1918 flu pandemic vs. the two World Wars

[Heloise Wild]

Every year, we remember the war veterans; there are memorials, there is war literature. And it is admirable that we remember, that we have learned from this experience and are trying to make the planet more humane. However, there are things we forget, things just as devastating, and I wonder, Why?

I just came upon this statistics...
The number of victims (in case of the wars, including civilians)
World War I: 35 million
World War II: 60 million
1918 flu pandemic: up to 100 million and 500 million (1/4 of world population) infected

That is to say, it is estimated that the epidemic claimed as many victims as the two wars combined... Why don't we have a date to honour those people, then? You could say that dying from an illness isn't heroic, that their death was meaningless. But to me, to tell the truth, there is not much difference between a war and an illness meaning-wise...

[stlukesguild]

The usual estimate is that the deaths for the 1918 Flu Pandemic ("Spanish Influenza") falls between 50-100 million deaths with the number likely leaning toward the lower end of the spectrum. This amounts to approximately 3% of the world population of the time. The losses are commonly included within the number of losses as a result of World War I bringing the total for that war to approximately 65-million. World War II casualties range from an estimated 40-72-million with the number likely leaning toward the higher end of this spectrum, and WWI deaths excluding those caused by the flue number approx. 15-million.

The losses from the Spanish Influenza are commonly included in the casualties from WWI not because the flu began in the trenches, but rather because the conditions of the war: the vast transportation of troops, the large concentration of troops in confined spaces, the weakened immune systems of soldiers as the result of the war, and the lack of communication about the pandemic due to press blackouts... likely led to the rapid spread of the disease. The disease also seems to have been far more deadly to young adults than it was to older adults and children. Combined with the massing of young adults in the trenches in Europe made for something akin to the "perfect storm".

The two greatest human-inflicted disasters in history are estimated to have been the An Lushan Rebellion in China (December 16, 755 to CE February 17, 763) which amounted for an estimated 36-million deaths, and the Mongol Conquests (1207-1472) which resulted in an estimate of 30-60 million deaths. In both of these instances the losses would account for more the 15% of the entire earth's population at the time. This compares to 1.7-3.1% for all the losses of WWII.

The greatest losses due to "natural causes" include the Bubonic Plague or "Black Death" which accounted for approximately 100-million deaths from 1300-1720. Reaching it's peak in Europe c. 1350 it claimed as high as 60% of the European population. The Plagues of Justinian (540–590), an earlier outbreak of Bubonic Plague claimed between 40-100 million at that time (an astronomical number considering the world population).

In the 20th century alone, smallpox has accounted for as many as 300-million deaths, Measles as many as 200-million, Malaria as high as 250-million, and Tuberculosis as much as 100-million. Even now as many as 250,000 die annually from seasonal influenza (the flu).

Kind of paints a bleak picture of the fragile state of human existence.:(

[Darcy88]

The usual estimate is that the deaths for the 1918 Flu Pandemic ("Spanish Influenza") falls between 50-100 million deaths with the number likely leaning toward the lower end of the spectrum. This amounts to approximately 3% of the world population of the time. The losses are commonly included within the number of losses as a result of World War I bringing the total for that war to approximately 65-million. World War II casualties range from an estimated 40-72-million with the number likely leaning toward the higher end of this spectrum, and WWI deaths excluding those caused by the flue number approx. 15-million.

The losses from the Spanish Influenza are commonly included in the casualties from WWI not because the flu began in the trenches, but rather because the conditions of the war: the vast transportation of troops, the large concentration of troops in confined spaces, the weakened immune systems of soldiers as the result of the war, and the lack of communication about the pandemic due to press blackouts... likely led to the rapid spread of the disease. The disease also seems to have been far more deadly to young adults than it was to older adults and children. Combined with the massing of young adults in the trenches in Europe made for something akin to the "perfect storm".

The two greatest human-inflicted disasters in history are estimated to have been the An Lushan Rebellion in China (December 16, 755 to CE February 17, 763) which amounted for an estimated 36-million deaths, and the Mongol Conquests (1207-1472) which resulted in an estimate of 30-60 million deaths. In both of these instances the losses would account for more the 15% of the entire earth's population at the time. This compares to 1.7-3.1% for all the losses of WWII.

The greatest losses due to "natural causes" include the Bubonic Plague or "Black Death" which accounted for approximately 100-million deaths from 1300-1720. Reaching it's peak in Europe c. 1350 it claimed as high as 60% of the European population. The Plagues of Justinian (540–590), an earlier outbreak of Bubonic Plague claimed between 40-100 million at that time (an astronomical number considering the world population).

