- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense
- historymemes
- cunkposting
- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense
- historymemes
- cunkposting
You must log in or register to comment.
After the 2nd world war, we said surely this is the last big one, with understanding that ww4 would be fought with sticks and stones.
we might have thought nazi ideology would be gone too, but we decided to cognitively coherently separate pro US/NATO nazis from anti-NATO nazis, chasing ghosts of communism and warmongering towards nuclear powers became the cool thing again so easily.
Were there any wars that started before the first World war, but ended after? Because technically, The quote doesn’t say it prevented wars, just ended them.
OOTL - What show is this?
Created by Charlie Brooker of Black Mirror fame? Okay, I’m in.
Thanks!
A sublime combination of Diane Morgan and Charlie Brooker. Absolutely the best comedy to appear in the past decade.
Cunk on Earth
You could make a strong case that the second world war came close though.
We’ve never seen warfare on that scale before, where one group of allies is fighting another, the closest is Ukraine, where two countries each have allies supplying weapons and other supplies.
Chinese Civil War pII?
Korean War?
Vietnam War?
Tap for spoiler
and Secret War and Third Sino-Vietnamese War?
6 Day War?
Somalian Civil War?
Nigerian Civil War?
Yemeni Civil War?
75 million people is the estimated death tool of WW2.
For comparison Vietnam war has an estimation of 1.3 million deaths.
Yes. The Second World War had a deathtoll about 60 times higher. (.3 is much more than I gave it credit for.)
Korean War probably more than 3 million.
Returning to smaller scale war is not an end of war. Nor even close to ending wars. Imperialism causes wider ranging wars is all, as whole networks of military apparatus are mobilised. Modern empires are more nebulous.
Edit: also, your WW2 figure is including civilians and acts of genocide. I think your Vietnamese figure is combatants only.
We have dubbed this span since 1945 “the long peace” which largely this refers to there not being 2 or more wealthy nations in a hot war since the end of WW2. It’s been proxy wars pitting poorer nations against each other - armed by rich nations, and wealthy nations going to war with poorer nations. (Poorer nations going to war and civil wars nonwithstanding because they do not impact global politics)
That was more my point.
Exporting the death and suffering to far off parts of the world and calling it world peace. The only difference with Ukraine is it is closer to home, for most of the G7 anyhow.
The fact that most of those are considered a “civil war” should tell you everything.
WW2 involved multiple nations on both sides, and resulted in millions of deaths. The closest to that was the Korean War, which had Russian pilots flying for Korea, and flying from Chinese bases.
Like I said, nothing on the scale of ww2.
Yes, the Korean war was the biggest with soldiers from dozens of countries dying in action, with a localised theatre.
But how many of those civil wars were hot parts of the Cold War? Can we not lump them into a single Cold War total?
The death toll of the world wars is huge, but equally the death tolls of the strife across Saharan and Central Africa and the Middle East isn’t insignificant. Do we just leave it off the record because the combatants are only our proxies? Fighting with our guns, for our benefit, rather than a war on land we’ve yet to relinquish control over?
Edit: though I’ve gone on a massive tangent. My original point that I let my mind forget and spout off on a tangent, was that there have been lots of wars with coalitions of allies feeding arms to the sides, as we now see in Ukraine in the intervening 70 years. Just less close to home.
