Were there more casualties in the pacific war than in the European war?

I felt compelled to correct the previOS poster's answer here, which was inaccurate and veered off on a tangent. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to talk about this purely from the US perspective, and also use the Word casualty as inclusive dead and wounded. (not that this argument would be void if it included everyone, but it would require more time to explain than I have right now)

The question is whether you are referring the the NOMINAL causalty rate, which would refer to total actual number of causalties unadjusted for weight or the REAL casualty rate, which would refer to the causalties in regard to what percentage of troops deployed became casualties. Keep in mind the each theatre was very different: the European theatre was waged on a continuous fronline up and down the map, so there was always an engagement going on somewhere, which meant the causalties came in more fluidly and were harder to attribute to certain events than say the Pacific theatre, where single epic battles were always the main event and therefore easy to isolate and identify.

As for NOMINAL casualty rate, the European theater would win. More total numbers of soldiers were deployed to Atlantic than the Pacific, and so unsurprisingly by pure population statistics, the ETO produced more numerical causualties than the the PTO, man for man

However, as for the REAL casualty rate, the PTO trumps the ETO by far. Although the total number of men lost is generally regarded as smaller in number, when we look at the these in relation the number actually fighting, the casualty rate is much more horrific. For example, Okinawa had a 40+% causualty rate (90+% deadfor the Japanese!) versus 10-% for the Allies at the D-Day landings. So while less men were sent into combat in the PTO, resulting in fewer total deaths and woundings, a soldiers chances of surviving were acutally far less the Pacific than in Europe.

Of course it all depends on how you look at it and which method suits your personal tastes. A historian would argue the ETO was worse while an economist would say the PTO was.

No, lets be clear about this: there are far more casualties, never mind the percentages & wounded and this and that, in the European theatre in WW2 than there are in the Pacific. The Russians alone lost something in the region of 20,000 000 people in total & that dwarfs any other figures in the Pacific.