In the 20th century alone, smallpox has accounted for as many as 300-million deaths, Measles as many as 200-million, Malaria as high as 250-million, and Tuberculosis as much as 100-million. Even now as many as 250,000 die annually from seasonal influenza (the flu).

Kind of paints a bleak picture of the fragile state of human existence.:(

That's staggering. And you didn't even include AIDS. I heard recently that non-infectious diseases now kill more people annually world-wide than infectious diseases do.

[Heloise Wild]

It's just that we don't think about it... Like with accidents: when a plane crushes or there is a terrorist attack, the entire country is panicing. And yet you probably have a higher chance of dying from eating potato salad than by being blown up by a bomb. Life is fragile indeed!
And it looks like, with so much sh*t happening, humanity can only remember the most dramatic events...
In school, we studied all the wars extensively, but there was hardly ever more than one paragraph about epidemics, and nothing at all about all the other diseases. While, in fact, before the early 20th century, life expectancy stayed at about 40 pretty much everywhere, and every one in several infants would die. People's everyday lifes are not fun enough to put them into textbooks, I guess. = ) But we are lucky to live in our times.

[JuniperWoolf]

I consider diseases a force of nature. They're not created by us (well, most of the time - viruses usually evolve on their own), whereas we have a say over whether or not we shoot someone. There's a difference between dying and being killed. I think that's why we "remember" wars. They serve as an example of what actions to avoid ourselves.


Kind of paints a bleak picture of the fragile state of human existence.

It's also a testament to our survival capabilities. We survived terrible diseases for thousands of years of years before we even knew about sterilization. I'm not too worried about disease wiping out our species. Because our species is so widely distributed there are always going to be isolated people who won't ever come into contact with even the most virulent disease. Those people will survive to breed and over time our population will grow again. Even just a handful of humans is enough, we're clever, enough humans will be able to isolate themselves if they see something coming and they'll be able to survive afterwards. We're a pretty unique species. We know how disease spreads and we know how to protect ourselves. I think we can endure almost any plague or epidemic.

[Alexander III]

There is a huge difference to me. A man does not choose to get the plague, but a man chooses to go fight a war. Dying from disease is just death. Dying in war, is participating in an outstanding human tradition. More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive. Dying in war is joining those countless billions in a tragic and beautifull human tradition.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[OrphanPip]

There is a huge difference to me. A man does not choose to get the plague, but a man chooses to go fight a war. Dying from disease is just death. Dying in war, is participating in an outstanding human tradition. More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive. Dying in war is joining those countless billions in a tragic and beautifull human tradition.

Well it's not quite true everyone who fights in wars chose to do so. A lot of people fighting in wars historically have been slaves, and then after the rise of the professional army they have increasingly been the poorest of our society who have little other opportunities.

Also I don't think more than 6 billion people have died in wars.

[MarkBastable]

More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive.

That's not true. You just made that up, didn't you?

On the other hand, I think it might be true that there are more people alive today than have ever lived - which would make your claim a logical impossibility*. It would also suggest that human existence isn't that fragile at all.




Actually, not impossible, but incredibly unlikely.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

On the other hand, I think it might be true that there are more people alive today than have ever lived - .
That can't be right. I mean, just thinking about it . . . it can't be right (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/08/people-living-today-outnumber-all-those.html).

As to why wars are remembered more than disease, I agree with what others have touched on. Wars are so much more dramatic than disease. Wars have guns and explosions and stories ... disease just makes people drop over dead--there isn't much to it.

[OrphanPip]

What??? What's with you people and crazy, made-up statistics?

Well it's not that far fetched because of the nature of exponential population growth. The actual truth of the matter is complicated, it depends on how far back you go, and who deserves counting, because of things like infant mortality rate and the like. Most estimates place the number of people alive today as around 5-10% of those who have ever lived.

It would be much higher if we considered only those who lived to adulthood.

[JuniperWoolf]

It's true, the world's human population is having a huge boom. We only crossed the 1 billion mark in 1804. Considering that humans have been around for roughly 2.4 million years it's obvious that even if it isn't technically correct that there are more people alive today than have ever lived, it took us much longer to get to one billion than it did to two, or 6.8 billion, which indicates exponential growth. Here, look at this graph:

http://subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/images/worldPopulation/WorldPopulationGraph_yearPre7000BCto2025AD_metalAg es_703x578.jpg

Kind of looks like someone just tipped it onto it's side in the mid Victorian, doesn't it? The only population trend that almost matches this one is a J-Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve) (or exponential curve). The difference is that we haven't had the sharp decline yet, and maybe we won't - who knows? Humans are the only species that has ever existed on earth with such a highly rational mind. We've figured out a lot, maybe we'll find some way to sustain such a large population.

