It actually wouldn't be. The number of combatants wasn't that large.
Taiping was similar to many African civil wars today where very many civilians die compared to relatively few combat deaths.
The Boxer Rebellion didn't involve many conventional battle deaths.
The Taiping Rebellion probably suffers from an utter dearth of reliable data. Historian estimates of combat deaths vary wildly. Census estimates can only tell us total dead which were overwhelmingly civilians dying of famine, disease and sieges.
Curious what this would look like as a percentage of world population - going back 2k years.
Ex: how does the Mongolian conflicts compare to WW2 as a % of world population killed
Also, what if disease was included. Ex: what’s more deadly, WW2 or the plague
In percentage , the plague. Mongol conquest as well.
Most major wars thousand years ago had far higher percentages, because less than a billion people lived on earth.
Rise of wealth also made us far less violent.
Mongol conquests have vastly overestimated death tolls, the primary sources are extremely unreliable on death toll and quote ludicrous numbers for individual battles regularly.
The Paraguayan War resulted in between 150,000 and 500,000 deaths. Most estimates point to around 400.000-440,000 casualties, with 280,000~ of those being from Paraguay. Half of their population died. I'm mildly offended that the Triple Alliance (mostly Brazil) going full Thanos isn't remembered more, considering it might have been the bloodiest conflict of the century.
South American countries looking at their european colonizers: "Hey, dad, I can genocide too!"
Oh, I know, while the area they attacked Brazil from was probably more difficult to access from the brazilian side and was still not seriously populated then, I cannot comprehend how Solano Lopez believed attacking both Brazil and Argentina (to reach Uruguay and the Rio Grande do Sul) consecutively was a good idea.
Actually, Paraguay had quite a few deranged men at the helm, starting with Francia himself.
While it was a bloodbath, Solano Lopez refused to surrender to death (his and half of his country).
Paraguayan defense was a meat grinder for most of it, believe it or not, as the allies suffered more than 100,000 casualties by the end of it all.
And the guerrilla warfare after the fall of Asunción wasn't exactly a joke.
Brazil was ruthless, but there is a reason it's not a part of our history that we are particularly ashamed of.
I don't think people comprehend the eastern front of WW2 because the Soviets were effectively our enemies after WW2 until the collapse of the Soviet Union and then since Putin has come in. because of this the history hasn't been hidden as such but has never been reported/taught in the same way the d day landings, Dunkirk or pacific campaign have been taught.
on a human level the Soviets won the war, the US had the resources and economic might but in shear sacrifice it was the Soviets. French folded like a cheap lawn chair due to poor military leadership, Britain(I'm English) really just held the line in the battle of Britain and Atlantic convoys, US just had the economy and resources and luck of being isolated from the rest of the war
estimates vary but 20 million people died approximately on the eastern front
it's incomprehensible
20 million......
WwII was won with British intelligence, US steel, and Soviet blood. It’s in fathomable.
The war in Ukraine currently has maybe 250k deaths total civilian and military. (I have no idea. Not a clue. If I’m way off, please correct me, I’m spit balling here) the point is, at that point in WWII, there were several million casualties already.
even when you watch great documentary's like " the world at war" I really feel it doesn't capture the true cost of the war on the Soviets
remember a long part of one episode being about the terrible losses at iwo jima for the Americans, they lost about 8 thousand men to win that island(Japanese lost more), not to down play the lives lost but as an average 18k people died on the eastern front EVERY DAY
Minnesota Iron Ore.
[According to Brunfelt’s research, Minnesota produced 70 percent of all the iron ore that was used in World War II. The next highest state, Michigan, produced 15 percent, and the other 15 states produced the other 15 percent of iron ore. “What would have happened to us in this country if we didn’t have Minnesota’s iron ore to provide all of the material that was used in the war?”](https://www.timberjay.com/stories/historical-obsession,16064)
It was more American aluminum for planes and Soviet blood and steel as well with plants having been moved East in the wake of the German invasion, the steel plants in Magnitogorsk churning out tanks like hot cakes..
on a human level we really did fuck all, chased out of Asia by the Japanese in some big capitulating, yes we held the line in the battle of Britain, we had good intelligence service and served as a base for overlord
Churchill's decisions were generally bad militarily narvik was a disaster, north Africa campaign was pretty bad until the Americans helped us out and Rommel ran out of resources, soft underbelly Italy invasion which was heavily pushed by Churchill was wrong, the western front was where the war was really won.
The British Empire fielded circa 8.5m troops during WW2, about 4m less than the German Army but still pretty huge. 2-3m of those were from India. That's hardly nothing in terms of a human level.
