Saving Private Ryan?

[TulliusDetritus]

It is true that [very prestigious] Nature magazine said Wikipedia was as good as Encyclopaedia Britannica in scientific articles. BUT beware [;)] The Wiki Realm of the politics, history, sociology [in other words, NOT the pure, abstract science] is quite different. The road to hell is paved with good intentions... [8D]

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm not of a mind to go digging into it right now, but I doubt those three episodes cover the first 20 years adequately. And the official Soviet figures are not credible and would only serve to skew any 'somewhere in the middle' ball-parking you might wish to do.

Besides, Anthropoid, shouldn't your primary source be evilpedia or something like that? [:'(]

Evilpedia is not for distribution to the mindless 'hipster' masses . . .

[witpqs]

[:D]

[stuman]

It is amazing to look at the casualty figures for the various countries involved in WW2. I cannot comprehend  what the Russian, Chinese, German and Japanese citizens went through. The Russians and Chinese endured decades of misery !
 
The total US deaths in the War Between the States is around 600,000 ( a majority due to illness IIRC ), which is just about the total of all deaths in all other US wars combined. Amazing what fellow countrymen can do to each other in civil wars. And exactly what is so civil, about a civil war ?

[Nikademus]

Currently reading Beevor's "Stalingrad"

I'd wager that most Americans couldn't fully grasp much less appreciate what the Russians went through as well as the Chinese. For the former, The level of brutality and ruthlessness, from both the enemy as well as their own side, are just totally alien to most Westener's experiences. The passage i just read that involved random executions on the spot to disuade further incidents of "cowardice" among one particular Russian division put an exclamation point on it.

[HMAS Sydney]

If you read the book Band of Brothers by Ambrose (who is probably the worst historian I've ever read) on one page it mentions Fritz Niland (the guy Ryan was veeeeeeeeeery loooooooosly based upon) and then on the next page, or the page before, it talks about a Miller.  Coincidence?

Anyway, SPR is in my opinion just an action movie in which case it's not a bad one, but when calling it a war movie it is in my opinion a poor one.  You could send the movie back in time to train the heer and SS in how not to conduct a battle in a built up area.  If there was a mistake to make they made it.

A Bridge Too Far is imho the greatest war movie ever made.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Currently reading Beevor's "Stalingrad"

I'd wager that most Americans couldn't fully grasp much less appreciate what the Russians went through as well as the Chinese. For the former, The level of brutality and ruthlessness, from both the enemy as well as their own side, are just totally alien to most Westener's experiences. The passage i just read that involved random executions on the spot to disuade further incidents of "cowardice" among one particular Russian division put an exclamation point on it.

Great book Nik. His follow up one on Berlin is also very good.

[HMAS Sydney]

I always get told I'm an anti American troll when I point out that the USSR fought something like over 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and inflicted something like 80% of its casualties.  I then get told that DDay was the largest battle in history and won WW2. 

[DuckofTindalos]

I was not as impressed by the Berlin book. There are a couple of places where he quotes directly from Cornelius Ryan's book on the battle (and doesn't say that he's quoting). [:-]

[HMAS Sydney]

The Berlin book...... is that the one where it talks about the Soviet troops mistaking industrial solvent in a factory for alcohol and dying very painful deaths? 

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: HMAS Sydney

I always get told I'm an anti American troll when I point out that the USSR fought something like over 2/3 of the Wehrmacht and inflicted something like 80% of its casualties.  I then get told that DDay was the largest battle in history and won WW2. 

Yeaahh, how dare you think otherwise ?? [:D]
More seriously, IIRC, the change in the point of view occured in the mid fifties, when the cold war grow seriously; all the effort made by the USSR during the war were hindered by historians, and a sort of propaganda of the allmighty US Forces occured. I've also read somewhere that at the same time, efforts of British or others allies (Chinese, French) were forgotten for the same political reason.....AND SAYING SO , going in the political may close this thread, apology if this occur.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I was not as impressed by the Berlin book. There are a couple of places where he quotes directly from Cornelius Ryan's book on the battle (and doesn't say that he's quoting). [:-]

I still like it myself. Think he's just written a D-Day book also...........

[DuckofTindalos]

Still a good book. I just liked Stalingrad better.

