Friday, July 20
A helpful guide.
|1||World War II||Germany, Japan,
|Everyone else||40 million+|
|2||An Lushan Rebellion||China||China||33 million*|
|3||Mongol Invasions||Mongols||Everyone else||30 million**|
|4||Yuan Dynasty Collapse||China||China||30 million|
|5||Ming Dynasty||China||China||25 million|
|6||Taiping Rebellion||China||China||20 million|
|7||World War I||Germany,
|Everyone else||15-65 million|
|8||Tamerlane's Conquests||Tamerlane||Human decency||15 million|
|9||Dungan Revolt||China||China||8 million|
|10||Russian Revolution||Filthy Commies||Anastasia,
* This single 8th century civil war is estimated to have killed 15% of the population of the entire planet.***
** The mongols, by contrast, only wiped out about 10% of the people in the world. Even WWI and the Spanish Flu together couldn't break into double digits.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 168 words, total size 3 kb.
It's interesting how often China is on that chart.
But when it comes to WWI, it isn't really fair to designate Germany, Austria and the Ottomans as the aggressors. Everyone was champing at the bit looking forward to that war, pretty much.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Friday, July 20 2012 03:14 AM (+rSRq)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, July 20 2012 11:25 AM (PiXy!)
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at Friday, July 20 2012 12:39 PM (pWQz4)
Posted by: Jason at Friday, July 20 2012 12:56 PM (6VB4r)
And then somebody decided to give his rope a good, hard yank...
The war could have been stopped in 1915, but Wilson, rather than T.R. got elected (he went 3rd party). I believe (since he was instrumental in stopping the Russo-Japanese War) he could have brokered a peace... maybe.
It's one of history's significant 'what ifs'. Much mayhem and negative change resulted from that useless, bloody war.
The rise of communism not the least of it.
Posted by: CPT. Charles at Friday, July 20 2012 01:00 PM (1GunI)
Posted by: Chris at Friday, July 20 2012 01:22 PM (j6QBF)
Posted by: Ray at Friday, July 20 2012 01:59 PM (7v5dF)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, July 20 2012 02:26 PM (PiXy!)
No they didn't. Russia did when she mobilized her army...which Keizer wilhelm begged the tsar not to do btw.
Posted by: Jason at Friday, July 20 2012 04:17 PM (6VB4r)
Posted by: Vincent Walker at Friday, July 20 2012 10:08 PM (F8nGw)
1. The observation about world leaders being related is interesting, but had no effect on the arms race that preceeded WWI or the war itself. They still contended for possessions in Africa, and they still built battleships designed to fight each other.
2. The Versailles treaty was a scapegoat for the instability of Germany, which lost big in a war it entered. Mentioning the treaty is convenient. Hitler certainly thought so. What is inconvenient were the loans and aid given to Germany. Germany went from being a number of principalities to an empire with a Kaiser to a Weimar Republic to a reich in less than 70 years. That may have also been a factor. Funny how no one wants to mention that. And it was fending off communist uprisings and privation stemming from WWI and the blockade.
3. Were the interlocking treaties a major factor? Yes. But then, Britain and France had treaties with Czechoslovakia in 1938. Ask the Czechs how valuable they were. Germany could have stayed home in WWI. Instead, they launched a pre-planned offensive on two fronts.
Posted by: Blue Hen at Friday, July 20 2012 11:19 PM (6rX0K)
Oh, and if you think a post labelled "History's Bloodiest Wars And Who To Blame: A helpful guide." and listing the Influenza Virus as an aggressor in WWI should be taken seriously - then you flunk grade school reading comprehension.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, July 20 2012 11:53 PM (PiXy!)
By the way - I didn't say they started WWI - reread if you can understand anything beyond 4 letter words. It is indeed ironic that 3 first cousins were heads of state of the major players of WWI.
Posted by: Vincent Walker at Saturday, July 21 2012 02:58 AM (F8nGw)
Posted by: JP at Saturday, July 21 2012 04:45 AM (m8wSv)
Posted by: Alia at Saturday, July 21 2012 07:55 AM (2mJE0)
Vinny: Pixy Misa - You are a flaming fool - as usual - George V was King of England 1910.
Winner: Pixy Misa.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Saturday, July 21 2012 11:42 AM (8KjSa)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, July 21 2012 02:46 PM (PiXy!)
King in 1910? Depends on WHEN in 1910!
Edward VII: 22 January 1901 â€“ 6 May 1910
George V: 6 May 1910 â€“ 20 January 1936
Posted by: Bruce at Saturday, July 21 2012 04:19 PM (MpXo3)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, July 21 2012 04:25 PM (PiXy!)
Unless you close this comment thread, it's going to keep accumulating pedantic nitpicking forever. Five years from now someone will run into it (via the magic of Google) and point out some unimportant detail that you got wrong or didn't include.
I still get letters about USS Clueless, eight years after I stopped writing it.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Saturday, July 21 2012 09:36 PM (+rSRq)
56 queries taking 0.1408 seconds, 344 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.