Underestimating ACW Totals (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

It appears they may have been even higher than thought;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob..

Interesting peice but, having had a decent read about this a few months back it still is a strange conflict for me. I am confused at the link with 2012 numbers for equivalent deaths of US soldiers and, 2010 equivalents for brit soldiers????? thats strange from the report as, all that will do is confuse some readers with more numbers and ones which are as guestimates as the ones from the conflict itself. that is just a stupid analogy IMO. Guess they will never really know the true numbers.

I don't think any conflict can ever tell the true numbers of casualties both military and civillian that are killed. even today we are arguing about how many have been killed in Iraq and, the true numbers killed in WWII.
Mitch

It appears they may have been even higher than thought;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991

Rob

 

[Terp152]

I just read this online. Bit of a math exercise. No way to really tell if the numbers are off by 130,000 but interesting article. Chris

 

[lancer]

Interesting article but probably a black hole in the end. No way to prove or disprove and total casualties will always remain unknown, even though the 'accepted' figures are too low. As pointed out, even with good records, exact numbers are hard to come by. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

The revised numbers are now considered the new standard but are probably too low in that they underestimate civilian deaths.

See this article that was in the New York Times, New Estimates Raises Civil War Death Toll.

Also see this post in the Grand Army Blog, Counting Costs