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.
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
You’ll probably never know how many of those deaths were combatants. Don’t forget that Hamas does recruit children as soon as they’re old enough to hold up a gun and pull the trigger.
It shouldn’t be a race to be honest, but I get your point, the article is quite vague on why it thinks it’s “one of the most destructive military campaigns in history”.
I very doubt it even comes close to the destruction of WWII.
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.
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
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.
I feel obligated to point out that the Brits in Europe and the Americans over Japan engaged in deliberate terror bombing.
You’ll probably never know how many of those deaths were combatants. Don’t forget that Hamas does recruit children as soon as they’re old enough to hold up a gun and pull the trigger.
Scale-wise not perhaps, but on percentage of destroyed buildings in a particular (small) area it’s right up there I think.
It shouldn’t be a race to be honest, but I get your point, the article is quite vague on why it thinks it’s “one of the most destructive military campaigns in history”.
Yeah, it’s not even the most destructive of the decade, but it’s sure the most popular.
It’s nowhere close.
This source is pretty suspect - a hard left leaning Oregon uni.