Comparative comparison of the number of casualties Australian Army in World War II and Vietnam





Dr. Zlatan Gavrilovic Kovac





This serious but neglected discussion of the number of victims of the Australian Army in World War II, as compared to the same number of casualties in Vietnam was primarily triggered by the arrogance of the young generation and its Vietnamese mentors who until recently does not want to accept the obvious truth concerning these matters. The second issue contained a very professional and military analysis of the situation in the Second World War, where the researchers got out of the fact of suffering "periphery" in any civil or military terms, so that the analysis concerned mainly contained information concerning the major conflicts in Europe and the Atlantic and partly in Asia. They were less important information regarding Australia and New Zealand for example. The reasons for these failures is likely to be sought in the island orientation of British researchers who like the UK and Europe was that central and everything else is peripheral. In this sense, today to observe the errors that occur among researchers and historians, when taking into account the circumstances of the Second World War in Australia and New Zealand.
When talking about the Australian army in World War II, then we must above all be clear that Australia had suffered losses after the First World War stopped

build ​​its army that was far fewer than those in the First World war. If we take into account the fact that Commonweltha countries have suffered a loss in the First World War from about 9 million, then it is clear that in Australia there was a family who was not involved in the wartime suffering of Australian society. After the relative recovery of losses incurred from the Army Australian Army on the eve of the Second World War had, by my humble estimation, a larger army that is numerically was somewhere around 50 thousand troops equipped. On the other hand, the estimated losses of the Australian Army in World War II amounted to 23 thousand combatants without taking into account those who liked the captivity and those who have emerged from the war as war invalids. These figures for New Zealand amounted to 10 thousand combatants. In relation to the number of Allied casualties in the coalition as a whole somehow it seems that these figures are not so great. Especially if we bear in mind the case of the suffering of the Russian Army or British casualties in Europe and the Atlantic. But things look quite different if a "real statistics," so to speak, where the number of injured soldiers are compared with the total number of injured soldiers. So watching the suffering of the things the Australian Army are greater than the suffering of the Russian Army, for example. For Russians, this percentage was 37% of the total composition of the army while the Australians, that percentage stood at least 50% casualties in the overall composition of the Australian Army. Or expressed in a metaphorical way: 23 thousand soldiers who have implied at least a family of four involvirali are somewhere around 100 thousand people. Thus Australia is in the Second World War the city lost a size of the then Melbourne. I say "what was then the" very reason, because in our mind must constantly figure historical and social truths that the total number of Australian residents throughout the duration of the Second World War was more than twice smaller.
On the other hand, the war in Vietnam that has lasted for Australia 1965-74 involvirao a total of 60 thousand soldiers whose total losses were 521kiled soldier, which makes around or less than 1% of the total casualties in the composition of the Australian Army. And that means that the total losses of the Second World War veterans were 50 times greater than the losses in the Australian Army during the Vietnam War. In fact we do not take, as we have already said, the case of victims of captivity and enslavement by the enemy, nor the total number of disabled persons in the figures for the fighters of the Second World War is of great importance. Today, at least so it seems.
Thus it seems to me personally it is very important to examine the point of view of today's young generation and the point of view of its mentors who took lowercase military events as the central theme while the themes of suffering people and the Australian Army in World War II was completely ignored. I personally think that this generation of war perpetrated a huge injustice that has come to neglect even to the rejection of the questions concerning themes of the Second World War. On the other hand, the increasing popularity among people and among the younger generation were given topics that were really accidental in relation to the theme of the Second World War. The best evidence for this claim is the literature and journalism that only military in the Second World War presented to such a distinguished names such as Hemigway, Show, Mayler ... and many others. Today, the literature and journalism is the cornerstone MEDAS in

 

total history of literature written in English.

　

 

©

 

 

►