by "Ron Calls on his years of experience....and freezes at the controls" (internerdstuff)
Published 05/30/2017 at 09:21
by "Ron Calls on his years of experience....and freezes at the controls" (internerdstuff)
Published 05/30/2017 at 09:21
No Tags
STARS: 2
Not being american im not sure i ever knew what memorial day was before now.
Anyway it got me thinking about how grateful lots of people are for the help of americans -then as my mind tends to do- i started thinking of related matters such as which other countries should be super grateful to their lost soldiers.
... which started me thinking in terms of percentage of population lost in wars.
I wonder which countries have taken the hardest hits during relatively recent wars?Say in the last couple of hundred years.
It’s not the kind of statistic i’ve seen very much.I’ve read stories of maybe a hundred(?) million chinese dying in the 19th century but IIRC those numbers are heavily disputed.And also they had a massive population so obviously it’s not a large percentage.
As we all know the russians lost masses in WW2 but i dont know what their population was so cant guess how hard it affected them.It had to be bad though- maybe 1/5 or 1/4 lost?
I definitely DO recall reading that germany lost only 10% of their population in WW2 which sounds crazy for a country that fought so much,and lost.If true they got off easy!!!
Another i recall reading about is France in WW1- they lost so many young men that it put a huge dent in their desire to resist the german attack in WW2 .All dumb surrender jokes aside i can see their point of view.
Anyways just rambling thoughts.Feel free to comment or link to stats that show such things as i couldnt find much online.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 09:33, STARS: 1
I hope you remember, in all this idle musing, that you’re talking about real people who lost their lives. Saying a country “got off easy” after they lost a war, as cavalier as if they’d lost a game of checkers, or “dumb surrender jokes aside” is disrespectful of the dead.
"kanadanmajava1" (kanadanmajava1)
05/30/2017 at 09:33, STARS: 2
Poland had pretty nasty role in WWII and after this. Invading Germany destroyed their leaders and intellectual part of their people. When Soviet Union pushed the Germany away, the people were again under new hostile rulers.
"Svend" (svend)
05/30/2017 at 09:34, STARS: 3
This is an interesting video on war dead through time.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
It puts into perspective wars through time and people lost both in numbers and percentages of population.
Interactive website.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
05/30/2017 at 09:35, STARS: 1
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
It was not uncommon to see towns in Russia without men of a certain age group.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
05/30/2017 at 09:36, STARS: 3
All time:
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-most-devastating-war-in-human-lives-adjusted-for-world-population
WWII:
"scoob" (scoobsti)
05/30/2017 at 09:36, STARS: 0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll
Edit: This one shows just wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
05/30/2017 at 09:41, STARS: 3
Many wars
—
especially in prior centuries
—
have put significant dents in the future of those nations or areas where the soldiers came from. One thing that changed a lot over time is not having entire military units come from one town, as was the norm for a very long time. Suddenly an entire town (in the US) could be decimated, along with families, businesses, livelihoods. It was a lot more far
-
reaching than just the soldier
’
s death. These days, we
“
mix up
”
our recruits and ensure they
’
re not all from one family or town.
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 09:42, STARS: 1
Wow, really?
"fintail" (fintail)
05/30/2017 at 09:43, STARS: 2
That’s the one. Central and eastern Europe, especially Poland, suffered tremendously. First the Nazis invaded and devastated them, then the west betrayed them and fed them to the Soviet wolves for roughly 45 years.
"fintail" (fintail)
05/30/2017 at 09:47, STARS: 0
If Germany “got off easy”, then Britain certainly did as well relative to its endless crimes of empire. Oops, can’t say that, might offend people.
"If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent" (essextee)
05/30/2017 at 09:47, STARS: 0
This has what you’re looking for:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
05/30/2017 at 09:50, STARS: 0
Important to note that China is at 15 million.
"Svend" (svend)
05/30/2017 at 09:52, STARS: 1
Posted the same video.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 09:55, STARS: 0
When you’re talking about an entire generation or generations of people who lost millions of people, then yeah, really.
