C
CarolJ
Guest
For a long time I have been skeptical about the official tally of 600 thousand casualties, and the assumption that there were few civilian casualties. While there was no policy of targeting civilians, a lot of things can happen to people who are caught in the crossfire-hunger, stray bullets, even a few rogue soldiers. Indeed, the story of most wars seems to be that civilians, usually unarmed and unprotected die more readily than soldiers who at least have someone to hellp them.
The New York Times Article this week postulates an 850,000 casualty number. But I still think this is in reference to military deaths and not civilian ones-civilian ones would be hard to aggregate.
If you believe civilian deaths were low, could you tell me why this war was different in this respect than other wars?
The New York Times Article this week postulates an 850,000 casualty number. But I still think this is in reference to military deaths and not civilian ones-civilian ones would be hard to aggregate.
If you believe civilian deaths were low, could you tell me why this war was different in this respect than other wars?