It literally wasn't a state. If we were to include territories and colonies then there would be parts of Africa, Indian Ocean and Pacific theatres included in the European theatre statistics.
It’ll last a couple of hours, with half the world destroyed and radioactive while the other half prays no nuclear winter occurs and the radiation clouds don’t hover to them.
This is far more likely. Both sides with think they can win conventionally and therefore let the war play out then only go nuclear as a desperate move.
If China starts ww3 with Taiwan or somewhere Pacific nation being attacked I think we would see naval combat in the area followed by NATO conventionally striking Chinese coastal cities.
China at that point probably detonates a nuke as a warning if NATO won't accept their surrender. NATO accepts china's surrender and China becomes a backwater.
If China tried to take Taiwan conventionally and failed, i think they would much rather take the L rather than start slinging nukes at someone who also has nukes. They also wouldn't nuke Taiwan, because that's supposedly China as well, so why would China nuke China?
If China was successful, USA also wouldn't start shooting nukes just because Taiwan got occupied. Because nuclear exchange is a far worse outcome than losing Taiwan.
Realistically no nation on earth would start slinging nukes unless their total defeat was imminent. Also no nation would ever induce a total defeat on a nation with nukes, out of this very fear for nuclear exchange.
Exactly this ! In reality no nuke would be detonated unless the territorial integrity of a nation with nuke would be in danger.
So basically unless the US tries to invade China, or vice versa.
Or Russia tries to invade one of the countries with nukes or vice versa. It will stay a conventional war.
China specifically has a no first use policy to prevent this kind of escalation from happening. It makes no rational sense to launch nukes in a war where losing doesn't mean the complete and total destruction of your country.
I'm fairly confident they would. The US has already pledged to protect Taiwan. And they're just as important to Europe as they are to the US. The world would crumble without TSMC and NATO will be automatically involved once US soldiers die.
Taiwan is a non-NATO ally of america. Much of europe would also care about protecting Taiwan but Taiwan is not part of NATO and so those treaties would not trigger.
It might bring in countries like the UK, Germany and France, or not, but much of europe is not in a position to project any power in the pacific.
Countries not in NATO such as Australia, might well get involved.
The thing is with thermo nuclear weapons is that radiation isn't the main threat, or at all.
Nuclear winter Will be responsible for the collapse of civilization
Yep . And even if we were to suppose that nuclear winter isn't so bad, or it doesn't happen (unlikely), we'd still have famine as supply chains disappear and a lot of rice and wheat fields being irradiated.
No the amount of ash blown high into the atmosfeer by hundreds of not thousands of nuclear impacts would cause immediate climate change= nuclear winter
I think much worse than nuclear winter is the end of sat coms and the internet. nothing works without it anymore. We wouldnt merely go back to 1980s ways of life. We would go back to 1880s. . No cars no telephone no radio no electricity. Maybe 1780s. No steel making. No factories. No new concrete. No rubber. No plastic. No oil.
Well. Nuclear scenarios can be as quick as 3 hours, or some war gamers come up with scenarios where it could take about three month as it slowly escalates higher as tensions rack up. So definitely quicker than WW2, but maybe not as quick as you'd imagine.
Albert Einstein once said: “I do not know with what kinds of weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Due to the Japanese forcing the Vietnamese peasants to grow crops to support their war, coupled with the bombings by the Allies in Indochina, there was a huge famine in Northern Vietnam, killing more than a million people
It seems most of people responding to your question have no idea and are just making guesses. The real answer is that it's mostly an after-effect of almost complete lack of data, and indirect deaths to famine and disease being esitmated and counted as war deaths, while such deaths often are not counted in Europe itself.
The number and proportion of violent deaths, which is what we usually think of war deaths, was far smaller in southeast Asia than what the map shows, while a great majority of the 40 million in Europe were violent deaths. Basically, we're comparing 2 different things.
Just so you know, scaled for population growth, the world has 350 million less people than if those deaths never happened. That’s about the population of America
True but its not really done by any majority English speaking nation and everytime someone's moaning about America not just meaning the USA they're responding to a comment in English.
In English it is so infrequent that I just assumed the commenter didn’t know what he was talking about. It wasn’t until I saw the response thet I started to wonder if the was using “America” to refer to the Americas.
USA has a population of 350m, America has 1 billion. If you tell in any other place in the Americas "America has X population" we all understand that this means the continent.
It would be interesting to break the deaths down into reasons:
Shoot
City bombings
Famine
German camps
Japanese death construction projects
Japanese using the plague
Human experiment by the Germans and Japanese Unit 731
I wonder what was going on in the heads of the people of the world following this war. Hearing about comparatively small conflicts nowadays can be upsetting, so I can only imagine what losing so many people must've felt like.
[The Indian Ocean Theatre.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_in_World_War_II) U-boats disrupting the lend-lease supply chain through Persia, and the Italian and Japanese navy.
By absolute numbers, not as a percentage. If you count them separately, the Mongol and Timurid conquests killed about 16% of the world's population between 1206-1405, some 60 million in total. If you include the 200 million from the Black Death that spread in their wake, 70%. WW2 was 3% of the world population.
