This is a longer video but well worth your time. The numbers are staggering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcVzfOmt4Tg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcVzfOmt4Tg
World War II: Loss of Life Visualized
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
TonyStalloni
All-Conference
We think the loss of life for Americans was considerable but the losses by Russia and Germany were incredible.
VA Husker Fan
All-Conference
It is staggering. The difference between us and them is, of course, that the war was barely fought on American turf while much of it was in the Soviet Union, and they were in a ground war about 4 times longer than we were, at least in Europe. We didn't start taking heavy casualties in Europe until the ground attack started after D-Day and that didn't quite even last a year, while Germany invaded the Soviet Union 3 years earlier. Stalin wanted D-Day to come much earlier to turn Europe into a two front war.
huKSer
All-American
This and the fact that the Soviet army leadership did not care about their casualties. Example: To clear a mine field they marched their men across it. If anyone refused, they were machine gunned right then and there.
Landlord
Banned
This got me interested in wars that have actually been fought at all in America, and I learned today that there was a WWII battle that took place in Alaska.
RunMickeyRun02
Starter
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
That was very very interesting. I have always found WWII the most interesting period of history.
So, why do you think since WWII, we have seen relatively very very few wars and war deaths? Why do you think the richest countries haven't had war against each other?
I'm going to throw this out there and I know for a fact I will have major push back on this.
I believe it is in large part to the Industrial Military Complex that everyone seems to think is so disgusting. Have they done some things wrong? Sure. Should we be concerned about their relationship as it pertains to our leaders? Maybe.
However, I believe in general, they prevent war and war deaths. The technology we have on the battle field right now is absolutely amazing compared to what it was in WWII. In WWII, we basically blanketed entire cities with dumb bombs that killed millions and millions of civilians. Now? We have precise bombs that target one specific building or vehicle. We have surveillance capabilities to know (better) where our enemies are and who they are. We have special forces that can do things that us mere mortals can't even fathom. One heck of a lot of that is thanks to the IMC.
Now, our IMC also prevents wars in that our enemies know what we are capable of. Also, Europe isn't devoid of military capabilities either and so....say.....Germany doesn't feel comfortable invading Poland due to what they know Poland (and their friends) are capable of.
Now...I hope and pray (for many reasons) that a WW is never needed again. That's because I don't think the public has the stomach for it. Can you imagine what the American public would have done if we were getting live streamed into our homes video from Omaha Beach with 2500 dead American bodies laying all over the place and then go interview a bunch of soldiers that were still in shock from the battle? There was some battle field coverage of Korea and the public turned against the war. That was only if you happened to listen to the nightly news for one hour per day. There was more coverage in Vietnam and the war became a fire storm back home. Every conflict since then, it seems the public has less and less stomach for what they see now 24 hours a day on the TV on multiple channels and many web sites and social media.
There is no way the public of today would have still supported the war.
So, why do you think since WWII, we have seen relatively very very few wars and war deaths? Why do you think the richest countries haven't had war against each other?
I'm going to throw this out there and I know for a fact I will have major push back on this.
I believe it is in large part to the Industrial Military Complex that everyone seems to think is so disgusting. Have they done some things wrong? Sure. Should we be concerned about their relationship as it pertains to our leaders? Maybe.
However, I believe in general, they prevent war and war deaths. The technology we have on the battle field right now is absolutely amazing compared to what it was in WWII. In WWII, we basically blanketed entire cities with dumb bombs that killed millions and millions of civilians. Now? We have precise bombs that target one specific building or vehicle. We have surveillance capabilities to know (better) where our enemies are and who they are. We have special forces that can do things that us mere mortals can't even fathom. One heck of a lot of that is thanks to the IMC.
Now, our IMC also prevents wars in that our enemies know what we are capable of. Also, Europe isn't devoid of military capabilities either and so....say.....Germany doesn't feel comfortable invading Poland due to what they know Poland (and their friends) are capable of.
Now...I hope and pray (for many reasons) that a WW is never needed again. That's because I don't think the public has the stomach for it. Can you imagine what the American public would have done if we were getting live streamed into our homes video from Omaha Beach with 2500 dead American bodies laying all over the place and then go interview a bunch of soldiers that were still in shock from the battle? There was some battle field coverage of Korea and the public turned against the war. That was only if you happened to listen to the nightly news for one hour per day. There was more coverage in Vietnam and the war became a fire storm back home. Every conflict since then, it seems the public has less and less stomach for what they see now 24 hours a day on the TV on multiple channels and many web sites and social media.
There is no way the public of today would have still supported the war.