I suppose perhaps some clarity is in order: My argument is not that the West is worse than the rest. My argument is that "we" have no good reason for self-congratulation when it comes to violence. It's just been done differently. However, the numbers still speak plenty loud.
Well, I believe I actually addressed the starvation point in earlier posts. I think it is a slightly different (though no less horrible) thing to kill millions of people through misguided economic policies than it is to kill them either directly or indirectly through modern warfare. Since the question at hand is "does being western mitigate, even a little bit, the dangers of modern weaponry", my answer remains a firm no. But, even if you include Mao's famines, they are still more than canceled out by WWII.
As for Japan, if you cut out the entire Pacific theater from the WWII numbers, even the casualties inflicted by westerners (and that's a lot of Japanese dead, very obviously at the hands of westerners with weapons, justified or not), you don't substantially alter the figures, except to shave a couple million off the top.
I don't know what sources you're going on, and I'm hardly a WWII expert, but that's certainly not what they've got over at wikipedia. They have 25 million military, and 48 million civilian, for a total of 73 million dead. The WWII civilian casualties alone would be enough to cover Mao's mass starvations, even by the most extreme estimations (15-50 million). Add in WWI, and now you have another 16.5 million. Add in Vietnam, that's a couple million more on the take, just counting the one side's casualties.
I agree. But by those numbers, it gets worse for the West, not better. At least three million died in the Holodomor. Plenty more in the Stalinist purges. Yet more from starvation caused by WWII. From starvation caused by WWI. In the Armenian genocide. The list does go on, although those are the largest contributors.
Wouldn't matter for the argument, the West is still ahead. But if you kill 1000 people in a village of 1000, you wiped it out, total obliteration. If you killed 1000 people in the Soviet Union in WWII, that would be just another hour on the battlefield, or maybe even off the battlefield. Both the absolute and relative perspectives are important.
Yep. And if you total them all up, brutal though they may be, they're low tech. The West has them beat in terms of sheer numbers, hands down. Rwanda killed maybe a million, which is horrifying, but it wouldn't even be a year of the Holocaust, let alone the Eastern Front.
-Jester
Quote:The estimate for Mao's reign of terror alone are about 20 million (source). Would you call China "Western"? And, I do recall that Japan was involved in WWII, so while yes, Europe(esp. Eastern Europe) saw the bulk of the killing, there was a pretty lethal eastern component as well. Would you call Japan "Western"?
Well, I believe I actually addressed the starvation point in earlier posts. I think it is a slightly different (though no less horrible) thing to kill millions of people through misguided economic policies than it is to kill them either directly or indirectly through modern warfare. Since the question at hand is "does being western mitigate, even a little bit, the dangers of modern weaponry", my answer remains a firm no. But, even if you include Mao's famines, they are still more than canceled out by WWII.
As for Japan, if you cut out the entire Pacific theater from the WWII numbers, even the casualties inflicted by westerners (and that's a lot of Japanese dead, very obviously at the hands of westerners with weapons, justified or not), you don't substantially alter the figures, except to shave a couple million off the top.
Quote:My sources show about 16.8 million combatants died in all theaters in WWII. As for non-combatants, between 7 and 12 million Soviets, about 6 million in the holocaust, and another 6 million in all other theaters.
I don't know what sources you're going on, and I'm hardly a WWII expert, but that's certainly not what they've got over at wikipedia. They have 25 million military, and 48 million civilian, for a total of 73 million dead. The WWII civilian casualties alone would be enough to cover Mao's mass starvations, even by the most extreme estimations (15-50 million). Add in WWI, and now you have another 16.5 million. Add in Vietnam, that's a couple million more on the take, just counting the one side's casualties.
Quote:I think it is absurd to limit a war casualty to one caused by a bullet or bomb. If your city is fire bombed, and you count only the fraction of direct casualties, what do you call the more significant portion who now succumb to exposure, starvation and disease? If entire populations are rounded up and forced to march for weeks through frozen mountains without shelter, water, or food are they merely unlucky? If your ports are blockaded, and populations that grew large due to the free flow of goods now starve because they haven't enough, is that bad planning?
I agree. But by those numbers, it gets worse for the West, not better. At least three million died in the Holodomor. Plenty more in the Stalinist purges. Yet more from starvation caused by WWII. From starvation caused by WWI. In the Armenian genocide. The list does go on, although those are the largest contributors.
Quote:It also seems wrong to think about counting deaths in proportion to population size. If you have two kids and we kill one, that is 50%, but if you have 12 kids and we kill 3, it is a mere 25%. I think these quantitative and qualitative justifications are equally ludicrous.
Wouldn't matter for the argument, the West is still ahead. But if you kill 1000 people in a village of 1000, you wiped it out, total obliteration. If you killed 1000 people in the Soviet Union in WWII, that would be just another hour on the battlefield, or maybe even off the battlefield. Both the absolute and relative perspectives are important.
Quote:The genocides that are occurring in Africa now, are not as much the killing and the raping (which occur frequently enough), as they are about the armed displacement of people from their land and livelihood.
Yep. And if you total them all up, brutal though they may be, they're low tech. The West has them beat in terms of sheer numbers, hands down. Rwanda killed maybe a million, which is horrifying, but it wouldn't even be a year of the Holocaust, let alone the Eastern Front.
-Jester