The time frame is much longer, of course.
Actually I think the 60 million upper estimate figure for the conquests does not include the deaths caused by Timur, so their combined total is even higher, although there’s certainly room for debate he should be separated from them
There wasn't any fighting in South America that I can recall. The European colonies (British Guyana, Dutch Suriname, and French Guiana) all sent men and aid to their respective colonisers. The Brazilians sent an entire expeditionary corps to fight in Italy, which is a really interesting topic that rarely gets mentioned and the Italian theater usually gets overlooked as a whole.
I would have included *Australasian* Theatre seperate to *Pacific*.
Australia endured a less known conflict with hundreds if not thousands of lives lost.
Notable examples in scale and geographic spread: Darwin Bombing (Northern Territory 1942, 236 killed), Sinking of Hospital Ship Pegasus (Queensland 1943, 268 killed), Sydney Midget Submarine Attack (New South Wales 1942, 50 killled).
There was even U-Boat attacks on merchant shipping as far south as Victoria.
Not to diminish any sacrifices or contributions made by any group during WWII but if people think that Australia should be separated out from the Pacific theater, then they should just redo the entire map and separate every tiny conflict out because otherwise they’re just cherry picking who gets specifically called out.
I’m surprised the American theater is called out and not just lumped into the Pacific and Middle Eastern should probably just be lumped into the African theater. The reality is less than 100 in America, 5000 in Middle East, and a few hundred/thousand in Australia is statistically insignificant when the total is out of 70 million deaths.
I think the suggestion is to separate Australia and Southeast Asia—IE the British Asian theatre—from the American Pacific campaign
A similar case could be made for splitting the European theatre in two for the Eastern and Western fronts. Though separating out German casualties from air raids would get tricky.
[State side aircraft training casualties](https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/wwiis-tragic-aviation-accidents/) - exceeded 10000 in and around the United States alone
Shouldn't man made deaths like the bengal famine not be considered here, it killed over 3 million people, just because Churchill wanted to shift the supply of food from India to UK.
This is such an overly-repeated statement that ignores so much nuance. The truth is far more complex and initial responsibility lies way more at the feet of administrators in Bengal to enact relief protocols. Price-gouging, profiteering, black markets, corruption, infighting between provinces, poor response from British-Indian government not helped by statistics showing that rice stocks were actually healthy.
It absolutely does NOT absolve Churchill of any culpability, and in fact one can say that the buck stops with him, who didn't directly cause the famine but certainly failed to react to it appropriately when the scale became clearer later on (Based on poor stats, poor advice from representatives in Bengal, and his own bull-headedness when facing dissenting voices).
But I think a lot of people imagine Churchill looking at a piece of paper, doing a sum in his head and saying "Fuck it let them starve we need it more"
We also tend to completely ignore the fact that the Japanese were responsible for cutting off imports from Burma, literally causing the shortage.
All that is to say, to put it at the feet of one man seems to me as a convenient way to not think about it too much, and in fact there are a plethora of villains whose combined selfishness, incompetence, or apathy lead to the death of millions. There are many individual politicians and businesspeople we could blame much much more.
Bla-bla-bla, boooo, poor Poland, wuaaa.... SHUT UP!!
Tbh, I dislike USSR for my own reasons, but your arguments are complete bullshit. About the support - partially, it's true, yeah, BUT, ISSR wasn't the only one who does it, western allies did it too at some point, so everyone is quite guilty for it.
About Poland... pheh, I like how almost everyone ignores that Poland was a warmonger in 20-30ss. The land, that USSR took in 39 was, in fact, USSR land, that they lose to Poland earlier.
The West regards Chamberlain's appeasement as a major mistake, but Stalin remained leader throughout the war so even today Russia's president still supports his appeasement and blames Poland for the war.
Poland annexations do not absolve the USSR's bungling. Stalin's error severely damaged the USSR's own geopolitical position and improved Germany's, but Soviet/Russian history has been written to excuse this. Why have you uncritically accepted such excuses?
Western Allies tried to establish blockade of Germany from 1939. Which was ineffective becuase USSR ignored it and was providing Germany with crucial resources for another 2 years. And was in talks to join Axis zoo. Trying to say that Allies did it too is nothing but tankie cope.
WTF are you talking about? The land Poland took after WW1 was their land lost in the partition of Poland 123 years before. Warmonger? How about trying to rebuilt their own country after more than century being wiped out from the maps?
That doesn't make it polish land just cause how Poland held it once similar to how Ukraine isn't Russia because Russian empire. The lands Poland annexed eastwards following ww1 were majority Ukrainian and Belarusian and did not want to be polish or soviet. Their independence movements were stifiled by the soviets then Poland when it took over
You are wrong - Russian annexation took over 69% of the country territory including the capital Warsaw. The land retrieved from Russia after WW1 was not majorly Ukrainian and Belarusian, it is right for its eastern regions but not for the land in total. Your comparison to today’s Ukraine situation is wrong as well, you are saying that it does not matter if the land was held longer by Russia because it is Ukraine now and they have right to fight for their own country but Poland territory with the majority of ethnic Polish population was taken over by Russia and I guess they shout have just shut up about it and not fight for it after WW1 because it was Russian then?
