undefined

points

by throwatdem1231115 hours ago |

comments

by logicchains15 hours ago|

[-]

That's not true. When France surrendered in WW2 most French men didn't have to fight or die (unless they were Jewish).

by hdgvhicv14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

99% of males in the U.K. avoided dying in ww2 - 380k military casualties vs a population of 47 million (and presumably 23.5 million male)

I’m assuming non military casualties were evenly spread between male and female.

by mr_toad10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Figures I’ve seen say over 700,000 casualties in the British Army alone.

3.7 million served in the Army, which is a fairly high proportion when compared to the age range suitable for military service. Add in the Navy and RAF and you get to nearly six million. Those that didn’t serve were generally needed at home - roles like doctors, miners, police, or were too young or too old to fight.

The British, unlike many European countries, had time to mobilise those forces. Had they lost the Battle of Britain and had Germany commenced a land invasion of Britain then it’s likely the numbers would have been a lot lower.

by mothballed14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That was also true of much of the feudal or monarchist European wars in the centuries before WWI. In the near term before the "democratic" era around WWI wars war largely seen as wars of the aristocracy and armed forces. Merchants could usually ~freely come and go between countries at war and you could generally pass to a country you were at war with without common people seeing you as an enemy. Wars also tended to be less "all or nothing" where the other side was evil and had to be destroyed and were seen more as property and rights disputes of the elite where armed force was a negotiating tactic or strategic use to assert some particular right.

It wasn't until the scam of 'democracy' fooled people into thinking war was against the actual people of the other country that they not only scammed everyone into having such buy-in and stakes for the war but also to view the other countrymen themselves as the enemy. People started viewing the nation of themselves because their laughable miniscule influence of their vote somehow means the government is of them. (Note this was a resurface of course, there were times in history where war was seen as against a peoples rather than of the elite).

by suddenlybananas14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Stop reading Curtis Yarvin's pseudo-history. Like 8 million people died in the Thirty Years War before modern democratic states, and there's plenty of other examples.

by samus10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> unless they were Jewish

Cold comfort. Just decide to not be of Jewish descent then. Who would have known it's so easy to escape the attention of the Gestapo! /s

by itsyonas15 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

In the case of a typical war of conquest, fighting pretty much stops as soon as one nation surrenders. However, no nation state in the world asks, 'How can we save the most lives?', instead asking, 'Do we have enough people to send to their deaths to potentially preserve our monopoly of power?'

Of course, at the beginning of every war, some people genuinely believe that joining and defending the nation they live in is in their best interests, but these numbers quickly drop over time. As history and current events show, states start to use forced conscription in every prolonged war at some point.