generation retains power for one generation longer, and social change is postponed.

[Vigil of Reason]

The elites just provide the machines and a few professional button-pushers, and thousands of soldiers are killed without having fought anything other than hunger and cold.

The purpose of the soldiers, whether forced or not, was to kill others. And what about those professional button-pushers? Were they not soldiers? Or is anyone who killed during war an "elite"? Also, your tone implies that machine guns are bad and war should be fought with bare-hand combat.

[QatzelOk]

Also, your tone implies that machine guns are bad and war should be fought with bare-hand combat.

I don't imply that machine guns are "bad" at all.

What I am saying is that - in a world of electronic death delivered by a handful of professionals - soldiers aren't sent anywhere to kill.

They're sent out to die.

The elites who send young males overseas do so because they want them dead.

The elites are afraid of the poorer classes (for good reason), and have to kill a significant number of them every few generations. The elite can kill millions with a signature on a piece of paper.

World War Two soldiers couldn't defend themselves against modern technology. They were just sacrifices to the gods of international finance and the military industrial complex.

Americans like to fool themselves into believing something else because America lost so few civilians/soldiers in both world wars. America got to play "bomber" for international finance in both meat-grinders.

[Smilin' Dave]

What I am saying is that - in a world of electronic death delivered by a handful of professionals - soldiers aren't sent anywhere to kill.

They're sent out to die.

I am unaware of wars being won by having the highest casualties, perhaps you have some examples of this stratagem?

The elites who send young males overseas do so because they want them dead.

Or the elites are not a monolithic entity as you so improbably claim, and the objective is for soldiers to fight the 'other'.

World War Two soldiers couldn't defend themselves against modern technology.

They could when they could fight back... you know, with their own modern technology.

Let's pretend this really is some conspiracy by financiers for a moment... where is the return on investment?

[QatzelOk]

Let's pretend this really is some conspiracy by financiers for a moment... where is the return on investment?

The Shock Doctrine is as old as tyranny.