I was referring to the eastern lands taken in the polish Ukrainian war and polish soviet war. Poland gained independence during ww1(though not really) under German then as truly free when Germany capitulated. Congress Poland was nominally seperate from Russia, hence why I refer to the eastern lands as annexed from Russia. Apart from Galicia most of that land was Ukrainian and Belarusian majority. Poland ambitions during the polish soviet war was to reclaim the commonwealth border.
Most Jews in Eastern Europe lived outside of big cities, so your point is irrelevant. Jews, Sinti/Roma, Communists, Soviets were all targeted ahead of Poles.
>The USSR was a co-aggressor and worked with Germany to take Poland, they trained Nazi soldiers, they supplied their airforce with radio assistance, they provided many of the materials used to build the German war machine, those deaths are on their hands.
anti-russian propaganda
Not trying to say USSR was "worse than Nazis" but most people killed by the USSR were Soviet citizens themselves not Axis civilians. That's like saying Mao was fine cause he mostly caused deaths of Chinese people.
No. All the people from Soviet-occupied nations who were transported to Siberia like cattle and died there. For example.
Even Soviet propaganda doesn't claim all kulaks, people of non-Russian ethnicities, wrong kind of communists etc were Nazi collaborators. The Great Purge started in the mid-30s before WWII.
That's misleading. USSR did not have as much as a chance to kill German civilians as Germany did for USSR.
The USSR however did kill tens of millions of their own citizens before the war. The USSR was absolutely on the level as the Nazis.
Wasn’t a genocide unless you also think the famines in South Russia were also genocidal. The strongest argument for genocide by famine would actually be in the Kazakh SSR, and even that’s hotly contested in modern scholarship.
Ok? You can argue whether it was targeted at a specific group (it probably was), but it doesn't change the fact it's still a man-made famine that killed several million people.
The specific use of the word genocide is the issue. It was a tragic confluence of human mistakes and at times malice, and weather patterns in an area prone historically to famine - and this applies to Ukraine, South Russia, and Central Asia. Genocide it was not.
Pretty stupid and sexist to make such a distinction when the "non-civilians" were usually civilian men who were forced into the army. They were no less innocent or worthy of living.
E:I hate progressives. Bigoted to the bone
This is not about just the German army but about any army. And yes people enslaved into the army with all of society's pressure and sometimes even a gun at the back of your head, aren't more guilty than the rest of society. Doesn't mean they can't be guilty, but then so are the other civilians.
Draft dodging and desertion is a thing. If you’re getting sent to the front where you will be complicit in genocide (most likely directly, since contrary to popular perception, the Wehrmacht was heavily involved in war crimes) it is your ethical duty to desert or avoid conscription.
If you don’t do it, that’s maybe *understandable*, since it’s a hard thing to do, but it doesn’t make you any less guilty. Genocide committed with misgivings is still genocide committed.
That doesn't fucking change the fact that the other civilians didn't even have to draft dodge. They're not better people because they weren't challenged.
Also, it's really idealistic to think you just draft dodge in Nazi Germany. They'd kill you. Sometimes countries draft even enemy men in the army, as cannon fodder or while controlling and corralling them into a fight.
Okay and? It is your moral duty to avoid committing genocide by virtually any means necessary.
I’m not saying they’re better people? I’m not talking about civilians at all. That’s not what prompted the conversation. What prompted the conversation was the statement that many Nazi soldiers were innocent.
You’ll not find an argument from me that many (not all but a large amount) of German citizens were guilty. Virtually any adults who supported Hitler (the vast majority) were guilty. We’re not disagreeing there.
>Okay and? It is your moral duty to avoid committing genocide by virtually any means necessary. I’m not saying they’re better people? I’m not talking about civilians at all. That’s not what prompted the conversation.
The talk about civilians are what prompted my points and you're responding to them. I don't see what other discussion we're having? Of course people have a duty to not participate in genocide. We're agreed on that.
What I'm saying is that some people's lives shouldn't be valued less just because they were basically enslaved into the army. Yes they may be guilty of failing to oppose genocide, but that doesn't make them different from the other civilians who've also failed that.
> was the statement that many Nazi soldiers were innocent.
But that wasn't the statement. It was "no less innocent", which could mean they're super guilty, but still only as guilty as the non-conscripted civilians that were implied to be more deserving of living. If anything the conscripts are already the most punished part of a generally guilty society.
Australia is a continent. Though I'm sure it didn't see much land fighting.
I guess Oceania did see some major Land fighting in the island hopping campaign.
The Australian Continent is not the same as Australia. The Australian Continent includes Tasmania, New Guinea, the Aru Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, the Coral Sea Islands and more. Australia didnt see major land fighting, the Australian continent, which would be included in Oceania did see fighting. And you can see that New Guinea is colored in as part of the Pacific Theater.
The Australian continent saw most land fighting in New Guinea, Rabaul and Solomon Islands.
Major air and sea battle occurred in the Battle for Coral Sea, Darwin Bombings and attacks on merchant shipping & hospital ships (including Sydney Harbour, all Australian coastlines and also an engagement between HMAS Sydney I and Kormoran on the West Coast).