[Anthropoid]

Picked up the Max Hastings book, Overlord and started reading it last night. Boy he seems to have a high opinion of Montgomery and Britain in general! [:D]

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: timtom

...oh, and the number of VD hospitalisations were 1,324,698

Does that count the guys that were already in the hospital on Dec 7th? Or just those admitted after 8am? [:D]

Neither since the record only begins on January 1 1942. The figure is Army only btw, but then again sailors and marines on landleave mainly attend bible studies, help elderly ladies cross the street and hang out in milk parlours right?

Notably the per 1,000 rate was 33 stateside, 47 in the ETO, 91 in the MTO, 26 in the SWPA and 6 in the POA.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

So if the same soldier is wounded 4 times during the war this makes "4 casualties"? [;)]

Yes, the medical statistics record incidents (hospitalisations to be exact) not individuals. Presumably few if anyone got killed more than once though.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'd be curious to check out your sources too TimTom! As somewhat of an epidemiologists, the disparities in different numbers from different sources always amazes me.

The casualty figure is from p.6 of "Fisher, Hannah, Klarman, Kim & Oboroceanu, Mari-Jana: American War and Military Operations Casualties: List and Statistics. Congressional Research Service 2008".

The VD figures are from p.473, 266 of "Curtis Hoff, Ebbe (ed.): Communicable Disease, vol.V: Transmitted Through Contact or by Unknown Means. Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army 1960".

A far few of the official medical histories of the Surgeon General are available online. Check out "Wound Ballistics" if one needs a reminder of the reality behind our little hobby.

http://history.amedd.army.mil/default_index2.html

[timtom]

Oops, double post.

[Anthropoid]

Hey TimTom, here is a question for you. I teach elementary stats but I'm not too up on Odds Ratios. I have a student who wants to compare rates of death by suicide and homicide in contemporary U.S. military personnel and general U.S. population for his final 'research analysis exercise.' He found numbers for 2003 and 2004.
 
The rates per 100,000 are actually higher for both years for the Civilian population Suicide (2003) 10.8 vs. 6.1 and (2004) 10.7 vs. 9.6 IIRC; Homicide was not as big a difference. He also has raw numbers of deaths, pop numbers for both pops and deaths by other causes.
 
Two questions:
1. Is there a test stat for the rates per 100,000?
2. If he calculates a Chi-Square ("Odds Ratio" as the epidemiologists seem to like to call it) would he do:
(A)
............Dead by Suicide / Dead by other cause
Civilian......########  / ########
Milit...........########  / ########
 
(B)
Or would the rows be Dead by Suicide /Not Dead by Suicide

[m10bob]

This thread has devolved from a simple question concerning a movie, to national casualties.

O.K., I will point out that while the U.S. had less casualties than other combatants, it might be remembered many of those other casualties were inflicted on civilian populace, many were incurred before the U.S. was invloved, and nearly all U.S. casualties were inflicted on other peoples' soil, not defensively, strategically, but offensively.
While Americans have never prided themselves on being so-called "professional warriors", except in a very spartan number, Americans will fight, abroad, if riled, or attacked.
We also (by nature) help our defeated foes rebuild and survive once the war is over.

Both world wars have shown a disregard for civilian losses during time of war, by all parties, but not all parties did so by rote, nor with an intended (and sometimes published), will.

[HMAS Sydney]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Americans will fight, abroad, if riled, or attacked.
We also (by nature) help our defeated foes rebuild and survive once the war is over.

Most American soldiers during WW2 were conscripted. I keep reading about how everyone was eager to fight in books, documentaries, etc, but the fact is that most American soldiers had to be conscripted.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Hey TimTom, here is a question for you. I teach elementary stats but I'm not too up on Odds Ratios. I have a student who wants to compare rates of death by suicide and homicide in contemporary U.S. military personnel and general U.S. population for his final 'research analysis exercise.' He found numbers for 2003 and 2004.

The rates per 100,000 are actually higher for both years for the Civilian population Suicide (2003) 10.8 vs. 6.1 and (2004) 10.7 vs. 9.6 IIRC; Homicide was not as big a difference. He also has raw numbers of deaths, pop numbers for both pops and deaths by other causes.

Two questions:
1. Is there a test stat for the rates per 100,000?
2. If he calculates a Chi-Square ("Odds Ratio" as the epidemiologists seem to like to call it) would he do:
(A)
............Dead by Suicide / Dead by other cause
Civilian......########  / ########
Milit...........########  / ########

(B)
Or would the rows be Dead by Suicide /Not Dead by Suicide

You should probably direct that at someone who knows something about statistics . My background is in history...I struggle to make four of two and two.