Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?

[Revoltingest]

Godwin's law time.

I win!
But notice that the OP actually required that Hitler be supplied as a counter-example to the OP's claim.

I'm a libertarian because I say I am no matter what I espouse and no matter what I do and no matter what the moral standards I violate. So when I confiscate all your worldly possessions you must call me a libertarian because my actions which prove the opposite don't count.

What you say runs counter to libertarianism.
Although....there are those deluded folk who ocymoronically call themselves "libertarian socialists".

WWII and the Cold War was a climactic struggle between good and evil with the entire world involved. Tel Megiddo writ large. And we're all here today because of the action of one Soviet sub commander who prevented WWIII.
It was not a matter of secularism but of a deeper current of life.

Being good, & avoiding evil are best achieved by being good & avoiding evil.
Whatever religious beliefs comport with this are OK with me.

 

[Augustus]

Let me show you a picture of history's most infamous Xian....

Except that he wasn't a Christian. He viewed Christian ethics with disgust and as an impediment to be overcome. He was smart enough to realise that this could not be achieved instantly though.

The Church was to be marginalised and Christianity was to be coopted as a means to an end, transformed and eventually phased out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that he wasn't a Christian. He viewed Christian ethics with disgust and as an impediment to be overcome. He was smart enough to realise that this could not be achieved instantly though.

The Church was to be marginalised and Christianity was to be coopted as a means to an end, transformed and eventually phased out.

I'm well aware that Hitler criticized contemporaneous Xianity as weak.
But this was because he was a fellow believer, albeit of a different flavor.
His religion did not prevent his being one of the great mass murderers in history.
Gott mit uns!

Note also that Stalin was seminary trained.

 

[Spiderman]

The 20th century should have been more civilized than previous centuries...instead it was the most barbaric...the creation of NATO, the UN, and the EU will hopefully prevent anything like that from happening again , but don't count on it

 

[sayak83]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

The bloodiest war ever, started by the actions of a secular nationalist party.
The 2 most murderous regimes ever, both secular.
The first nation to industrialize a genocide, secular.

Regards

____________

This thread was conceptualized from:
Post #14 of our respected friend @Augustus , thanks to him and regards.

A state that promotes a specific ideology (theistic or atheistic) and violently represses others cannot be called secular.

 

[Sunstone]

World War II was the bloodiest conflict -- or series of conflicts -- in human history if analyzed in terms of absolute numbers of deaths. However, it was only the 9th bloodiest conflict in history if analyzed in terms of deaths relative to the population of the time. The latter metric seems to me to be a fairer metric than the former.

There have been religious wars that were bloodier than World War II if measured by the percent of the population that was killed in them.

Moreover, the whole era of the 20th Century and early 21st Century might quite possibly be one of the least violent ages in human history -- again, depending on the metrics used to assess that issue.

Source.

 

[Augustus]

I'm well aware that Hitler criticized contemporaneous Xianity as weak.
But this was because he was a fellow believer, albeit of a different flavor.
His religion did not prevent his being one of the great mass murderers in history.
Gott mit uns!

Note also that Stalin was seminary trained.

Both were raised Christians, but neither were when they reached their notoriety. They were both despised it, although were more pragmatic than many of the more zealous anti-clericalist in their parties.

Hitler might have been some kind of a deist, or possibly an atheist, he certainly wasn't a Christian though of any flavour.

I'm not sure any leading Nazis were Christians (although many of the rank and file would be).

 

[Ouroboros]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

The bloodiest war ever, started by the actions of a secular nationalist party.
The 2 most murderous regimes ever, both secular.
The first nation to industrialize a genocide, secular.

Not quite.

If we only consider sheer numbers of people killed, yes, than it probably would on top. But if we consider in comparison to the number of people in the world (ratio), then there are many other wars and conflicts much worse. Also, not all wars are based on religious differences but rather on simply difference of opinion (which included religious difference). Many times is a matter of resources, political, etc, than simply religion. So in a way, many wars had a secular reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both were raised Christians, but neither were when they reached their notoriety. They were both despised it, although were more pragmatic than many of the more zealous anti-clericalist in their parties.