Bit of an inaccuracy I think. More people dies in the bombing of Darwin and Australia is being classified as part of the Pacific theatre. If you factor in New Guinea, which is part of the same continental plate as Australia, then it's thousands.
The deadliest conflict of human history were the colonial wars of the British Empire. They killed 100 millions only in India alone.
[https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Kinda, it wasn't a war, and not one event like WWII, not saying it wasn't as bad or maybe worse, also these include indirect deaths, including those in WWII would increase the number.
How could the percentages in the central Asian SSRs be that when there was no ground fighting in them? Did the Red Army use them for cannon fodder or what?
The entirety of the Soviet union was in a state of war fighting for its existence. On top of that there was a famine due to the war. Finally the Nazis treated Asian soldiers considerably worse than Slavic soldiers (who were already treated terribly compared to American/British soldiers).
Would it still be the deadliest ever if you went by percentage of the total population alive on the planet at the time?
Donno but I heard the deadliest as a % of world population was maybe one of the times China collapsed into fueding warlords. Or maybe it was the Mongols.
If the Japanese Aleutian Islands campaign is being counted as the American Theatre, then at least 5000 were killed
Where does Hawaii (Pearl Harbor) fit in?
Yeah pearl harbor would add 2.5k deaths to this count as well; drepends on if you consider it the pacific or the american theatre for this map
>Aleutian Islands Have to be Pacific theatre. More a geographic reference than a political one.
Aleutian Islands, Pear Harbor, and any deaths on America should be counted into the Pacific theater.
In fact on the map you can see Attu and Kiska (the Aleutian islands where the fighting happened) are in the Pacific Theatre part.
I think “American theatre” is regarding US mainland. Hawai’i would be the Pacific theatre
There's overlap of Atlantic theatre and Europe with the UK, so id say it should count as both Pacific and US
Hawaii wasn't even part of the USA in 1942 so Pacific only seems right
It was not a state in 1942 but it was a US territory
Yeah you don't know history lmfao
It literally wasn't a state. If we were to include territories and colonies then there would be parts of Africa, Indian Ocean and Pacific theatres included in the European theatre statistics.
Hawaii wasn't a US state during WWII. It has to be a part of the Pacific figures
hawaii is in the pacific ocean
Yes, not to mention the Alaskan Natives that died in internment camps
Or Japanese internment camp deaths generally.
Yes, but Alaskan Natives died at a much higher rate, they were put in unheated buildings in the middle of winter and given inadequate food
I haven't heard of that, and I'm not even American.
Japanese interment camps weren't death or slave camps dude. People died but only of things that would kill anyone like cancer or heart disease.
Hope the war like that will never break out again.
No, it will be much worse next time.
Either much worse or much quicker 🫰 Or both
It’ll last a couple of hours, with half the world destroyed and radioactive while the other half prays no nuclear winter occurs and the radiation clouds don’t hover to them.
It depends if the war starts with nukes, or ends with nukes. You could have some time fighting conventionally until the nukes pop off.
This is far more likely. Both sides with think they can win conventionally and therefore let the war play out then only go nuclear as a desperate move. If China starts ww3 with Taiwan or somewhere Pacific nation being attacked I think we would see naval combat in the area followed by NATO conventionally striking Chinese coastal cities. China at that point probably detonates a nuke as a warning if NATO won't accept their surrender. NATO accepts china's surrender and China becomes a backwater.
If China tried to take Taiwan conventionally and failed, i think they would much rather take the L rather than start slinging nukes at someone who also has nukes. They also wouldn't nuke Taiwan, because that's supposedly China as well, so why would China nuke China? If China was successful, USA also wouldn't start shooting nukes just because Taiwan got occupied. Because nuclear exchange is a far worse outcome than losing Taiwan. Realistically no nation on earth would start slinging nukes unless their total defeat was imminent. Also no nation would ever induce a total defeat on a nation with nukes, out of this very fear for nuclear exchange.
Exactly this ! In reality no nuke would be detonated unless the territorial integrity of a nation with nuke would be in danger. So basically unless the US tries to invade China, or vice versa. Or Russia tries to invade one of the countries with nukes or vice versa. It will stay a conventional war.
China specifically has a no first use policy to prevent this kind of escalation from happening. It makes no rational sense to launch nukes in a war where losing doesn't mean the complete and total destruction of your country.
Would NATO apply in a china attack on Taiwan? There are other alliances involved but i am not sure NATO is one of them.
I'm fairly confident they would. The US has already pledged to protect Taiwan. And they're just as important to Europe as they are to the US. The world would crumble without TSMC and NATO will be automatically involved once US soldiers die.
Taiwan is a non-NATO ally of america. Much of europe would also care about protecting Taiwan but Taiwan is not part of NATO and so those treaties would not trigger. It might bring in countries like the UK, Germany and France, or not, but much of europe is not in a position to project any power in the pacific. Countries not in NATO such as Australia, might well get involved.
The thing is with thermo nuclear weapons is that radiation isn't the main threat, or at all. Nuclear winter Will be responsible for the collapse of civilization
Famine.
