THE BIASES OF WAR: What WWII Can Tell Us

By YouveBeenGreeked | Some Random Thoughts. | 17 Mar 2025

At least 60 million died across the world between 1939 and 1945 due to one global armed conflict. That's an average of 10 million a year, over 830,000 a month, and over 27,000 a day. The deadliest battle - the siege of Stalingrad - saw anywhere from 1.1 to 3 million people killed over the span of six months. It also saw the advent of the infamous Holocaust, and the dropping of the first two nuclear weapons over Japan. And it's pretty clear to most people, what with fascism on the rise in Europe and imperialism dominating the Pacific, that the good guys won and the bad guys lost... right?

Now because I dared to put that question mark at the end there, I should clarify that, no, obviously I'm not a Neo-Nazi or Austrian moustache-man sympathiser etc. I don't like fascism blah blah blah, and I'm just speaking my mind... you may be surprised how simple things like this need clarifying to some people so much these days.

Anyway, I just wanted to run down a list of some of the other atrocities going on during the time:

Nazi-ruled Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, instigated what's known as "The Holocaust", leading to the deaths of some 17 million people across Europe, that number including 6 million Jews.

The Japanese Empire under Emperor Hirohito committed several war crimes across East and South-East Asia and the Pacific, leading to the deaths of anywhere between 19 and 30 million people between 1927 and 1945, resulting in the Tokyo Trial. This is often referred to as "the Asian Holocaust". Aside from the USSR, China lost the most people in the Second World War in total, mostly as a result of Japan.

China was undergoing its Civil War during this time (1927 - 1936, 1945 - 1949). With casualties amassing on both sides, the pre-war phase saw 7 million casualties, with the later increasing by up to 6 million more.

The USSR was killing millions of its own people in gulags and through poor agriculture, farming and food-related policies that led to the deaths of c.20 million people, under Joseph Stalin alone. On top of this, a further 20 million Soviets were killed during the war, the largest singular group wiped out in the conflict.

The United States, as a result of their involvement in the war against Japan, created internment camps of their own, signed into action by Franklin D. Roosevelt. These led to the deaths of 120,000 Japanese-American men, women and children between 1942 and 1946, lasting after the war. Famously, a further c.300,000 Japanese innocent citizens were killed as a result of the dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of flamethrowers and trench guns were also deemed as potential "war crimes" after the war.

The United Kingdom killed more German civilians than British civilians AND British and German soldiers that were killed combined during the war altogether. (That is, by British on German and vice-versa, not in total globally). Despite the German Blitz over London, more civilians died as a result of the bombing of cities like Dresden. Several peace deals from Berlin were also neglected by Winston Churchill.

Obviously, I'm glad fascism was stopped, but I don't think the war was so simple as that. And in the end, well... most European goods today come from Germany, which is essentially Europe's great power today. (I also find the idea of the potential solution to the current Ukraine War being that a German army should march through Poland to fight Russia quite ironically funny, but that's just my dark humour). And in the East, Japan is, likewise, the region's economic and technological powerhouse today... It's strange to see these two be so utterly defeated and crushed after the war, yet appear today as the world powers they are. It's almost like, "who really lost?"

I mean, the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich both fell, so yeah they did lose ultimately, but it's just interesting to think about.

And the fact that so many other atrocities besides the Holocaust were committed yet never get a look-in like it does is very peculiar to me. Obviously, Hitler and his actions should be taught to people and it should be studied, but he seems far less spoken about than - I think - objectively worse figures like Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, and even the Medieval-likes of men like Genghis Khan, who may ultimately be responsible for more deaths than anyone ever. It's OK to even argue whether Khan's conquests were a benefit overall in the end, with some claiming that his empire's opening of the Silk Road was of great benefit. But if I were to DARE point out that Hitler reduced German unemployment from 6.5 million to under 500k between 1933 and 1938... Maybe with the passing of time, people will be comfortable enough to discuss men like Hitler in the same casual way they do with the likes of the Khans, who certainly committed war crimes and utilised chemical warfare too. I mean, just look at the sieges of Baghdad and Kaffa... But anyway.

It's interesting: with the UK example I gave above, we'd never say that Britain was wrong to engage Nazi Germany, even if it led to the bombing of German cities like Dresden, despite the horror-show and bloodbath it was. But dare make a claim like that in reverse... Maybe this is already obvious to everyone reading, but I just don't think anything - even the Second World War - is ever so black-and-white as to be "goodies won, baddies lost".

One thing that can definitely be agreed upon by all: the whole conflict was pointless to a very large degree and utterly not worth the 60 to 85 million casualties it produced.

World War I was dubbed "the war to end all wars", and we're still going, a hundred years later... Maybe one day, eh?

Anyway, that was all a bit depressing. Now go and watch a lake evaporate or something useful.

Ciao-ciao, plebs.