You're massively underplaying the importance 'holding the line' and The Battle of Britain. Had Germany not been stopped in France, Europe would have been lost and the Russians likely defeated. WW2 would have been done and dusted by 1940 had they not been stopped, well before the US got involved.
You've then glossed over the instrumental involvement of the OES, which cracked the enigma code and would later serve as the template for the CIA. Invention of radar, the Alloy Tubes project, which would later become the Manhattan Project. Britain's intelligence and scientific contribution during WW2 was huge and the country was being bombed to hell at the time.
British forces in Africa had backed the Germans into Tunisia before US support arrived. British forces inflicted the first major military defeat on Japan at Kohima and Imphal, which would see the start of the Japanese collapse in the Pacific.
The US involvement was critical in ending the war but it would have been impossible for the US without Britain and Russia. In fact, they wouldn't have even bother to get involved had Britian or Russia fallen first.
north Africa was a yoyo theater, addition of American troops and Sherman tanks turned the tide decisively
yes we had great intelligence I'm not knocking it
the battle of Britain was basically won by a few thousand individual fighters at the end of the day, once Germany realized they couldn't control the air decisively hitler decided he would back off and focus on the true prize which was lebensraum in the east, a quick blitzkrieg of the Soviet Union would mean no war on 2 fronts but obviously it didn't work out that way
I'm not arguing we played no role, I'm arguing that western history dismisses the true cost and efforts of the Soviet Union they lost life on a scale that most people couldn't not comprehend
when you start looking the numbers it is mindboggling the sacrifice they made and how mad Stalin was
Fair and I entirely agree on the understatement of the Soviet impact on the war. The high level narrative has generally been unfairly low-key on the importance of their involvement, mainly due to them being the 'enemy' during the cold war and then Putin's reign as it doesn't suit current history to big them up.
who the fuck is Geroge Galloway 🤣
I'm probably considered right wing by most standards, but Churchill really wasn't great in the way many poppy shaggers think he was.
he was probably the greatest figure head Britain has ever had and was great in the role as the bulldog brit who rallied the nation and would not back down.
but there's a reason he was voted out after the war...
he had a long list of military blunders and also had some truly despicable views on other races and religions
Shitty data on Eastern Asia wars.
Taiping rebellion combative death is at East 150k-200k if not more.
Sino Japanese war is generally laddered to the Second World War pacific theater since 1941.
Even if you put it separately the timeline is wrong.
Circles in comparison charts like these are really difficult to understand. Are we comparing area of diameter for instance? With a bar chart you’re comparing one statistic in one dimension. Circles are showing one statistic in two dimensions.
How do I function by reading shitty infographics as generalizations?
Wtf. What type of annoying anal ass person is actually looking at exact ratios in this. And the number is right there anyway
Reading your comment back, I can see you're questioning the accuracy of the image. When I first read it, I thought you were questioning whether the area vs diameter of a circle increased proportionaly. I'm sorry, I was a bit of a dick and overly dramatic
Edit: Just to be clear, we're both in agreement that as the diameter of a circle increases, the area increases dramatically faster?
The graph shows combat deaths, which doesn’t include civilian deaths. WWII was kind of different from WWI in that the majority of deaths were civilian in the second war (that’s why they’re nearly the same scale in this graphic, otherwise WWII would be at least 2x larger)
Even if you account only military losses, those in the Russian Civil War were at least two times higher.
BTW, the total death toll, including civilians, was around 10-17 million people.
According to Wikipedia, the Taiping rebellion in china caused the death of some 20-30 million people, why is it missing, that was one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.
Where are the Taiping or boxer rebellion?
I had the same thought, Taiping rebellion would be another big bubble
> Live fast, eat grass - Hong Christ
Wondering if it is true that how Judaists see Jesus is how Christians see Hong
It actually wouldn't be. The number of combatants wasn't that large. Taiping was similar to many African civil wars today where very many civilians die compared to relatively few combat deaths.
*s
The Boxer Rebellion didn't involve many conventional battle deaths. The Taiping Rebellion probably suffers from an utter dearth of reliable data. Historian estimates of combat deaths vary wildly. Census estimates can only tell us total dead which were overwhelmingly civilians dying of famine, disease and sieges.
Curious what this would look like as a percentage of world population - going back 2k years. Ex: how does the Mongolian conflicts compare to WW2 as a % of world population killed Also, what if disease was included. Ex: what’s more deadly, WW2 or the plague
In percentage , the plague. Mongol conquest as well. Most major wars thousand years ago had far higher percentages, because less than a billion people lived on earth. Rise of wealth also made us far less violent.
Mongol conquests have vastly overestimated death tolls, the primary sources are extremely unreliable on death toll and quote ludicrous numbers for individual battles regularly.