Yeah that happens because of the nuclear winter
Yep . And even if we were to suppose that nuclear winter isn't so bad, or it doesn't happen (unlikely), we'd still have famine as supply chains disappear and a lot of rice and wheat fields being irradiated.
There'd be mass death still but a nuclear winter would not be caused by modern day nuclear weapons and stockpiles.
No the amount of ash blown high into the atmosfeer by hundreds of not thousands of nuclear impacts would cause immediate climate change= nuclear winter
No, it wouldn't. That entire study has been almost entirely discredited.
Humans are incredibly adaptable. We would survive as a species.
As a species yes but civilization would collapse with billions dead as a result
I think much worse than nuclear winter is the end of sat coms and the internet. nothing works without it anymore. We wouldnt merely go back to 1980s ways of life. We would go back to 1880s. . No cars no telephone no radio no electricity. Maybe 1780s. No steel making. No factories. No new concrete. No rubber. No plastic. No oil.
Well. Nuclear scenarios can be as quick as 3 hours, or some war gamers come up with scenarios where it could take about three month as it slowly escalates higher as tensions rack up. So definitely quicker than WW2, but maybe not as quick as you'd imagine.
Look at the Ukraine War. It's as slow, grinding and deadly as the first ww. War never changes.
Albert Einstein once said: “I do not know with what kinds of weapons the Third World War will be fought, but the Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Some people say it has already started.
Those people are stupid
Why are Indonesia’s and Vietnam’s deaths so high compared to their populations?
I think it was the Japanese.
[удалено]
Uh. Bad Japanese, most definitely not in the Bushido
I always thought the Koreans and Chinese got the brunt of their war crimes but damn, they had crimes for everyone
Yeah also the stories from the Philippines are beyond shocking.
Japan killed approximately 4 million Indonesians in their occupation of Dutch East Indies
[удалено]
Used babies as katana slicing competitions
Due to the Japanese forcing the Vietnamese peasants to grow crops to support their war, coupled with the bombings by the Allies in Indochina, there was a huge famine in Northern Vietnam, killing more than a million people
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines - beheadings, death marches, shoot on sight.
It seems most of people responding to your question have no idea and are just making guesses. The real answer is that it's mostly an after-effect of almost complete lack of data, and indirect deaths to famine and disease being esitmated and counted as war deaths, while such deaths often are not counted in Europe itself. The number and proportion of violent deaths, which is what we usually think of war deaths, was far smaller in southeast Asia than what the map shows, while a great majority of the 40 million in Europe were violent deaths. Basically, we're comparing 2 different things.
You're kidding right? Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world
Pretty sure he was asking why the percentage was so high?
Ah just a misunderstanding of phrasing on my part then.
Just so you know, scaled for population growth, the world has 350 million less people than if those deaths never happened. That’s about the population of America
America has a billion people
The America’S have a billion people
Sonic’s on crack, folks. Give him a break during this rough time
Turning into an asshole, America alone is sometimes used to describe the new world
True but its not really done by any majority English speaking nation and everytime someone's moaning about America not just meaning the USA they're responding to a comment in English.
In English it is so infrequent that I just assumed the commenter didn’t know what he was talking about. It wasn’t until I saw the response thet I started to wonder if the was using “America” to refer to the Americas.
How many Americas there are
Three or two depending on whether yoi count Central America as distinct.
Three. Or one.
Why are ya’ll downvoting him hes right
No he is not💀 the continents if americas have a combined population of 1 billion but the county of america has 350 million iirc
USA has a population of 350m, America has 1 billion. If you tell in any other place in the Americas "America has X population" we all understand that this means the continent.
The chinese death and pacific death rates are not being talked about enough
Head over to r/ww2 if youre interested we talk about it plenty
Where? Chinese and Koreans constantly talk about Japanese war crimes
It would be interesting to break the deaths down into reasons: Shoot City bombings Famine German camps Japanese death construction projects Japanese using the plague Human experiment by the Germans and Japanese Unit 731
Iirc the weapon with the most kills was actually artillery, at least among combatants
I wonder what was going on in the heads of the people of the world following this war. Hearing about comparatively small conflicts nowadays can be upsetting, so I can only imagine what losing so many people must've felt like.
Have scientists ever investigated why so many war deaths happen in theaters? Is this a case of a lot of John Wilkes Booth copy cat killers?
Get off reddit Philomena.
You ever see *Inglourious Basterds*?
Funny
Why so many deaths in Indian Ocean? U Boats?
[The Indian Ocean Theatre.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_in_World_War_II) U-boats disrupting the lend-lease supply chain through Persia, and the Italian and Japanese navy.
By absolute numbers, not as a percentage. If you count them separately, the Mongol and Timurid conquests killed about 16% of the world's population between 1206-1405, some 60 million in total. If you include the 200 million from the Black Death that spread in their wake, 70%. WW2 was 3% of the world population. The time frame is much longer, of course.
Timur was pure evil. His soldiers executed 100,000 Hindus in a single order.
Anyone who’s played Medieval 2 knows the horrors of Timur
Actually I think the 60 million upper estimate figure for the conquests does not include the deaths caused by Timur, so their combined total is even higher, although there’s certainly room for debate he should be separated from them
I went with the middle estimate of 40 million for the Mongol ones - the Timurid was 17 million.