And not listed in those WWII musings are the 6 million Jews who were killed, or the other millions of political dissidents or social outcasts who were killed right along with them. War, and its horrific consequences, should never be bantered about like some sort of peewee baseball game.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 09:57, STARS: 2
Yep. Was listening to one woman talk about that at a Memorial Day event yesterday. She spoke of how all three of her brothers went to Vietnam. Fortunately, they all returned safe and sound. But it wasn’t uncommon for an entire generation of brothers to go off to war and for some or all of them to be killed there.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
05/30/2017 at 10:08, STARS: 1
War is disrespectful of the dead and the living. Military Statistics and the comparison of dead and wounded is actually a fascinating yet macabre field of study, but it’s study is often the goal to more effective and decisive military action, which will save lives over the course of a war. I took a few military history classes one of which was “War and Peace in the Nuclear Age: a statistical analysis of war” which started in WWII and went through modern times, essentially how many deaths/casualties does it take, as a percentage of the population to win a conflict. Some of what we thought was the most damaging and effective use of tactical power, take the firebombing of Dresden for example had little effect on the outcome of the war, even though civilian casualties were extremely high and it damaged significant portions of the Nazi industrial infrastructure. It was even a cause celebre used in propganda, think “Remember the Alamo” among the Nazi’s, something that the Modern US should understand with our Drone strikes and constant military melding. The generally accepted threshold for unit casualties to force a retreat is 10-12% if they have a place to retreat to, for a nation or organization, that number is much higher. In Vietnam, airborne bombing had little effect to either the will to fight of the VC or their ability to fight, the same could have been said about the Russian conflict with Afghanistan which should have been a warning to the US about invasion. When there is little infrastructure to destroy, typical modern tactics of war are less effective. It then becomes a war of attrition and finding the statistical breaking point for each country.
Here is an interesting comparison of casualty rates through history: https://www.quora.com/How-has-mortality-rate-per-battle-changed-throughout-history
One could even argue that limited engagement, and lack of higher casualties has perpetuated military conflict in the Middle East. Yes these are all real people with stories and families and loved ones, but when governments decide to go to war, soldiers become statistics and game pieces on a large board to history.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 10:16, STARS: 0
Cool, Travis. Thanks for that really long explanation of something I wasn’t objecting to in the first place.
I wasn’t objecting to the study of military statistics, the effects of certain small scale events on the larger scale whole, or even the study of acceptable casualty percentages.
I wasn’t objecting to the academic or practical study of war and its effects. I was objecting to the idea that a country didn’t suffer ENOUGH from a war because they were the “bad guys” and therefore should have. That’s absurd and damned disrespectful. And it leads to shit like this , some idiot who was wholly un-involved in a particular war holding a grudge about an entire group of people nearly eight decades after that war has ended.
Cavalier attitudes like that make it all the easier to dehumanize — and villainize — people in ways that make wars all the easier to occur.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
05/30/2017 at 11:23, STARS: 1
I was objecting to the idea that a country didn’t suffer ENOUGH from a war because they were the “bad guys” and therefore should have.
So you think the Confederate South suffered enough?
From my level of understanding, the fact that Sherman didn’t burn enough of the South and didn’t hang enough traitors at a time when we could have snuffed out the heart of the Confederacy is EXACTLY why we have shit like that. The Union did not properly cultivate in the defeat of the Confederacy a sense of shame, dishonor, and disgust for what the South fought for, Slavery.
Slavers were inhuman, Those that supported the institution of slavery were inhuman. They are villains. You can kill ideology through education, but if the South wasn’t willing in the reconstruction era (and still isn’t) to be taught, It is my understanding of military history and statistics that ideology will disappear with the death of enough people.
Every Confederate monument should come down, and those that object should be thrown in jail and put to hard labor until they are properly educated as to why slavery is evil and why we don’t put Traitors on pedestals.
Germany on the other hand did suffer enough, they suffered enough to see the error of their ways. They feel a great national shame for what they did, even today. The Holocaust is nothing that they shy away from in discussion, they are given an extremely in-depth education of it in school so that each person understands that the civilian populous is what allowed Hitler to rise to power, commit atrocities and make the German people complicit in his actions. We still to this day vilify Nazis, but the German people have shed that stigma for the most part, because they accepted their wrong doing, something a true son of the Confederacy would never do.
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 11:30, STARS: 0
I think there has been a misunderstanding, as no one was saying that the german population didn’t suffer enough. The way I took it and the way I believe it was intended was a reflection of how easily the German population had it compared to some of the other countries involved. The whole point of the post was to remember those who fought, not to trivialize their deaths. To go back to the “had it easy” phrase, let me use an example. I have 3 brothers, and my aunt has 3 boys, all of us are currently of the age we would probably be drafted in the event of a draft scenario. Imagine my brothers, cousins and I all go off to war, and all of my brothers comeback except one, we’ve come out of the whole horrible mess pretty easy compared to if my only one of my cousins survives. That’s all there is to it. No one is disputing the horror of war.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 11:31, STARS: 0
Travis, my white friend from Michigan. I’m going to ask you politely exactly once, to not lecture me about the consequences of the Civil War, and its continuing legacy of discrimination and oppression in The South, where I, a person of color, was born, grew up and currently live.
