The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spare a few notable conflicts (ie Taiping rebellion, the US civil war, Crimean wars etc) 1815-1914 was relatively stable from a historical context. The post WW2 order has been even more stable with deaths near an all time low relative to global population. We are currently near an all time low.

Well it was a time of European expansion in Asia and Africa which brought its own type of conflict, violence and brutality. But certainly quite stable in terms of great power conflicts.

What are the sources you and @Cal? are using in terms of death tolls and populations?
 
Well it was a time of European expansion in Asia and Africa which brought its own type of conflict, violence and brutality. But certainly quite stable in terms of great power conflicts.

What are the sources you and @Cal? are using in terms of death tolls and populations?

This has some good data, particularly the top graphic showing civilian and military deaths since 1400 relative to global population changes.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
 
This has some good data, particularly the top graphic showing civilian and military deaths since 1400 relative to global population changes.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

Excellent. Without the Taiping Rebellion the 19th century would be more in line with the post-WW2 it seems.

And this is the first time I ever heard of the Lopez War.

Quite shocking what a violent place Europe has been, especially when we consider that much of the death and violence outside Europe in the post-1500 time period was due to European-waged wars.
 
Excellent. Without the Taiping Rebellion the 19th century would be more in line with the post-WW2 it seems.

And this is the first time I ever heard of the Lopez War.

Quite shocking what a violent place Europe has been, especially when we consider that much of the death and violence outside Europe in the post-1500 time period was due to European-waged wars.

Definitely. The post 1945 period in particular suggests the post WW2 international rules based order and everything it has brought with it seems to be reducing global conflicts/deaths.
 
Definitely. The post 1945 period in particular suggests the post WW2 international rules based order and everything it has brought with it seems to be reducing global conflicts/deaths.
Trump is actively trying to destroy that world order. :mad:
 
Utter cnut... May won’t have the balls but his invitation should be rescinded immediately.
 
*Putin is, Trump is just happy to go along for the ride and bask in any sort of praise he can get.
Trump is doing much more than Putin to destroy the world... Putin doesn’t have the money or the military to do it.
 
Vietnam doesn't wrap up into a neat little bundle.
I’m well aware, but the point remains that the last 70 years has been the most peaceful period in human history in terms of death toll due to wars.
 
There were plenty of regional conflicts, but it's already been the most peaceful 70 years in human history.

I suppose you should maybe ask the people outside of the West their opinion on that. South and Central America. Africa. The Middle East. Asia, South East Asia. Was it peaceful for them?

I'm actually 100% certain, that more people died as a result of those 70 years of "most peace in human history" due to wars, than died in the vast majority of any other 70 year sample block of time in human history due to wars.
 
I suppose you should maybe ask the people outside of the West their opinion on that. South and Central America. Africa. The Middle East. Asia, South East Asia. Was it peaceful for them?

I'm actually 100% certain, that more people died as a result of those 70 years of "most peace in human history" due to wars, than died in the vast majority of any other 70 year sample block of time in human history due to wars.
As a percentage of global population that’s certainly not the case.

More people died because there were just far more people. Also a big difference if you include China’s internal struggles due to Mao in that count.
 
Trump is doing much more than Putin to destroy the world... Putin doesn’t have the money or the military to do it.
IMO Trump's just in it for the grift. He has no endgame besides that and that's why he was viewed as a useful idiot to help with Russia's efforts at a destabilized global order that they can ultimately benefit from.
 
Spare a few notable conflicts (ie Taiping rebellion, the US civil war, Crimean wars etc) 1815-1914 was relatively stable from a historical context. The post WW2 order has been even more stable with deaths near an all time low relative to global population. We are currently near an all time low.


We've only had historic lows in military deaths, since the Rawandan Genocide btw. Prior to that, deaths per capita had been trending down, but it was trending higher than historic lows which came at the end of the 19th century, the end of the 17th century and most of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries which saw large portions of those centuries seeing around 2 deaths per 100,000 people. Of course these are best guess estimates. At the end of the 17th century, we see a drop to around 1 death per 100k following the War of Spanish Succession, and then another drop to about 1 death per 100k at the end of the 19th century. Military death rates have dropped to obscenely all time lows, with about .1 per 100k in around 2010, but it has climbed up to about .5 per 100k in the last 8 years. Civilian + Military deaths, which the other estimates are based off of, have declined in the last few decades, around 200 per 100k at the end of WW2 to about 10 during the Vietnam War era, and now somewhere around 2.