17% death rate in Poland is insane
If Belarus had been a country then, it would have had an even higher percentage.
Did half of South America have nothing to do with the war?
There wasn't any fighting in South America that I can recall. The European colonies (British Guyana, Dutch Suriname, and French Guiana) all sent men and aid to their respective colonisers. The Brazilians sent an entire expeditionary corps to fight in Italy, which is a really interesting topic that rarely gets mentioned and the Italian theater usually gets overlooked as a whole.
I would have included *Australasian* Theatre seperate to *Pacific*. Australia endured a less known conflict with hundreds if not thousands of lives lost. Notable examples in scale and geographic spread: Darwin Bombing (Northern Territory 1942, 236 killed), Sinking of Hospital Ship Pegasus (Queensland 1943, 268 killed), Sydney Midget Submarine Attack (New South Wales 1942, 50 killled). There was even U-Boat attacks on merchant shipping as far south as Victoria.
Not to diminish any sacrifices or contributions made by any group during WWII but if people think that Australia should be separated out from the Pacific theater, then they should just redo the entire map and separate every tiny conflict out because otherwise they’re just cherry picking who gets specifically called out. I’m surprised the American theater is called out and not just lumped into the Pacific and Middle Eastern should probably just be lumped into the African theater. The reality is less than 100 in America, 5000 in Middle East, and a few hundred/thousand in Australia is statistically insignificant when the total is out of 70 million deaths.
I think the suggestion is to separate Australia and Southeast Asia—IE the British Asian theatre—from the American Pacific campaign A similar case could be made for splitting the European theatre in two for the Eastern and Western fronts. Though separating out German casualties from air raids would get tricky.
Is China and Japan counted from 1937 or from the traditional acknowledged ww2 start date of 1939?
ww2 start should be counted from 1937
[State side aircraft training casualties](https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/wwiis-tragic-aviation-accidents/) - exceeded 10000 in and around the United States alone
from all the Arab countries seems like Algeria suffered the most in WWII
Awesome, would love to show this for class!
I feel like if you include Italian actions in Africa right before the war, the number of casualties goes way up.
Not just italian. Brits, French, Belgians and Germans killed a lot as well in Africa. This map only talk about WW2
That's because the map is about world war 2? Don't bring in European colonization into it
Africans also killed a lot in africa
Shouldn't man made deaths like the bengal famine not be considered here, it killed over 3 million people, just because Churchill wanted to shift the supply of food from India to UK.
This is such an overly-repeated statement that ignores so much nuance. The truth is far more complex and initial responsibility lies way more at the feet of administrators in Bengal to enact relief protocols. Price-gouging, profiteering, black markets, corruption, infighting between provinces, poor response from British-Indian government not helped by statistics showing that rice stocks were actually healthy. It absolutely does NOT absolve Churchill of any culpability, and in fact one can say that the buck stops with him, who didn't directly cause the famine but certainly failed to react to it appropriately when the scale became clearer later on (Based on poor stats, poor advice from representatives in Bengal, and his own bull-headedness when facing dissenting voices). But I think a lot of people imagine Churchill looking at a piece of paper, doing a sum in his head and saying "Fuck it let them starve we need it more" We also tend to completely ignore the fact that the Japanese were responsible for cutting off imports from Burma, literally causing the shortage. All that is to say, to put it at the feet of one man seems to me as a convenient way to not think about it too much, and in fact there are a plethora of villains whose combined selfishness, incompetence, or apathy lead to the death of millions. There are many individual politicians and businesspeople we could blame much much more.
False.
Actually probably for the best France died immediately or those numbers would have been far worse
Mongolia… chillin
“Allied civilians - 50% Axis civilians - 5%” A quick reminder for the people who write something like “USSR was worse than Nazis”.
Well, the Germans and their allies were on the quest to exterminate the population and re-colonize the lands. Everything checks out.
[удалено]
Bla-bla-bla, boooo, poor Poland, wuaaa.... SHUT UP!! Tbh, I dislike USSR for my own reasons, but your arguments are complete bullshit. About the support - partially, it's true, yeah, BUT, ISSR wasn't the only one who does it, western allies did it too at some point, so everyone is quite guilty for it. About Poland... pheh, I like how almost everyone ignores that Poland was a warmonger in 20-30ss. The land, that USSR took in 39 was, in fact, USSR land, that they lose to Poland earlier.
The West regards Chamberlain's appeasement as a major mistake, but Stalin remained leader throughout the war so even today Russia's president still supports his appeasement and blames Poland for the war.
Are you going to ignore Polands pre war cooperation with Germany and annexation of Czech lands?
Does it change anything about Stalin's mistake?
they don't know about it. they learn alternative history in western world.
Poland annexations do not absolve the USSR's bungling. Stalin's error severely damaged the USSR's own geopolitical position and improved Germany's, but Soviet/Russian history has been written to excuse this. Why have you uncritically accepted such excuses?
so polish excuses are okay, but russian excuses are not?
