beating around the bush

ok

Because you're a faggot

>>31913038
>when I was really young I was retarded

And then you grew up and learned better. Seriously, vocabulary exists beyond four or five letter words. We are as a descriptive as we choose to be.

But 400,000 Americans did die in WW2.

180,000 in Europe, 210,000 in the Pacific.

>>31913038
I drank a beer when I was 16 too. It's ok.

>290,000 dead
>versus 6,329,600 dead

B-BUT MUH SUPPLIES

>amerifat cowardice

casualties is simply the number of people who were unable to walk away relatively unscathed from a conflict.

>causalities
>casualties
Check yo'self.

>>31913061
>210,000

Christ. What battles were the costliest (ie: the top 10)

>>31913068
Kys

File: 1474348885192.png (542KB, 680x452px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 680x452px

>>31913068
Muh six million

>>31913184
Every single island that the Japanese needed to be evicted from, they fought to the last man and inflicted every US KIA they possibly could.

Iwo Jima was tiny, and it took 7,000 US dead to take it.

12,000 for Okinawa.

There is a reason that the US decided to drop an atom bomb rather than try and take the actual home islands off of the Japanese.

It would have been the Paraguayan War all over again.

"casualties" is easier to say than "personnel rendered combat ineffective, dead, or wounded by enemy action or conditions"

It's probably because wounded people have to be treated too, and they probably can't be immediately useful.

If I had to guess, the term casualty might be military in origin for what I said.

Then again, I'm just guessing so I have no clue if I'm right.

>>31913038
It's because only fucking casuals get wounded or killed in combat you moron

>>31913237
I was referring to red army casualties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

File: 1476059179255.jpg (59KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x363px

>>31913333
I was referring to your figure. Also check'd.