Comment by shushpanchik
11 hours ago
Have you read the article? It's casualties, which includes wounded. Article mentions that about 100-140k are killed, not >1m
11 hours ago
Have you read the article? It's casualties, which includes wounded. Article mentions that about 100-140k are killed, not >1m
It seems like, in the course of calling out a perceived assumption, you may have made an assumption yourself. I'm aware of the difference between casualties and deaths. My chosen terminology applies equally to both. And I think both are relevant to a number of related stats like lifetime earnings, mental and physical health, family prospects, etc.
War is hell. And I don't think anyone comes out untouched by it. The stats on vets are brutal.