In fact, casualty rates per 100,000 over the last 70 years, have been mostly well above average since the 14th century. The Thirty Years war saw an estimated death rate around equal to WW2. War of Spanish Success about half of that with ~100 per 100k. War of Austrian Succession about 20 per 100k. Napoleonic Wars, about 50 per 100k. Taiping Rebellion - American Civil War 10-20 per 100k. Most of the last 70 years the death rate has hovered at a level well above the historical lows.

Everything before about the early 19th century are based on best guess estimates based on known rates of deaths and casualty rates from the primary source information that did exist, and then extrapolated on a larger scale. So it's not perfect by any means, at the very least, you should be considering that the last 70 years hasn't been some golden age of humanity regarding war deaths. It's been largely in line with any period without major conflicts throughout the last 600 odd years.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace

What you will see is, it isn't the last 70 years. It's the last 20-25 years where things have really cooled off, but they are trending up again.
 
I suppose you should maybe ask the people outside of the West their opinion on that. South and Central America. Africa. The Middle East. Asia, South East Asia. Was it peaceful for them?

I'm actually 100% certain, that more people died as a result of those 70 years of "most peace in human history" due to wars, than died in the vast majority of any other 70 year sample block of time in human history due to wars.

Relatively speaking the last 70 years are minor compared to other parts of history.

The chinese 3 kingdoms era alone cost millions of lives. The 100 years war. The world war 1 and 2. The mongols. The persian. Macedonians. Etc.

The last great war history witnesses is world war 2.

Ironically the advancement of technology reduced the needs of actual soldier. God knows how many more would have perished if world war 2 was fought with swords and sandals. The war in those times were brutal and mass execution, pillage and plunder are the common norm. At least these days half the world adhere to geneva convetion and some basic decency of not killing civilians target.

Plus history doesnt record many tribal wars in the past. Indonesian history alone consist of warring kingdom. Nowdays all wars casualty are well recorded and there's data to tally, it wasnt always known how many perished in past ancients wars.
 
As a percentage of global population that’s certainly not the case.

More people died because there were just far more people. Also a big difference if you include China’s internal struggles due to Mao in that count.

I think you might be wrong on this. I just showed data from a leading historian that puts that claim in reasonable doubt.
 
Relatively speaking the last 70 years are minor compared to other parts of history.

The chinese 3 kingdoms era alone cost millions of lives. The 100 years war. The world war 1 and 2. The mongols. The persian. Macedonians. Etc.

The last great war history witnesses is world war 2.

Ironically the advancement of technology reduced the needs of actual soldier. God knows how many more would have perished if world war 2 was fought with swords and sandals. The war in those times were brutal and mass execution, pillage and plunder are the common norm. At least these days half the world adhere to geneva convetion and some basic decency of not killing civilians target.

Plus history doesnt record many tribal wars in the past. Indonesian history alone consist of warring kingdom. Nowdays all wars casualty are well recorded and there's data to tally, it wasnt always known how many perished in past ancients wars.

I find this very doubtful that millions died in the 3 kingdom period. I say this because, 1, it's almost an entirely romanticized period in Chinese history. 2, historians from those time periods are prone to gross exaggeration. The Greeks at Thermopylae did not fight millions of Persians. Sizes were usually grossly exaggerated regarding army sizes, and therefore casualties. It's possible, China had the population to lose millions, however, whenever you deal with casualty reports and army sizes for any region from those time periods, it usually best to take them with a grain of salt.

Lastly, the rate of wars has decreased, but the casualty rates in them has gone up. Look at the first chart from the link I posted a post or two up. Tell me that looks like all time lows since WW2. The death rate looks to me like it's above the historical average going back to 1400.
 