At any rate, I'm quite sure that we can survive a plague, even if we crash. We've survived population crashes before (albeit small ones in comparison to our now huge population), check out the point on the graph that indicates the Black Death. Species crash all the time, the rabbit species in my own area took a nosedive in 1978 and yet there are still rabbits here. Some survived the die off to breed.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[keilj]

That's not true. You just made that up, didn't you?
.

He meant "in battle with death." They were battling death, and lost - hyuk

[Alexander III]

That's not true. You just made that up, didn't you?

On the other hand, I think it might be true that there are more people alive today than have ever lived - which would make your claim a logical impossibility*. It would also suggest that human existence isn't that fragile at all.


Actually, not impossible, but incredibly unlikely.


Well it's not quite true everyone who fights in wars chose to do so. A lot of people fighting in wars historically have been slaves, and then after the rise of the professional army they have increasingly been the poorest of our society who have little other opportunities.

Also I don't think more than 6 billion people have died in wars.


Seriously guys? Must we be so overly rational that a man cannot even use rethoric on a literature site without being damned a heretic to the God Of Reason.

To paraprase a quote

Since we cannot assign values to that which does matter, we have made the quantifiable all that does matter.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There's a difference between using rhetoric and pulling stuff out of your butt.

[Alexander III]

There's a difference between using rhetoric and pulling stuff out of your butt.

I never talked of statistics or facts, I dont know why everyone assumes otherwise. I said something, which was opininated and subjective and everyone thinks I said somethings which was an objective fact.

Seriously learn to read between the lines...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How is this supposed to be opinionated and subjective? It reads like an objective fact to me.

More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive.

[Alexander III]

How is this supposed to be opinionated and subjective? It reads like an objective fact to me.

But if you read it within the context of my entire post you will see otherwise.

No offence (a sense of propriety impelled me to put those words there) but what is up with making a mountain out of a molehill...and secondly if you wish to make an issue, do it well, do it with confidence, but most importantly do it in a manner which doesnt highlight your personal faults of ineffectuality and timidity and having as much indipendant thought as a sheep...The truth is that had everyone else not noticed anything wrong with my post, you would have said nothing...but because they did you find it safe to follow behinde.

[Emil Miller]

Please oh please do not close this thread down moderators, because it's absolutely hilarious.

[Buh4Bee]

Emil- I stopped reading after the ignore button kept popping up!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But if you read it within the context of my entire post you will see otherwise. Basic reading skills 101 - isolated sentences should be read in context.

No offence (a sense of propriety impelled me to put those words there) but what is up with making a mountain out of a molehill...and secondly if you wish to make an issue, do it well, do it with confidence, but most importantly do it in a manner which doesnt highlight your personal faults of ineffectuality and timidity and having as much indipendant thought as a sheep...The truth is that had everyone else not noticed anything wrong with my post, you would have said nothing...but because they did you find it safe to follow behinde.
I did read within the context. I'll even post the quote in full, with the much ballyhooed phrase bolded.

There is a huge difference to me. A man does not choose to get the plague, but a man chooses to go fight a war. Dying from disease is just death. Dying in war, is participating in an outstanding human tradition. More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive. Dying in war is joining those countless billions in a tragic and beautifull human tradition.
How is that changed within the context? I can't see how. It is still a statement seeming to make a factual and objective claim--that more men have died in battle than there are men alive. It's not qualified with anything to suggest that it is not intended to be a statement of fact. Now, maybe the whole post was written in a sarcastic tone that I didn't detect, and maybe there is something I'm missing here that does indeed make the bolded section just a statement of opinion. I'm not claiming infallibility. I'm just commenting on what I see.

I only made an issue of it after you responded to others (I didn't even bother with it in the first place) saying it wasn't meant to be a factual statement. The truth is, had you not made that statement, I would have said nothing, so how that makes me a sheep, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how any of this highlights my own faults or ineffectualities. Maybe you could explain? Frankly, the "pulling stuff out of your butt" comment was made flippantly--I just wish now I had added a happy emoticon, which may have averted us from this whole conundrum.

