you would have thought the Germans won the war...

[A8TOOL]

Missed this. Very old and interesting film.

[Scherf]

Kee-ryst, not even the Wochenschau could find anything to say about the Luftwaffe, other than the flak.

[-tronski-]

I'll help YOU. The Allies suffered 10,000 casualties in ONE day, including over 4,000 KIA, on D Day, while invading Normandy. The U.S. has not yet reached 4,000 KIA in Iraq.

No, but they have incurred about 30,000 casualties in total...

However its a little disingenuous comparing numbers of casualty rates between battles, and wars as some measure of merit of these struggles when it really is just a measurement of scale. In 1945 when Germany surrendered, the US had 1.6 million men in germany, out of a total of 3 million in Europe.
The 1st and 2nd divisions AIF suffered 5,000 casualties on one day in the 3rd battle of Ypres in 1917, but I don't believe that somehow makes the efforts of the US armed forces in Iraq (or Australian forces which has not yet had 1 KIA yet) any less commendable.


O/t I thought it was quite amusing...a very fox news channel like take on the D-Day landings...all that was missing were some flag graphics, and a retired german general talking head
 
 Tronsky

[midnight Target]

We now get the Smithsonian Channel (great stuff). They just did a story on Omaha beach that basically said the death toll has been under-reported by a factor of 2 all these years. Arial photos of the beach taken during the battle were used to extrapolate the casualties.

[Shuckins]

You need to bear in mind that the casualties listed for Iraq include those from all causes;  depending on the sources cited, approximately 20-30% are not combat related.

If you want to know what the difference is between Iraq and WW II, read "Typhoon of Steel;  the Battle for Okinawa."

No matter how you slice it, the Iraq war is not comparable to WW II, or even to Vietnam.  It doesn't even come close.  The casualties for Vietnam were an order of magnitude greater.