Posted on 11/11/2014 10:58:57 AM PST by EveningStar
That really puts things in perspective.
Why no numbers for the war of 1812 or the Mexican war I wonder.
Consider that during ww1 we were involved in combat for only 11 months, yet incurred 53k kia.
Or Spanish-American war.
While I appreciate the info, I wonder what they consider I minor conflict. I don’t like the major vs. minor designation; all lives lost are equal in paying a price for our freedom.
Same goes for training and non-combat deaths in my mind. If you served, you served. Gen. Patton died in an auto accident...that doesn’t mean it was not fighting for our freedom at the time.
their numbers on the War between the States are way off .
The Civil War Trust collates to 620,000
1860 census: 31.4 million, 500,000 deaths, 1.6%
1940 census: 132 million, 300,000 deaths, 0.2%
That number for the Civil War deaths is probably a low ball estimate. I read about a researcher who analyzed data from the 1860 census and compared it to the 1870 census. He analyzed the cohorts of men by age group county by county. He estimated that as many as 800,000 men who were counted in 1860 were not counted in 1870.
If you click on the link, you’ll find a section where you can post comments. :)
bfl
This includes every major Battle of the Army of the Tennessee and action in Missouri.
Any way you slice it, it’s over a million men lost to preserve of this country the freedoms (the ones we have left) we enjoy. Those deaths are over our 238 years of history. That averages out to over 4,200 soldiers/year. The cost of freedom is high.
Thank you to all that have served.
We're covering WWI in a Military History class I'm taking and I finally realized how astounding that mobilization was. In 1914 you could have fit our entire army into a current-day football stadium - didn't reach six figures. By summer of 1918 we had a million men in theater, two million before the thing was over. The Germans were looking at 10,000 fresh American troops landing each day at a time when they couldn't replace their own losses. When their last offensive in 1918, the Kaiserschlacht, failed (the Marines held them at Belleau Wood in that one), they knew it was over.
At least one British commentator grumbled in 1936 that we'd have been better off staying out of the thing because it gave the Germans an excuse to sue for better terms in the Armistice than they otherwise would have gotten. That was Winston Churchill. (Source: JFC Fuller's Military History of the Western World, Vol III)
Thats funny, because if it wasn’t for England and France being so damn determined to extract their pound of flesh under the surrender terms we probably wouldn’t have had to go over there again twenty five years later
Add up those after the Civil War and compare the numbers under demoncrat administrations versus the number under conservative administrations. It will tell you that demoncrats know how to start wars and get a lot of people killed, but they do not know how to fight wars.
I’ve always heard the figures for WWII at around 320-340k. Thats alot of non battle death casualties.
Yeah, it did seem a little odd to read that. What terms Churchill had in mind in 1936 weren’t cited, but clearly what he meant was that they’d have prevented the rise of the Nazis. 1936 was a real bad year for that. Possibly by leaving the Kaiser in place? I really have no idea.
It seems to me Germany was really no more guilty a party in that war than any of the other major participants. I would imagine the allies would've invaded them if Germany hadn't invaded them first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.