• PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            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.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

        • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

            • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ah yes, the child military camps and “how to kill a jew” lessons are run by Israelis.

    • e_mc2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Scale-wise not perhaps, but on percentage of destroyed buildings in a particular (small) area it’s right up there I think.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Given that more than 80% of people have been displaced and in 2 and a half months almost 1% of the population died, pretty sure it’s beyond it already, proportionally speaking.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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”.

    • blahsay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s nowhere close.

      This source is pretty suspect - a hard left leaning Oregon uni.