I find this very doubtful that millions died in the 3 kingdom period. I say this because, 1, it's almost an entirely romanticized period in Chinese history. 2, historians from those time periods are prone to gross exaggeration. The Greeks at Thermopylae did not fight millions of Persians. Sizes were usually grossly exaggerated regarding army sizes, and therefore casualties. It's possible, China had the population to lose millions, however, whenever you deal with casualty reports and army sizes for any region from those time periods, it usually best to take them with a grain of salt.

Lastly, the rate of wars has decreased, but the casualty rates in them has gone up. Look at the first chart from the link I posted a post or two up. Tell me that looks like all time lows since WW2. The death rate looks to me like it's above the historical average going back to 1400.

It's not unbelievable at all. Back in those days thousands would perish due to travel long before the actual war starts. Marching across china would take their tolls. And you really need bodies to scale those walls. There's no real artillery back then.

The less advanced the technology the more humans you need. Even with technology the battle of stalingrad and operation barbossa alone cost million of lives. Imagine them fighting across russia without tanks and planes and no modern equipment, no medicals, etc

Plus the three kingdoms spans a good tens of years. While the world war 2 hardly last more than 5 years. Not to mention the atrocities of war back then. What hitler did in the concentration camp are the daily routine in ancient wars. It's not unheard of for the losers to be fully decimated to the last human being.
 
What did I miss? Why are we talking about Ancient China?

Trump held a speech on the Yan Xiang dynasty and it's implications on his political thinking.


Jokes aside, the talk is about war deaths throughout the centuries and whether the 2nd part of the 20th was 'peaceful' or not (having Trumps WW3 on the horizon and the deaths of that to come).
 
What did I miss?

A load of bollocks.

Saying it's been the most peaceful period of human existence is massively unfair to all the African, Asian, South American and Middle Eastern countries that have suffered some of the worst atrocities and genocides in history.

Basically, because since WWII the first world countries have all not been at war with each other people are making out it's been like paradise on the planet for the last 70 odd years. I think it's a hugely disrespectful and ignorant statement to make and arguing about its corectness is just being pedantic for the sake of it.

You could also argue it has been one of the most destructive periods of time too with the mass over-fishing and pollution and extinction of species at the highest rate ever.
 
Half of Americans live in or near poverty...HALF!


When I studied O Level history at school, modern day USA featured heavily. I was glad because I loved reading about it/them. But even then I couldn't fathom the fake nature of the whole country. It was literally eating itself. I was always thinking JR Ewing would be the quintessential representative of the whole nation. Fast forward 30+ years and he is.
 
This is just starting on BBC 2 - Reporting Trump’s First Year: The Fourth Estate - Following the inner workings of The New York Times, one of the most prolific American media outlets, during the first 12 months of Donald Trump's presidency.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8lfhc
 
This is just starting on BBC 2 - Reporting Trump’s First Year: The Fourth Estate - Following the inner workings of The New York Times, one of the most prolific American media outlets, during the first 12 months of Donald Trump's presidency.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8lfhc
Wrong thread mate, this is a thread discussing world history and death rates.
 
A load of bollocks.

Saying it's been the most peaceful period of human existence is massively unfair to all the African, Asian, South American and Middle Eastern countries that have suffered some of the worst atrocities and genocides in history.

Basically, because since WWII the first world countries have all not been at war with each other people are making out it's been like paradise on the planet for the last 70 odd years. I think it's a hugely disrespectful and ignorant statement to make and arguing about its corectness is just being pedantic for the sake of it.

You could also argue it has been one of the most destructive periods of time too with the mass over-fishing and pollution and extinction of species at the highest rate ever.

The data refers to global numbers which would of course include the developing world. We are at or near a period of unprecedented peace in terms of civilian and military war deaths when compared to historical numbers relative to population increases over time.
 
Last edited:
Have the tariffs imposed on US products started hitting home already?
 
Have the tariffs imposed on US products started hitting home already?
Harley Davidson have already said they are in the shits. Their case is even worse. They're paying more for steel and their final products has been hit with tarrifs.
 
The other thing is that the courts are going to reverse the tariffs within the next 12 months. The whole thing is a waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.