[OrphanPip]

Seriously guys? Must we be so overly rational that a man cannot even use rethoric on a literature site without being damned a heretic to the God Of Reason.

To paraprase a quote

Since we cannot assign values to that which does matter, we have made the quantifiable all that does matter.

I just added that as an aside. My main objection was to the silly romanticizing of war, a tradition that has generally been exploitative, ugly, and destructive. The romanticizing isn't the experience of the soldier, but the experience of coddled readers after the fact.

[Emil Miller]

I just added that as an aside. My main objection was to the silly romanticizing of war, a tradition that has generally been exploitative, ugly, and destructive. The romanticizing isn't the experience of the soldier, but the experience of coddled readers after the fact.

You obviously haven't heard of Ernst Junger or his well-known writings on warfare that he personally experienced as a highly decorated German officer. Moreover, one of my old acquaintances in Germany, who had lost a leg fighting the Russians at Leningrad, told me that he would do exactly the same if he were called upon to fight for his country in similar circumstances.
Youthful idealism about the evils of war has nothing to to do with the realities of the world.

[Darcy88]

You obviously haven't heard of Ernst Junger or his well-known writings on warfare that he personally experienced as a highly decorated German officer. Moreover, one of my old acquaintances in Germany, who had lost a leg fighting the Russians at Leningrad, told me that he would do exactly the same if he were called upon to fight for his country in similar circumstances.
Youthful idealism about the evils of war has nothing to to do with the realities of the world.

War is a brutal, ugly, horrid affair. A large percentage of soldiers suffer post-traumatic stress. My great-grandfather was a decorated officer in world war 1. He never once spoke of his experience to anyone until he was lying on his death bed.

Men in the prime of their lives cut down, limbs blown off, crying out in agony to their mothers or to God as the light diminishes. One need not be an idealist to recognize the evil in that.

[OrphanPip]

You obviously haven't heard of Ernst Junger or his well-known writings on warfare that he personally experienced as a highly decorated German officer. Moreover, one of my old acquaintances in Germany, who had lost a leg fighting the Russians at Leningrad, told me that he would do exactly the same if he were called upon to fight for his country in similar circumstances.
Youthful idealism about the evils of war has nothing to to do with the realities of the world.

Idealism? There is nothing idealistic in recognizing that the several million who died in the wars didn't exactly have a grand old time. War is often necessary, and it certainly takes courage for one to enlist voluntarily. However, that is a far way from engaging in a fantasy of hero worship and adventure, of Romanticizing death so that we can all act like it's a little less ugly than it really is.

Do some enjoy it? Sure, but some also enjoy rape and murder, that's no testament to the value of the institution. The reality of it is that most come back scarred for life, and deal with mental health issues for life. If they're lucky enough not to just end up dead or permanently maimed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You obviously haven't heard of Ernst Junger or his well-known writings on warfare that he personally experienced as a highly decorated German officer. Moreover, one of my old acquaintances in Germany, who had lost a leg fighting the Russians at Leningrad, told me that he would do exactly the same if he were called upon to fight for his country in similar circumstances.
Youthful idealism about the evils of war has nothing to to do with the realities of the world.

So, what, war is a wonderful, heroic experience, Emil, based on a German officer and an acquaintance who had a grand ol' time? And, just because he would do it over again, as many soldiers would because they believe in fighting for their country, doesn't mean it's some sort of great experience. Personally, the man I knew who fought in WWII, my grandfather, never spoke of his experiences. I guess he just had so much fun it was hard to express.

And I love that last, oxymoronic sentence. The "youthful idealism about the evils of war." I guess the pesky youth of the world just can't see war for its wonderful glory, hmm? :rolleyes5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Please oh please do not close this thread down moderators, because it's absolutely hilarious.

No kidding, and the award for most stupid forum argument goes to....

Really though, I don't think that anyone engaging in this conversation has ever actually been in the military. I don't think that we have any litnetters who have done a tour of duty in a warzone, but I'd be much more intersted to hear what our army litnetters have to say on the romanticism of war (I think it's just Hurricane and Basil who are army folks). I can understand both sides to the argument. When I was a cadet, they made war sound almost romantic. My captain who was on a Canadian riverboat delivering supplies in Vietnam when he bumped into some dangling mines said: "there is no racism in war. If you're in deep ****, you don't care about the color of the guy beside you, he's suddenly become your brother. We all bleed red, which you learn real quick." I'd describe that as poetic, insightful and yes, somewhat romantic (the "he's your brother" part).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I live for stupid forum arguments. They're the most fun.