And also, you’re STILL lecturing me about things I either 1. already know, or 2. wasn’t talking about to begin with. I KNOW the lasting legacy of shame Germany felt/feels about World War II. I wasn’t the one arguing they didn’t suffer enough, that was the OP, who said, and I QUOTE:
“I definitely DO recall reading that germany lost only 10% of their population in WW2 which sounds crazy for a country that fought so much,and lost.If true they got off easy!!!”
and:
“I genuinely think germany got off easy (sic)”
Step off, Travis.
I’ll be dismissing any further replies from you.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 11:36, STARS: 1
I understand that. But look at it from my point of view. Imagine if, in that scenario, someone went up to your mother and said, “Hey, Mrs. Maxima Speed, you only lost ONE of your sons. You got off pretty easy!”
I’m betting you’d have a pretty hard time NOT punching that jerk in the face. And I’m betting your mom would feel like SHE had just been punched in the gut, repeatedly.
"Zukka" (zukka924)
05/30/2017 at 11:45, STARS: 1
The Confederacy is totally different, in one aspect- Lincoln had always planned for the South to be reintegrated back into the Union. He didn’t want to CONQUER the South and destroy all the dissidents, he wanted everyone to become friends again. Had Lincoln not been assassinated and had Reconstruction been allowed to take place under proper leadership (read: NOT UNDER GRANT, who was a great general but a piss-poor leader), those monuments would’ve been taken down.
You are quite right that “The Union did not properly cultivate in the defeat of the Confederacy a sense of shame, dishonor, and disgust for what the South fought for, Slavery.” But punitive punishment would’ve not done the trick. Astute leadership under Lincoln would’ve....I THINK- obviously this is all hypothetical, and we’ll never know what might’ve been had Lincoln not been killed. Burning the South further would just cause further division and resentment. Yes slavery is despicable, and everyone who was a part of the slave trade knew how awful it was. But we can’t just kill them all, that’s not how compromise works.
My point is, I think comparing the Civil War to a war like WWII is kinda pointless.
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 12:01, STARS: 0
True, I understand, you are right in that respect. I do however, still maintain that it was merely a mistake in the phrasing which led to this misunderstanding, as opposed to mal-intent towards the German people. That’s all the opinion I have on the matter, I must move on now. Good day sir.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 12:02, STARS: 0
Ma’am.*
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 12:14, STARS: 0
Human*
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 12:16, STARS: 0
Cool story, bro. Except I wasn’t trying to be cute. I am a woman. Please don’t belittle me.
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 13:07, STARS: 0
You know what? I’m done! Apparently you are not interested in carrying on a normal conversation with any meaning to it. I try to add levity to a situation in an extremely inoffensive manner, you cut me down acting like a victim. No one is attacking you, no one is trying to offend you. You are taking issue with every one who dares oppose you. You have to have the last word don’t you! I called you a human being and you get offended, you are a troll and I’m not going to waste my time talking to you anymore. In case you are not aware of how you are coming across, in case you are inexperienced with using the internet as a means of conversing via text (an imperfect medium for conveying emotion), there was not any humor in the above text.
"Maxima Speed" (maximaspeed)
05/30/2017 at 13:10, STARS: 0
I object to the confederate monuments coming down. I’m serious.
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 13:14, STARS: 0
The only one getting angry here is you, dude. But then I look at your very next comment, wherein you are objecting to the removal of monuments that glorify hatred and racism and suddenly things make all sorts of sense. Funny that, huh?
"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3)
05/30/2017 at 13:16, STARS: 1
Starred and followed you for Oppo to bring you out of the greys. I’ve seen you around before, so I don’t know why you were grey to begin with.
"Zukka" (zukka924)
05/30/2017 at 13:35, STARS: 1
:) Why thankya! Mainly I lurk around these parts, I’m not as knowledgeable on cars as I am about sports (Deadspin) or pop culture (Jezebel), so I don’t comment around here that much. But when I see fascinating discussions (and I feel like I always see you stick up for yourself in a super impressive way) I’ll comment every now and then.