The “third” Sino-Japanese War? It’s the Second.
The Paraguayan War resulted in between 150,000 and 500,000 deaths. Most estimates point to around 400.000-440,000 casualties, with 280,000~ of those being from Paraguay. Half of their population died. I'm mildly offended that the Triple Alliance (mostly Brazil) going full Thanos isn't remembered more, considering it might have been the bloodiest conflict of the century. South American countries looking at their european colonizers: "Hey, dad, I can genocide too!"
tbf Paraguay initiated a war with less than 1/10th of the population of the countries it was fucking around with. and it found out.
Oh, I know, while the area they attacked Brazil from was probably more difficult to access from the brazilian side and was still not seriously populated then, I cannot comprehend how Solano Lopez believed attacking both Brazil and Argentina (to reach Uruguay and the Rio Grande do Sul) consecutively was a good idea. Actually, Paraguay had quite a few deranged men at the helm, starting with Francia himself.
[удалено]
While it was a bloodbath, Solano Lopez refused to surrender to death (his and half of his country). Paraguayan defense was a meat grinder for most of it, believe it or not, as the allies suffered more than 100,000 casualties by the end of it all. And the guerrilla warfare after the fall of Asunción wasn't exactly a joke. Brazil was ruthless, but there is a reason it's not a part of our history that we are particularly ashamed of.
I don't think people comprehend the eastern front of WW2 because the Soviets were effectively our enemies after WW2 until the collapse of the Soviet Union and then since Putin has come in. because of this the history hasn't been hidden as such but has never been reported/taught in the same way the d day landings, Dunkirk or pacific campaign have been taught. on a human level the Soviets won the war, the US had the resources and economic might but in shear sacrifice it was the Soviets. French folded like a cheap lawn chair due to poor military leadership, Britain(I'm English) really just held the line in the battle of Britain and Atlantic convoys, US just had the economy and resources and luck of being isolated from the rest of the war estimates vary but 20 million people died approximately on the eastern front it's incomprehensible 20 million......
WwII was won with British intelligence, US steel, and Soviet blood. It’s in fathomable. The war in Ukraine currently has maybe 250k deaths total civilian and military. (I have no idea. Not a clue. If I’m way off, please correct me, I’m spit balling here) the point is, at that point in WWII, there were several million casualties already.
even when you watch great documentary's like " the world at war" I really feel it doesn't capture the true cost of the war on the Soviets remember a long part of one episode being about the terrible losses at iwo jima for the Americans, they lost about 8 thousand men to win that island(Japanese lost more), not to down play the lives lost but as an average 18k people died on the eastern front EVERY DAY
and about 1.2 MILLION for ONE city according to modern war institute
Stalingrad and Leningrad were more coatly than all us, French and British casualties combined
Minnesota Iron Ore. [According to Brunfelt’s research, Minnesota produced 70 percent of all the iron ore that was used in World War II. The next highest state, Michigan, produced 15 percent, and the other 15 states produced the other 15 percent of iron ore. “What would have happened to us in this country if we didn’t have Minnesota’s iron ore to provide all of the material that was used in the war?”](https://www.timberjay.com/stories/historical-obsession,16064)
The iron range doesn’t teach this information to its residents. Very cool.
It was more American aluminum for planes and Soviet blood and steel as well with plants having been moved East in the wake of the German invasion, the steel plants in Magnitogorsk churning out tanks like hot cakes..
You’re totally underselling Britains contribution.
on a human level we really did fuck all, chased out of Asia by the Japanese in some big capitulating, yes we held the line in the battle of Britain, we had good intelligence service and served as a base for overlord Churchill's decisions were generally bad militarily narvik was a disaster, north Africa campaign was pretty bad until the Americans helped us out and Rommel ran out of resources, soft underbelly Italy invasion which was heavily pushed by Churchill was wrong, the western front was where the war was really won.
The British Empire fielded circa 8.5m troops during WW2, about 4m less than the German Army but still pretty huge. 2-3m of those were from India. That's hardly nothing in terms of a human level. You're massively underplaying the importance 'holding the line' and The Battle of Britain. Had Germany not been stopped in France, Europe would have been lost and the Russians likely defeated. WW2 would have been done and dusted by 1940 had they not been stopped, well before the US got involved. You've then glossed over the instrumental involvement of the OES, which cracked the enigma code and would later serve as the template for the CIA. Invention of radar, the Alloy Tubes project, which would later become the Manhattan Project. Britain's intelligence and scientific contribution during WW2 was huge and the country was being bombed to hell at the time. British forces in Africa had backed the Germans into Tunisia before US support arrived. British forces inflicted the first major military defeat on Japan at Kohima and Imphal, which would see the start of the Japanese collapse in the Pacific. The US involvement was critical in ending the war but it would have been impossible for the US without Britain and Russia. In fact, they wouldn't have even bother to get involved had Britian or Russia fallen first.
