• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

True that 20th century wars have killed more people than in all previous recorded history?

C

CarpeDeo

Golden Member
I once heard this before, but dunno if it's true. Hoping to use this in a report.

Couldn't find a quick google answer.

Of course- this is completely disregarding factors like world population at the time, un-recorded death tolls, etc.

edit

For clarification:

The question I'm asking is: True or False? On a global scale, all the wars/battles fought in the last century (1900-present) have killed more people than all the wars/battles of history prior to that (XXXXBC-1900).
 
Probably in numbers, but not in proportion.

Stuff like the Crusades in Europe and some revolutions in Asia probably had casualties near that of the plague. Less overall deaths, much, much greater overall percentage of people killed, since most able-bodied men were in the army when their country was at war.
 
Ok I don't want to misread so I just want to make sure you mean wars of the 21st century have killed more wars then all wars before the 20th century, is that correct?

If that is what you mean then I think the answer is very clear. Warfare has become increasing deadly and more efficient since WWI. SO many people died in WWI, WII. Staggering numbers!! Don't want to forget those who died in other large wars ('nam, korea, etc)

 
in numbers, not as proportion. bloodiest wars happen between primitive tribes. the % o f population dead is what matters.
 
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
 
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

Where the hell are you getting your figures from????????????????

I am astonished to read the figures you just gave me.

This should be more like the numbers:

WW1: 15,000,000
Russian Civil War: 9,000,000 (during stalins regime a further 20,000,000)
WW2: 55,000,000
Chinese Civil war: 2,500,000
 
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

I think you suffer from Americanitis the death toll of WW2 alone was close to 60 000 000
 
Originally posted by: bobalong
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

Where the hell are you getting your figures from????????????????

I am astonished to read the figures you just gave me.

This should be more like the numbers:

WW1: 15,000,000
Russian Civil War: 9,000,000 (during stalins regime a further 20,000,000)
WW2: 55,000,000
Chinese Civil war: 2,500,000
Click to expand...

55 million died in WWII?😕
 
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

WTF? Don't they teach you kids history anymore?

Battle of Verdun

This *one battle* in WWI had more killed than your figures for the entire WWI and WWII. People complain nowadays that oh, there were 100 casualties for X battle, it is so horrible, or whatever (which it is!), but they forget that in the perspective of the last century, 100 casualties is essentially equal to 0 casualties in the context of war.
 
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I hope we all agree that war is despicable.
Click to expand...

most definately
Click to expand...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mill
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: B00ne
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I hope we all agree that war is despicable.
Click to expand...

most definately
Click to expand...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mill
Click to expand...

I never agreed with that. Pride and freedom do not, in an of themselves, demand conflict. If anthying, true freedom is absolution from conflict.
 
The ugliest creature from my vantage point is a society that does not know unabated joy. This society dwells on fear and terror, fearing the threat of fear, when it is all they have to protect.

True freedom and true joy come from accepting the invariatable meaningless of life and living to ones capacity for the sake of living.
 
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

Notice I said "if." I was using grrl's figures. I don't suppose to say that those are accurate, or even close. I didn't want to bother looking them up. I was just pointing out that IF those were the figures for WW1 and 2, the Civil War alone equals that. It does not account for any other 21st century war.
 
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: bobalong
CHeck this out for the figures for wars in the 21st century
Click to expand...

But that requires us to pull out our calculators:roll:

😉
Click to expand...

Just using "wars" that killed 3 million or more:

Pre-20th century
Fall of Rome (3rd to 5th century) = 8 million
An Lushan Revolt (8th century) = 36 million
Mongol Conquests (13th century) = 40 million
Thuggee (13th to 19th century) = 9 million
Timur Lenk (14th to 15th century) = 17 million
North American Indian Wars (15th to 19th century) = 20 million
Huegenot War (16th century) = 3 million
Manchu Conquest (17th century) = 25 million
Thirty ears War (17th century) = 7 million
Taiping Rebellion (19th century) = 20 million
British Conquest and Occupation of India (19th century) = 20 million
Napoleonic Wars (19th century) = 4 million
Congo Free State (19th century) = 8 million
Total = 217 million

20th century and later
First World War = 15 million
Stalin's Purges = 20 million
Second World War = 55 million
Russian Civil War = 9 million
Chinese Civil War = 3 million
Total = 102 million

I think it's safe to say the 20th century doesn't even come close. And that's JUST wars. Modern medicine has spared us from plagues even *approaching* the fatality level of the Black Plague.
 
Originally posted by: bobalong
Originally posted by: Rayden
I'd think wars before 1900's would be more. If the Civil War was 600,000 and WWI and WWII were a little over 600,000, this still leaves all the other wars before 1900's.
Click to expand...

Where the hell are you getting your figures from????????????????

I am astonished to read the figures you just gave me.

This should be more like the numbers:

WW1: 15,000,000
Russian Civil War: 9,000,000 (during stalins regime a further 20,000,000)
WW2: 55,000,000
Chinese Civil war: 2,500,000
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious his figures for WWI and WWII are US casualtiy numbers, which are approxximately right.
 
Originally posted by: dderidex
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Originally posted by: bobalong
CHeck this out for the figures for wars in the 21st century
Click to expand...

But that requires us to pull out our calculators:roll:

😉
Click to expand...

Just using "wars" that killed 3 million or more:

Pre-20th century
Fall of Rome (3rd to 5th century) = 8 million
An Lushan Revolt (8th century) = 36 million
Mongol Conquests (13th century) = 40 million
Thuggee (13th to 19th century) = 9 million
Timur Lenk (14th to 15th century) = 17 million
North American Indian Wars (15th to 19th century) = 20 million
Huegenot War (16th century) = 3 million
Manchu Conquest (17th century) = 25 million
Thirty ears War (17th century) = 7 million
Taiping Rebellion (19th century) = 20 million
British Conquest and Occupation of India (19th century) = 20 million
Napoleonic Wars (19th century) = 4 million
Congo Free State (19th century) = 8 million
Total = 217 million

20th century and later
First World War = 15 million
Stalin's Purges = 20 million
Second World War = 55 million
Russian Civil War = 9 million
Chinese Civil War = 3 million
Total = 102 million

I think it's safe to say the 20th century doesn't even come close. And that's JUST wars. Modern medicine has spared us from plagues even *approaching* the fatality level of the Black Plague.
Click to expand...
You forgot the 40 million killed in China under Chairman Mao. The ~3 million in the Korean War. Plus ~5 million for the Vietnam War (including Cambodia and Laos). Over a million in Rwanda, over a million in Ethiopa, over a million in South Africa, a million from the Iran/Iraq war, almost 2 million in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, etc.

There are many more dead from war in the 20th Century than 102 million.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top