Second, Australia does not follow the international practice of our allies and Germany in this conflict determining war casualties by counting deaths and total hospitalisations due to illness and injury in addition to hospitalisations for wounding. Australia only records 155,000 wounding admissions and omits illness and injury. Once the international practice is applied, Australia’s total hospitalisations were five times greater than officially acknowledged: 750,000 admissions for approximately the 308,000 men of the AIF who served in a theatre of war. Hospitalisations due to wounding were higher than that officially acknowledged too, climbing to 208,000 admissions (+/- 500), 30 per cent of which were admissions due to shell shock. The men of the AIF were decimated.
Not sure if I completely agree with the conclusions made about the Milgram experiment. I would agree that some element of "it was for the greater good" does come into play, but I don't think you can completely disregard the role of obedience to commands. The podcaster asserted that only the 4th prompt was a true command, and that the previous 3 were not commands. I would instead argue that there is no clear distinction between command and not-command here, but that each prompt is progressively more forceful.
The major bias in saying that not one person gave the shock after being commanded to do so (ie after being given the 4th prompt) is that the ONLY people who ever received the 4th prompt were people who had already disobeyed 3 strongly worded prompts asking them to give the shock.
So it seems to me that the only people who were ever given the 4th prompt were the participants who were most assertive in their moral stance. The people who were liable to follow commands against their better moral judgement had already caved at one of the earlier prompts, such as "the experiment requires that you continue."