I don't disagree that war can be romanticized. Anything can be romanticized. It's the idea that these romanticisms reflect reality that troubles me.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't disagree that war can be romanticized. Anything can be romanticized. It's the idea that these romanticisms reflect reality that troubles me.

Yeah, I was a bit troubled by the tone at first as well, but the thing is, lots of people take a more romantic, brotherly, honor-driven attitude towards war and those people are usually the first to sign up to fight and die in times of trouble.

[stlukesguild]

Seriously, none of you can really be thinking of engaging Alexander III in a debate of ethics or rational facts, now can you? Have you not noticed that he has been gradually reinventing himself as a sort of Wildean aesthete and dandy ala Jean Des Esseintes, Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly, Robert de Montesquiou, and Proust's Baron de Charlus? I'm no longer certain whether the character Alex presents here is but a literary invention, a true portrayal of himself... or a bit of each... but does it really matter? We all should have expected that Alex would respond to the question of war in the Romanticized manner in which he did. My only surprise is that he didn't bother to quote Marinetti.:hand:

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, I'm glad someone finally came out and said that.

[billl]

http://www.formula1.com/photos/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame_profile/top_right/hof_profile_right_242.jpg


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Seriously, none of you can really be thinking of engaging Alexander III in a debate of ethics or rational facts, now can you? Have you not noticed that he has been gradually reinventing himself as a sort of Wildean aesthete and dandy ala Jean Des Esseintes, Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly, Robert de Montesquiou, and Proust's Baron de Charlus? I'm no longer certain whether the character Alex presents here is but a literary invention, a true portrayal of himself... or a bit of each... but does it really matter? We all should have expected that Alex would respond to the question of war in the Romanticized manner in which he did. My only surprise is that he didn't bother to quote Marinetti.:hand:

:smilielol5:

My real problem is with his "More men in human history have died in battle than there are men alive" comment. That is the important issue, here.

[stlukesguild]

Ummm... billl... I believe that's Mario Andretti not Filippo Marinetti. But what the hell... Alex should appreciate the aesthetic of his hair style if not his quote. :smilielol5:

[billl]

Perhaps I posted too quickly, St. Luke's--but the words are still worthy of a Futurist! (And, yes, the guy has the style of an Italian...)

[Emil Miller]

War is a brutal, ugly, horrid affair.


Only an idiot would deny it but only an idiot would also deny that, notwithstanding, wars are being fought at this moment and will, in all probability, go on being so into the foreseeable future.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[PoeticPassions]

I consider diseases a force of nature. They're not created by us (well, most of the time - viruses usually evolve on their own), whereas we have a say over whether or not we shoot someone. There's a difference between dying and being killed. I think that's why we "remember" wars. They serve as an example of what actions to avoid ourselves.



While I agree that there is a difference, particularly when we talk about something like the Plague or influenza, but we also have to consider that a lot of the deaths these days are due to structural violence (Galtung coined the term, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence). There is no reason, for example, for children to die of starvation or malaria, because we have the means to prevent these things. However, due to the inequalities that remain in the world, and a number of factors, these diseases, famines, etc continue to wreak havoc. The powerless are kept powerless and dependent, and these cycles of oppression continue...

Also, many of the natives in America died of smallpox, but that's because the Europeans gave them infected blankets. Disease can be used in far worse ways than even weapons.

[JuniperWoolf]

Good points.

[Alexander III]

Seriously, none of you can really be thinking of engaging Alexander III in a debate of ethics or rational facts, now can you? Have you not noticed that he has been gradually reinventing himself as a sort of Wildean aesthete and dandy ala Jean Des Esseintes, Jules Barbey d'Aurevilly, Robert de Montesquiou, and Proust's Baron de Charlus? I'm no longer certain whether the character Alex presents here is but a literary invention, a true portrayal of himself... or a bit of each... but does it really matter? We all should have expected that Alex would respond to the question of war in the Romanticized manner in which he did. My only surprise is that he didn't bother to quote Marinetti.:hand:

If you would prefer me to be more static and lifeless I will try to oblidge...

As to the topic, I was not saying war is a great and good thing. I aknowlege that it is brutal and traumatic and one of the worst experiances a human being can go trough. But because it is that, because is is one of the most horrific expeiances of men, it inspires honor and respect.

