File: 19.swf-(5.39 MB, Other)
[_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)02:53 No.1863143
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)04:09 No.1863202
"the average age of soldiers in WWII was 26"
why do I find this so unlikely?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)04:37 No.1863226
not very unlikely as ww2 was a voluntary war, whats really unlikely is an average age that is
lower than 20 since veitnam wasnt voluntary
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)04:39 No.1863227
>>1863202
because the average age of soldiers during WWII was 19. same as it was in WW I. same as in
vietnam. same as in iraq.
same as it ever was. war is a way to trick young men into dying so old men can fuck their wives.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)08:44 No.1863317
>>1863227
Wiki answers says 23 for World War II but they don't post sources.
>The average age of an active duty member deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is 27, and the average
age of deployed National Guard or Reserve troops is 33
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2009/March042009/section2
I suggest you stop letting yourself get swept in by hype and your own emotion. You're allowing
yourself to be an easily pandered to target. Facts are useful.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:36 No.1863358
I'm active duty military and I can shed a little light on this: The AVERAGE age of
soldiers/sailors/marines etc may, in fact, be lower. But most of those don't reenlist and many
don't see deployment on thier first enlistment, especially if they aren't marines. So while I
find the average age of 26 unlikely for wwII (especially because the war was only 5 years
anyway), you may BOTH be more correct than you know. Remember that not everyone in the military
deploys, and if given a choice they'll send a seasoned sargeant, who is still young enough to
fight and run, etc (ie under 27) over a boot private. However, I joined in a time of peace (we're
leaving afghanistan), so my knowledge of the wartime standard is limited.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:42 No.1863362
>>1863358
>5 years
>only
Dude...
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:48 No.1863366
>>1863362
Ok, so I checked and the American involvement (which is all we're talking about) went from the
beginning of 1941, to near the end of 1945. That's four and a half years. If you have any REAL
bitches/gripes/complaints, let me know.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:52 No.1863368
>>1863366
Even one year of war as all-out as WWII was can't be called "only"
[spoiler]I'm whining about nothing because i have nothing better to do[/spoiler]
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:54 No.1863369
>>1863368
I'll take your spoiler into account, but I was really only 3 months off, to set this one in stone.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)10:56 No.1863372
Ohh somthing I didn't think about which should definately be mentioned; which countries average?!
Our american egocentism stikes again; if we put it in the perspective of ALL sides of the war,
suddenly all these statistics become plausible.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)11:01 No.1863377
>>1863372
Probably USA's. I don't think the Vietnamese kept records on their soldiers, much less their age.
Their average was probably even lower.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/13(Mon)12:06 No.1863416
>>1863317
>all knowing wiki answers says this so it must be true!
I suggest you stop letting yourself get swept in by bullshit and your own need to feel superior
to someone. You're allowing yourself to be a faggot. common sense is useful.