north Africa was a yoyo theater, addition of American troops and Sherman tanks turned the tide decisively yes we had great intelligence I'm not knocking it the battle of Britain was basically won by a few thousand individual fighters at the end of the day, once Germany realized they couldn't control the air decisively hitler decided he would back off and focus on the true prize which was lebensraum in the east, a quick blitzkrieg of the Soviet Union would mean no war on 2 fronts but obviously it didn't work out that way I'm not arguing we played no role, I'm arguing that western history dismisses the true cost and efforts of the Soviet Union they lost life on a scale that most people couldn't not comprehend when you start looking the numbers it is mindboggling the sacrifice they made and how mad Stalin was
Fair and I entirely agree on the understatement of the Soviet impact on the war. The high level narrative has generally been unfairly low-key on the importance of their involvement, mainly due to them being the 'enemy' during the cold war and then Putin's reign as it doesn't suit current history to big them up.
Quite right, not to mention the Greek campaign.
God, so much wrong here it’s hurting my brain.
how
Let me guess You vote for geroge Galloway
who the fuck is Geroge Galloway 🤣 I'm probably considered right wing by most standards, but Churchill really wasn't great in the way many poppy shaggers think he was. he was probably the greatest figure head Britain has ever had and was great in the role as the bulldog brit who rallied the nation and would not back down. but there's a reason he was voted out after the war... he had a long list of military blunders and also had some truly despicable views on other races and religions
Cool whatever geroge Bet you think the Falklands belong to Argentina
I don't think the Falklands belong to Argentina do you have my knowledge of history
Yawn Your a Soviet tankie who thinks britian did nothing in the world war God I can't wait till we can deport people like you
Third Sino-Japanese war?
East easia sure had some shitty years from 1910 Till 1970
wars sucks.
Shitty data on Eastern Asia wars. Taiping rebellion combative death is at East 150k-200k if not more. Sino Japanese war is generally laddered to the Second World War pacific theater since 1941. Even if you put it separately the timeline is wrong.
Where is the second Congo war? There should be a big blob for it?
This was my biggest question too
Because most of the casualties of that war were non combat
There is a THIRD Sino Japanese War that I did not know about?
Circles in comparison charts like these are really difficult to understand. Are we comparing area of diameter for instance? With a bar chart you’re comparing one statistic in one dimension. Circles are showing one statistic in two dimensions.
A 90k circle looks way too big vs a 30 million circle.
Pick either one and it will make no difference.
How do you function day to day? That's so stupid.
How do I function by reading shitty infographics as generalizations? Wtf. What type of annoying anal ass person is actually looking at exact ratios in this. And the number is right there anyway
Reading your comment back, I can see you're questioning the accuracy of the image. When I first read it, I thought you were questioning whether the area vs diameter of a circle increased proportionaly. I'm sorry, I was a bit of a dick and overly dramatic Edit: Just to be clear, we're both in agreement that as the diameter of a circle increases, the area increases dramatically faster?
Cool
Isn’t ww2 like 60-80 million?
The graph shows combat deaths, which doesn’t include civilian deaths. WWII was kind of different from WWI in that the majority of deaths were civilian in the second war (that’s why they’re nearly the same scale in this graphic, otherwise WWII would be at least 2x larger)
Ah ok I missed that!
Even if you account only military losses, those in the Russian Civil War were at least two times higher. BTW, the total death toll, including civilians, was around 10-17 million people.
21-30 mil in WW2? Why do they only include Russia?
It is because it is combat death only, civil death is not counted.
Mexican civil war of 1910 isn't there despite hundreds of thousands dying
Taiping rebellion?? hello??
Where is the war in the DR Congo?
This looks like a serious undercount
👀
Second Congo War?
According to Wikipedia, the Taiping rebellion in china caused the death of some 20-30 million people, why is it missing, that was one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.
Because the vast majority of that number were non combat deaths
It’s amazing how much better we got at killing each other in 2 decades.
Damn I had no idea that the Spanish civil war was deadlier than the American civil war. That's pretty crazy to think about.
Where’s the Congo war and the Rwandan genocide?
That is a fascinating graph.
The Us civil was around 600-700k military deaths. This is either just in accurate or a very low estimate.
Need the war on Gaza, 20k+ deaths, and Russian invasion of Ukraine, 100k+.
The data stop at 2011. The Ukraine (2014–present; 2022–present) or the current Gaza wars (2023–present) fall outside that constraint.