I understand why from 1960's to now the prevailing attitude of the masses is war is horrible and it should never be done. Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan are the wars we have, and they are all revolting. Iraq was fought for oil, Afganistan for opium and Vietnam was a dick waving contests with the russians. Our major wars have all been about profit for corporations and sensless loss of life, add to that the fact that we are all being propagandaded to oblivion with the fact that we are fighting for freedom and I am hardly suprised by the nauseasting effect upon all of us in regards to war being honorless.

But we are not the end all of history. There were wars before us and there will be wars after us.

Think of the second world war, what if Britain surrendered and America never joined - will you tell me that it was a war which was being fought for nothing? All your freedoms which we have would no longer have been. AT least the men who died there died to give us the right to lead enjoyable and free lives and to die in comfort and uslessness.

Lets go even more back, the entire concept of european civilization would never have existed if it had not been for the spartans thespians and thebans, that day, european civilization and our unique concepts of the individual and personal freedom would have never existed.

So yes was is brutal and horrifc and pointless in most instances - but the only reason we can call it pointless is because men have died in previosu wars to ensure that we could call war "pointless" to ensure that we could call war whatever we want and not fear persecution for being an individual.

Lets go more back

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think you bring up an interesting idea, Alex. Are wars less meaningful now? It seems like wars used to actually stand for something--WW1 and especially WW2, both had a very clearly defined enemy, someone that could be seen, and their horrible actions could be seen. Now it's not so clear. From an American standpoint, I can't think of one war that had a clear purpose or enemy since WW2.

And I think we would all agree that we don't want you to be more static and lifeless at all. :nod:

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Mutatis-Mutandi;1095826] From an American standpoint, I can't think of one war that had a clear purpose or enemy since WW2. QUOTE]

You are forgetting the Korean war that lasted for 3 years in which the enemy were clearly defined as communist north Korean troops who invaded south Korea in 1950. The invasion was halted by UN (principally US) forces who eventually forced the communists back across the 38th parallel dividing North from South. US casualties included somewhere in the region of 40,000 dead.

[Alexander III]

I think you bring up an interesting idea, Alex. Are wars less meaningful now? It seems like wars used to actually stand for something--WW1 and especially WW2, both had a very clearly defined enemy, someone that could be seen, and their horrible actions could be seen. Now it's not so clear. From an American standpoint, I can't think of one war that had a clear purpose or enemy since WW2.

And I think we would all agree that we don't want you to be more static and lifeless at all. :nod:

I have to agree with Ragnar, on the point of WW1 - it was arguably the most pointless and tragic war mankind has ever seen. Europe lost the cream of an entire generation over what was essentialy a Family dispute and the profiterring of bussiness. In fact those who fought in it were refered to as the "lost generation" compare that to those who fought WWII who became the baby boomer generation.

But WWI changed the face of the world far more than WWII - most historians regard WWI as the true begining of the 20th century.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Darcy88]

Depends on what you mean by "America." If you mean the American business elite, then communism anywhere was a threat.

[Emil Miller]

Mutatis said:



My emphasis. The purpose was... what? The North Koreans were the enemies of the US... how?

Because the US had emerged from WW11 as the major power facing the USSR which supplied the weapons to North Korea so that it could launch the war against South Korea that was backed by the US and the UN, but principally by the US that didn't want communism muscling in on their far Eastern sphere of influence.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[togre]

Depends on what you mean by "America." If you mean the American business elite, then communism anywhere was a threat.

I can't help but view this comment as flowing from a weakness in your historical knowledge. To know what the people living in the first half of the 1900's thought of communism would cause you to at least understand that nearly all levels of society viewed communism as a threat to the principles and ideals on which this country was founded and to the very way of life of nearly every individual. To know the plans of the Communist International and the actions it took in this Era to achieve them would cause you to at least wonder if the threat perhaps was as great as perceived.

[BienvenuJDC]

How many innocent babies are murdered from the womb each year?

[Emil Miller]

Well, that answers... none of my questions. Of course, you can always say that country X threatens the US's interests or allies, if the US sticks its nose where it doesn't belong in the first place.

It has nothing to do with sticking their noses in. In 1945, Japan, that had occupied the whole of Korea since 1910, ceded the country to the US who, as de facto rulers, divided the country between the communist north and the non communist south. When the communist north invaded the south, the US was still responsible for the security of the south and obviously came into conflict with the invading forces.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I strongly disagree regarding WWI. I watched a ten-hour History Channel documentary about WWI, and the most vivid impression I took from it is that once the war started, nation upon nation joined it not really knowing why or who the enemy was, except that someone who isn't "us" is supposedly up against someone who is identified with "us".

