| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| How 620,000 were killed in a four-year war |
| 2006-10-25 |
| A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal claimed that about 655,000 Iraqis were killled as a result of the war in Iraq during the first three years and four months -- from March 2003 to July 2006. As a comparison, the American Civil War lasted four years, from April 1861 to April 1865. Studies have concluded that during those four years about 620,000 people were killed as a result of that war. On the Confederate side about 94,000 were killed in battles and about 164,000 were killed by other causes (disease, deaths in prisoner-of-war camps, military accidents, executions, etc.). On the Union side about 110,070 were killed in battles and about 250,152 were killed by other causes. Here is a list of some Civil War battles, showing the numbers of combatants and killed in combat. Battle of Gettysburg Confederate soldiers: 75,000 – killed: 4,708 Union soldiers: 82,289 – killed: 3,155 Battle of Chickamauga Confederate soldiers: 66,326 – killed: 2,312 Union soldiers: 58,222 – killed: 1,657 Battle of Chancellorsville Confederate soldiers: 60,892 – killed: 1,683 Union soldiers: 133,868 – killed: 1,574 Battle of Spotsylvania Confederate soldiers: 50,000 – killed: 2,725 Union soldiers: 83,000 – killed: 1,467 Battle of Antietam Confederate soldiers: 51,844 – killed: 1,546 Union soldiers: 75,316 – killed: 2,108 Battle of The Wilderness Confederate soldiers: 61,025 – killed: 1,495 Union soldiers: 101,895 – killed: 2,246 Second Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) Confederate soldiers: 48,527 – killed: 1,553 Union soldiers: 75,696 – killed: 1,747 Battle of Stone's River Confederate soldiers: 37,739 – killed: 1,294 Union soldiers: 41,400 – killed: 1,730 Battle of Shiloh Confederate soldiers: 40,335 – killed: 1,723 Union soldiers: 62,682 -- killed: 1,754 Battle of Fort Donelson Confederate soldiers: 21,000 – killed: 1,127 Union soldiers: 27,000 -- killed: 1,976 Battle of Fredericksburg Confederate soldiers: 72,500 - killed: 608 killed Union soldiers: 114,000 - killed: 1,284 killed This list could be extended to include many more large battles. How many battles in Iraq have involved such large numbers of combatants and casualties? How many platoon-sized firefights and car bombings would it take to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths? |
| Posted by:Mike Sylwester |
| #10 National armies of the type in place since the 1600s have been keeping records denoting military dead from disease and those from combat. That distinction was important to the awarding of honors for battlefield operations, like medals and knighthoods. It really started becoming an important item during the birth of the Sanitation movements of the 1830-1860s, since they were trying to sort out preventable deaths due to sanitary conditions or lack thereof. The horrors of the Crimean and US Civil Wars were the big push behind the development of sanitation and cleanliness of medical personnel and facility; as well as the basis for the first Geneva Convention on the treatment of sick and wounded combatants. WWI is the first major war where disease is NOT the major killer of combatants, but even then, the number killed by disease was massive. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-25 20:36 |
| #9 Many folks, especially if it's convienent to their cause, confuse casualties (including killed, wounded, and missing) with deaths. In the previous wars, where deaths from disease were so high, they were not counted as 'killed in action', right? When did the distinction between KIA and 'just dead' really begin? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-10-25 15:30 |
| #8 Re: #3, Rightwing << had always read that there were 13,000 fatalities at Antietam ... >> I'm no expert on the Civil War, but here is another site that looks authoritative about casualties at Antietam. It says 1,550 Confederate and 2,100 Union soldiers were killed there. For this list I used only numbers of deaths, not numbers of casualties (including wounded, desertions, missing, etc.) |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2006-10-25 13:40 |
| #7 The problem in Iraq today is not that 650,000 might have been killed. (This is highly unlikely) The problem is that 2,650,000 haven't been killed. To staunch this internal war, something on the order of 10% of the population must be extinguished just to get their attention. Unfortunate, but true. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-25 11:55 |
| #6 Strategy page had a good article on deaths in Iraq. First of all, approx 550,000 Iraqis have died from natural causes since the war began. Second, 10,000+ Iraqis die from crime in a normal year. My suspicion is that deaths from all causes = 620,000 and Lancet blames the United States for all of them. P.S. regarding natural causes: It is interesting that disease and accidents cause a majority of American casualties in Iraq. Apparently the germs in Iraq are industrial strength. Al |
| Posted by: frozen Al 2006-10-25 10:07 |
| #5 Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricial L. Faust: The approximately 10,455 military engagements, some devastating to human life and some nearly bloodless, plus naval clashes, accidents, suicides, sicknesses, murders, and executions resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded. In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost. Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar. The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins. Detailed studies of Union and Confederate military casualties are found in Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65 by Thomas L. Livermore (I901) and Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1867-1865 by William F. Fox (1889). http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm N.B. the number killed in action and the number killed by disease. Nothing remarkable for pre-WWII warfare for most casualties occurring as a result of non-combat causes. |
| Posted by: Procopius2K 2006-10-25 10:05 |
| #4 It's WikiWeedia. A "collaborative" effort toward defining truth. I have the Shelby Foote 3-volume set of the Civil War. Awesome read. A source I believe and recommend without hesitation. If the urge strikes, I'll see if he consolidated such battles and stats somewhere - I'm not going to wade through all 3 vols, though, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-25 09:56 |
| #3 Dear Mike, I had always read that there were 13,000 fatalities at Antietam and close to 20,000 fatalities at Gettysburg. Picket's charge was said to have resulted in over 1,000 Confederate fatalities. I'm questioning the numbers as being low. I'm certainly not arguing the Lancets gross exaggeration of Iraqi deaths. Please advise if there is a link for your stats, I was taught and seem to remember reading differently. |
| Posted by: Rightwing 2006-10-25 09:42 |
| #2 Nice response. Those figures are a joke. Even al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't admit those high figures. http://press-release.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-25 08:53 |
| #1 Facts! Always with the facts! How dare you let soomething as trivial as facts get in the way of my n-a-a-a-a-a-rative! /sarcasm off |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-10-25 07:14 |