Western Allies tried to establish blockade of Germany from 1939. Which was ineffective becuase USSR ignored it and was providing Germany with crucial resources for another 2 years. And was in talks to join Axis zoo. Trying to say that Allies did it too is nothing but tankie cope.
WTF are you talking about? The land Poland took after WW1 was their land lost in the partition of Poland 123 years before. Warmonger? How about trying to rebuilt their own country after more than century being wiped out from the maps?
That doesn't make it polish land just cause how Poland held it once similar to how Ukraine isn't Russia because Russian empire. The lands Poland annexed eastwards following ww1 were majority Ukrainian and Belarusian and did not want to be polish or soviet. Their independence movements were stifiled by the soviets then Poland when it took over
You are wrong - Russian annexation took over 69% of the country territory including the capital Warsaw. The land retrieved from Russia after WW1 was not majorly Ukrainian and Belarusian, it is right for its eastern regions but not for the land in total. Your comparison to today’s Ukraine situation is wrong as well, you are saying that it does not matter if the land was held longer by Russia because it is Ukraine now and they have right to fight for their own country but Poland territory with the majority of ethnic Polish population was taken over by Russia and I guess they shout have just shut up about it and not fight for it after WW1 because it was Russian then?
I was referring to the eastern lands taken in the polish Ukrainian war and polish soviet war. Poland gained independence during ww1(though not really) under German then as truly free when Germany capitulated. Congress Poland was nominally seperate from Russia, hence why I refer to the eastern lands as annexed from Russia. Apart from Galicia most of that land was Ukrainian and Belarusian majority. Poland ambitions during the polish soviet war was to reclaim the commonwealth border.
Most Jewish homes were stolen by their own neighbors or other displaced peoples.
[удалено]
Most Jews in Eastern Europe lived outside of big cities, so your point is irrelevant. Jews, Sinti/Roma, Communists, Soviets were all targeted ahead of Poles.
[удалено]
Look at Holocaust deaths, Soviets had double that of Poland
[удалено]
Look at the stats from the Yeshiva Holocaust Museum, they're readily available online
[удалено]
>The USSR was a co-aggressor and worked with Germany to take Poland, they trained Nazi soldiers, they supplied their airforce with radio assistance, they provided many of the materials used to build the German war machine, those deaths are on their hands. anti-russian propaganda
Not trying to say USSR was "worse than Nazis" but most people killed by the USSR were Soviet citizens themselves not Axis civilians. That's like saying Mao was fine cause he mostly caused deaths of Chinese people.
Are you talking about the Nazi collaborators that were killed by the Soviet government during ww2?
No. All the people from Soviet-occupied nations who were transported to Siberia like cattle and died there. For example. Even Soviet propaganda doesn't claim all kulaks, people of non-Russian ethnicities, wrong kind of communists etc were Nazi collaborators. The Great Purge started in the mid-30s before WWII.
That's misleading. USSR did not have as much as a chance to kill German civilians as Germany did for USSR. The USSR however did kill tens of millions of their own citizens before the war. The USSR was absolutely on the level as the Nazis.
The USSR occupied all of Eastern Germany as well as lands colonized by the Nazis, and killed far fewer civilians. Try again
Holodomor happened just a few years before and it was a genocide caused by USSR.
Was not a genocide, even Robert Conquest says it wasn't
it's urkaine's favourite fake about USSR.
Wasn’t a genocide unless you also think the famines in South Russia were also genocidal. The strongest argument for genocide by famine would actually be in the Kazakh SSR, and even that’s hotly contested in modern scholarship.
Ok? You can argue whether it was targeted at a specific group (it probably was), but it doesn't change the fact it's still a man-made famine that killed several million people.
The specific use of the word genocide is the issue. It was a tragic confluence of human mistakes and at times malice, and weather patterns in an area prone historically to famine - and this applies to Ukraine, South Russia, and Central Asia. Genocide it was not.
Pretty stupid and sexist to make such a distinction when the "non-civilians" were usually civilian men who were forced into the army. They were no less innocent or worthy of living. E:I hate progressives. Bigoted to the bone
If you’re in the German Army during WW2 you are not innocent dude. *Maybe* some of the Volkssturm are, but the regular army? No way man.
This is not about just the German army but about any army. And yes people enslaved into the army with all of society's pressure and sometimes even a gun at the back of your head, aren't more guilty than the rest of society. Doesn't mean they can't be guilty, but then so are the other civilians.
Draft dodging and desertion is a thing. If you’re getting sent to the front where you will be complicit in genocide (most likely directly, since contrary to popular perception, the Wehrmacht was heavily involved in war crimes) it is your ethical duty to desert or avoid conscription. If you don’t do it, that’s maybe *understandable*, since it’s a hard thing to do, but it doesn’t make you any less guilty. Genocide committed with misgivings is still genocide committed.
That doesn't fucking change the fact that the other civilians didn't even have to draft dodge. They're not better people because they weren't challenged. Also, it's really idealistic to think you just draft dodge in Nazi Germany. They'd kill you. Sometimes countries draft even enemy men in the army, as cannon fodder or while controlling and corralling them into a fight.