There was one particularly comical and symbolic true story in the documentary, where a German soldier accidentally crossed into the French (British? I don't remember) trenches. The soldiers there treated him to a dinner, swapped jokes, and sent him back with some souvenirs a few hours later. As soon as he got back to the German trenches, they started shooting at him. It's as if this was taken straight out of Catch-22.

If you think that Germany was the only Bad Guy in that war, then you're wrong. There were almost no Good Guys in that one, including the US.
I was wrong. I am not very authoritative at all when it comes to war, and I do remember the domino effect of involvement from my high school history classes.


How many innocent babies are murdered from the womb each year?
Of course you'd go there. :shocked: :rolleyes: :lol:

[Darcy88]

I can't help but view this comment as flowing from a weakness in your historical knowledge. To know what the people living in the first half of the 1900's thought of communism would cause you to at least understand that nearly all levels of society viewed communism as a threat to the principles and ideals on which this country was founded and to the very way of life of nearly every individual. To know the plans of the Communist International and the actions it took in this Era to achieve them would cause you to at least wonder if the threat perhaps was as great as perceived.

I apologize for my rank ignorance of history. I heartily thank you for condescending to enlighten me on this particular matter.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[togre]

I apologize for my rank ignorance of history. I heartily thank you for condescending to enlighten me on this particular matter.

I'm sorry--that was unkind. And in truth, my exasperation is far more with the concept than with you. I grew up with communism being treated as the bogey-man we all know isn't real. The historical snobbery explained that the fear of communism present (specifically in the US) in the early 1900's but did so with the same haughty sense of disapproval that was exhibited when teaching about the Salem Witch Trials or other things "we know better about now."

It wasn't until much later that my personal interest in World War II and reading that covered the Russian Revolution and (most enlighten...ing...ly) the Spanish Civil War that I realized how serious communism was. It was one of three ideologies (fascism and capitalism being the others) that vied for dominance of the world through intellectual and physical warfare. It was a vibrant and powerful ideology, yet one that by its own proclamation (and track record) would intentionally dismantle and destroy society to create it differently.

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the Western world viewed communism as a threat to its existence. This fear is vital to understand much of society and especially politics of this era. Especially fascism and how democracies reacted to them makes no sense without realizing the role the fear of communism played.

It is less clear cut whether this fear was justified, although I lean strongly in that direction.

With this background to not pursue a policy of containment and interventionism would be like the ox watching the wolves raid the sheep pen, the pig pen and the hen house, but remaining calm in the hopes it will be left alone.

[BienvenuJDC]

Of course you'd go there. :shocked: :rolleyes: :lol:

Of course, you'd side step the question...

It's an honest and genuine question.

[Emil Miller]

So the US ruled Korea (by what authority?) and then divided it (by what authority?).

By the authority the US government, and the division of the country was by agreement with the USSR.

[MarkBastable]

Originally Posted by Ragnar Freund
So the US ruled Korea (by what authority?)....



By the authority the US government...


Even by Emil's standards, that's so circular it almost rolls off the page.

[cafolini]

There is an idea floating around this thread which is historically inaccurate. There was no intent on the part of the Chinese to invade south Korea from the north, bue on the contrary. At that particular time, MacArthur was the problem. He decided against logic to invade the north and unify Korea. Mao was very ignorant of the history of China and the help America provided against Japanese imperialism. Mao was at that point a Stalinist and thought that the USA wanted to conquer China. A ridiculous idea, but in compliance with the logistics of the ignorant Chineese at that point.
MacArthur was warned that a lot of Chineese uniforms were coming into Korea, and was also stupidly warned by Mao, naively but surely. MacArthur ignored it all and sent the American troops anyway, in spite of the controversy at home. The Americans were not prepared to deal with that winter and Mao's troops. So they withdrew and eventully took a stand where they had started. Mao did not insist. He was basically satisfied with the buffer zone of the north. It was MacArthur who had become a stupid bully a la Patton and wanted to actually counterattack. Ike and the others didn't let him and eventually to their regret they had to take all the power away from MacArthur, who was still insisting that he was going to cook the Chineese justy as Patton insited stupidly that he was ready to cook the Russians.

[BienvenuJDC]

Originally Posted by Ragnar Freund
So the US ruled Korea (by what authority?)....





Even by Emil's standards, that's so circular it almost rolls off the page.

England has been doing that for centuries...

[MarkBastable]

England has been doing that for centuries...


