top | item 11247363

(no title)

100timesthis | 10 years ago

I'm not saying that it isn't a tragedy but it's an order of magnitude less than WWII[1], or am I missing something?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

discuss

order

boxy310|10 years ago

It's the largest single armed conflict since World War II, and yet it has less visibility than the Korean War (2,859,574 casualties [1]), Vietnam War (1,450,000 casualties [2]), or the Iraq War (654,965 casualties [3]). It's even worse known that the deaths through famines induced during the Cultural Revolution in China (400,000, rough estimate [4]).

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-fac...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

[3] http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

[4] https://books.google.com/books?id=YpV7vbvclfgC&pg=PA354#v=on...

vacri|10 years ago

It has less visibility than those because there were no western nations (and hence western media) involved with boots on the ground. Or planes in the air, for that matter. The other thing is that the bulk of deaths were knock-on deaths from things like famine and disease rather than military violence.

However, it is still a good indication of just how little attention we pay to Africa here in the west, that people in general don't even know that it existed.