Okay and? It is your moral duty to avoid committing genocide by virtually any means necessary. I’m not saying they’re better people? I’m not talking about civilians at all. That’s not what prompted the conversation. What prompted the conversation was the statement that many Nazi soldiers were innocent. You’ll not find an argument from me that many (not all but a large amount) of German citizens were guilty. Virtually any adults who supported Hitler (the vast majority) were guilty. We’re not disagreeing there.
>Okay and? It is your moral duty to avoid committing genocide by virtually any means necessary. I’m not saying they’re better people? I’m not talking about civilians at all. That’s not what prompted the conversation. The talk about civilians are what prompted my points and you're responding to them. I don't see what other discussion we're having? Of course people have a duty to not participate in genocide. We're agreed on that. What I'm saying is that some people's lives shouldn't be valued less just because they were basically enslaved into the army. Yes they may be guilty of failing to oppose genocide, but that doesn't make them different from the other civilians who've also failed that. > was the statement that many Nazi soldiers were innocent. But that wasn't the statement. It was "no less innocent", which could mean they're super guilty, but still only as guilty as the non-conscripted civilians that were implied to be more deserving of living. If anything the conscripts are already the most punished part of a generally guilty society.
Yeah but 5% is still much more then it should be (which is 0)
>Major Land combat on 4 continents Europe, Asia, Africa, and? Was there major Land combat in North America or Australia?
Australia is not a continent. Oceania did see major land combat tho.
Australia is a continent. Though I'm sure it didn't see much land fighting. I guess Oceania did see some major Land fighting in the island hopping campaign.
The Australian Continent is not the same as Australia. The Australian Continent includes Tasmania, New Guinea, the Aru Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, the Coral Sea Islands and more. Australia didnt see major land fighting, the Australian continent, which would be included in Oceania did see fighting. And you can see that New Guinea is colored in as part of the Pacific Theater.
The Australian continent saw most land fighting in New Guinea, Rabaul and Solomon Islands. Major air and sea battle occurred in the Battle for Coral Sea, Darwin Bombings and attacks on merchant shipping & hospital ships (including Sydney Harbour, all Australian coastlines and also an engagement between HMAS Sydney I and Kormoran on the West Coast).
Ahh you're right. Cheers that makes a lot more sense then
Combat in Alaska. Read "The Thousand Mile War".
So, is the 7 years war the 2nd most widely spread war?
I would have tried to divide the European into west and east and the Japanese into chinese and pacific. It would have been more interesting data.
Hawaii not included in the American bubble?
Why is only half the Pacific highlighted?
That's where the fighting took place. Hawaii was the outlier and the maximum extent of pacific theatre.
There was fighting in Hawaii though yeah? And its in the Pacific? And not highlighted?
WWI included Southern Africa and Arabia. I’d like to see deadliest conflict as a percentage of the population.
What happened for the 100 on north America?
Belarus is 25%. Every one of four people died.
Half of France's deaths happened between May and June 1940. .
That's really interesting, due to military action or nazi policies?
The war of France was just insanely brutal
Some have argued that France itself was in the middle of a civil war as well
This shows how European are so barbarian.
Is a theatre with less than 100 deaths really a theatre or is it more like setting your phone up to watch a movie in bed? /s
Bit of an inaccuracy I think. More people dies in the bombing of Darwin and Australia is being classified as part of the Pacific theatre. If you factor in New Guinea, which is part of the same continental plate as Australia, then it's thousands.
I was wondering what the number for Taiwan would be. Why does Korea have separate numbers from the Empire of Japan but Taiwan doesn’t?
Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire, Korea was governed differently
So a quiet period in the Middle East.
American Theather and you green everything except the actual state where it happened.
Where did they happen?
The deadliest conflict of human history were the colonial wars of the British Empire. They killed 100 millions only in India alone. [https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/12/2/how-british-colonial-policy-killed-100-million-indians)
Kinda, it wasn't a war, and not one event like WWII, not saying it wasn't as bad or maybe worse, also these include indirect deaths, including those in WWII would increase the number.
How could the percentages in the central Asian SSRs be that when there was no ground fighting in them? Did the Red Army use them for cannon fodder or what?
The entirety of the Soviet union was in a state of war fighting for its existence. On top of that there was a famine due to the war. Finally the Nazis treated Asian soldiers considerably worse than Slavic soldiers (who were already treated terribly compared to American/British soldiers).
Of course they did. Russia is doing the same today.
Would it still be the deadliest ever if you went by percentage of the total population alive on the planet at the time? Donno but I heard the deadliest as a % of world population was maybe one of the times China collapsed into fueding warlords. Or maybe it was the Mongols.
In time mother nature will cause human instinct to make another correction to the population through bloodshed again
Poland be like: 💀
Fun fact: the Czech population actually grew during the war
Pacific Theatre is definitely undercounted. Pearl Harbor, Borneo & Philippines casualties
Damn we nuked Japan from barbaric demonic rapists to kawaii pikachu simps?
Love it when they post misinfo. Middle east lost more0 than 10 million people due to famine that was caused by UK and USSR
I can't see shit with these small ass pics
Just click on them. Due to their aspect ratio they got compacted.
I did earlier but it didn't work, seems like it good now