this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
220 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2718 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 32 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Proportionally?

Germany lost about 6 million people out of a population of 70 million, so something to the tune of 8.5% of the population over the course of six years.

In the current Gaza campaign, we're coming up on 20,000 out of a population of 2 million, so something to the tune of 1% over the course of three months. Extended to the six years of WW2, that would be 41% of the population.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Factor in non-combatant casualties, and it will be even more disproportionate.

Yeah, there were a lot of civilian deaths in ww2. But they largely at least tried to minimize the non-military casualties. That isn't even a factor for IDF

[–] Backspacecentury@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You think the entire populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military?

Also, entire cities in Southern Germany were entirely wiped out. Munich was re-built from the ground up.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

I mean, even taking the IDF's numbers, proportionally, the IDF has killed far more civilians than the Allies in WW2. The IDF's estimate is that they've been killing 50% civilians and 50% combatants, while in WW2 the Western Allied count was about 10% civilians in Europe, and 33% civilians in Japan. However, the wars being fought are very different, so I find that a less compelling comparison than the sheer level of destruction leveled in such a short period of time.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget the fire bombing of Tokyo, I think they killed around 100K civilians in a city where most of the houses were made of wood and paper.

Around 100K casualties in this bombing only and over 1M became homeless. That's next level evil along with the atomic bombs for sure. And I don't find any justification for any of those bombings.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

In Tokyo it's because the Japanese didn't have conventional factories; the people would make weapons and other things for the army in their homes, so Tokyo was basically a giant military factory. Of course whether that justifies the fire bombing is another story, but yeah that's the reason.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there were a lot of civilian deaths in ww2. But they largely at least tried to minimize the non-military casualties

I feel obligated to point out that the Brits in Europe and the Americans over Japan engaged in deliberate terror bombing.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there are no good guys in war... Just different levels of crimes and justification from the obscene, to the grey.

The Allies were responding to aggressors that had invaded and "terror bombed" dozens of countries for years, killing millions of civilians, while maintaining extremely high domestic support throughout... Doesn't make terror bombing their civilians right, but it was more justifiable in context than anything the invaders did.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Oh, yeah, I'm not at all questioning that the Allies were the right side. Only that we definitely attempted to deliberately inflict civilian casualties in Europe and in Japan, despite the US realizing that terror bombing was ineffective and quarreling with the British over its use in Europe, while still switching to it in Japan after strategic bombing campaigns were less effective than hoped.