That doesn't make it any less circular an argument.

[BienvenuJDC]

True. But that doesn't make it any less circular an argument.

While I was in a college class (yes, I went to college), someone asked what gave England the right to make these conquests all over the world. Which I answered plainly...."because they could!" I don't think that there is any nation or ethnicity that at some time hasn't taken another place for their own...or taken authority over someone else. Maybe I'm wrong.

[MarkBastable]

While I was in a college class (yes, I went to college), someone asked what gave England the right to make these conquests all over the world. Which I answered plainly...."because they could!" I don't think that there is any nation or ethnicity that at some time hasn't taken another place for their own...or taken authority over someone else. Maybe I'm wrong.

Actually, it wasn't the English. It was the British.

But you're right. We were the Big I Am for a while, and when that came to an end, it took us a long time to get over it. As you will be aware, some of us still haven't, a hundred years after we slipped from the top spot.

The US is about to go through the same thing, and it'll be painful. It might well take you lot a hundred years too.

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry--that was unkind. And in truth, my exasperation is far more with the concept than with you. I grew up with communism being treated as the bogey-man we all know isn't real. The historical snobbery explained that the fear of communism present (specifically in the US) in the early 1900's but did so with the same haughty sense of disapproval that was exhibited when teaching about the Salem Witch Trials or other things "we know better about now."

It wasn't until much later that my personal interest in World War II and reading that covered the Russian Revolution and (most enlighten...ing...ly) the Spanish Civil War that I realized how serious communism was. It was one of three ideologies (fascism and capitalism being the others) that vied for dominance of the world through intellectual and physical warfare. It was a vibrant and powerful ideology, yet one that by its own proclamation (and track record) would intentionally dismantle and destroy society to create it differently.

It is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the Western world viewed communism as a threat to its existence. This fear is vital to understand much of society and especially politics of this era. Especially fascism and how democracies reacted to them makes no sense without realizing the role the fear of communism played.

It is less clear cut whether this fear was justified, although I lean strongly in that direction.

With this background to not pursue a policy of containment and interventionism would be like the ox watching the wolves raid the sheep pen, the pig pen and the hen house, but remaining calm in the hopes it will be left alone.

Fair enough. Its just that, the evils of the Soviet regime aside, I consider much of the anti-communist rhetoric and policy propagated in the early 20th century to have been in large part an attack on leftist progressivism itself, an attempt to maintain the capitalist status quo and eliminate any potential for a more equitable redistribution of wealth and power. They sure handled Eugene Debs and Bill Haywood effectively.

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually, it wasn't the English. It was the British.

But you're right. We were the Big I Am for a while, and when that came to an end, it took us a long time to get over it. As you will be aware, some of us still haven't, a hundred years after we slipped from the top spot.

The US is about to go through the same thing, and it'll be painful. It might well take you lot a hundred years too.

As long as the one who takes the top spot isn't a great oppressor, I'm fine with it. As long as I can put food on the table here.

[MarkBastable]

As long as the one who takes the top spot isn't a great oppressor, I'm fine with it. As long as I can put food on the table here.

You don't get to be in the top spot without being seen - justifiably or otherwise - as a great oppressor by almost everyone else. We certainly were.

It may surprise you to learn that for the last fifty or sixty years, many people have seen the US as the great oppressor.

In the coming decades, though, I don't think that the US will see the new guys in the top spot as a great oppressor. Recent top-spotters don't take that attitude. You're more likely to see the new guys as brash, naive, opportunistic, nouveau-riche bullies to be publically appeased and flattered but privately despised and reviled. In other words, you'll take a hypocritical position of morally-superior but chummy collusion.

It worked for us.

[Emil Miller]

Originally Posted by Ragnar Freund
So the US ruled Korea (by what authority?)....





Even by Emil's standards, that's so circular it almost rolls off the page.

Nothing circular about it at all, I was asked a question and I answered it. However it wasn't strictly correct, because although it was the US that accepted the Japaneses surrender in Japan, Japanese forces in Korea surrendered jointly to the US and USSR as Korea borders Russia and, with the cessation of hostilities, the Russians already had troops in the north of the country. Naturally the US took over administration of their half of the country and defended it when it was subsequently attacked by the north in 1950.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[Emil Miller]

At this point I must stop and ask whether you're screwing with me, Alexander III style.

By authority of the US government??? Well, that can justify anything whatsoever.

No, you must be screwing with me.

Well we're not living in Starlight Park, to the victor go the spoils. It was ever thus.