Hitler might have been some kind of a deist, or possibly an atheist, he certainly wasn't a Christian though of any flavour.

I'm not sure any leading Nazis were Christians (although many of the rank and file would be).

Sorry....Xians own Hitler.
He espoused Xianity, but never atheism.

Of course, I don't blame Xians or Xianity for this.
And then there are the records of other major
religions misbehavior too.
This all points out that the OP kcannot lay the totality
of mass murder at the feet of us heathens.

 

[Augustus]

World War II was the bloodiest conflict -- or series of conflicts -- in human history if analyzed in terms of absolute numbers of deaths. However, it was only the 9th bloodiest conflict in history if analyzed in terms of deaths relative to the population of the time.

5 of the top 9 don't actually relate to specific conflicts, but to things like 1000 years of the slave trade, the Mongol conquests (which were 125 years long and are only seen as a single conflict dues to his limited and Eurocentric view of history), and 4 centuries of killing American Indians.

By this logic, WW1 and WW2 should be considered part of the same conflict.

For the remaining 4 Pinker uses the most extreme estimates of deaths for these conflicts (while using more moderate ones for 20th C) which are almost certainly massive overestimates.

Also these include deaths from disease and famine, which is ok, but by that metric Spanish Flu epidemic should be added to WW1 death toll which adds 50-100 million.

He seems to be cherry picking his evidence to match his thesis.

 

[Sunstone]

5 of the top 9 don't actually relate to specific conflicts, but to things like 1000 years of the slave trade, the Mongol conquests (which were 125 years long and are only seen as a single conflict dues to his limited and Eurocentric view of history), and 4 centuries of killing American Indians.

By this logic, WW1 and WW2 should be considered part of the same conflict.

For the remaining 4 Pinker uses the most extreme estimates of deaths for these conflicts (while using more moderate ones for 20th C) which are almost certainly massive overestimates.

Also these include deaths from disease and famine, which is ok, but by that metric Spanish Flu epidemic should be added to WW1 death toll which adds 50-100 million.

He seems to be cherry picking his evidence to match his thesis.

Source(s)?

 

[Augustus]

Source(s)?

His list:

Event | Century | Est. Death Toll* | Adjusted Death Toll*
* both in millions

(1) An Lushan Revolt | 8th | 36 | 429

(2) Mongol Conquests | 13th | 40 | 278

(3) Mideast Slave Trade | 7th–19th | 19 | 132

(4) Fall of Ming Dynasty | 17th | 25 | 112

(5) Fall of Rome | 3rd-5th | 8 | 105

(6) Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) | 4th–15th | 17 | 100

(7) Killing of American Indians | 15th–19th | 20 | 92

(8) Atlantic Slave Trade | 15th–19th | 18 | 83

(9) Second World War | 20th | 55 | 55


That 36 million is the most extreme estimate for An Lushan he acknowledges himself. That this is likely overstated is based on numerous pieces of information (such as this is the difference between 2 census numbers, which could be affected by several other factors such as less effective state bureaucracy to measure population after major conflict and population movement; the rule of thumb that the highest number in historical warfare is never correct; that the number is disputed by many historians, etc.)

And seeing as it certainly includes deaths from famine and disease, there is no reason not to include Spanish Flu in the WW1 death toll. There is also no logical reason why WW1 and WW2 are separate wars, but many of the others are considered a single event.

The Russian revolution should also be added to Lenin and Stalin and the rest of the Soviet Union, ditto the Chinese revolution to Mao if we are being consistent with things like 'the Mongol conquests'.

 

[David T]

Was the twentieth century the most murderous century ever?
And it was seculars and nationalists who made it murderous.
Does one agree with the above notion?:

The bloodiest war ever, started by the actions of a secular nationalist party.
The 2 most murderous regimes ever, both secular.
The first nation to industrialize a genocide, secular.

Regards

____________

This thread was conceptualized from:
Post #14 of our respected friend @Augustus , thanks to him and regards.

 

[David T]

A political question

 

[Kirran]

Although....there are those deluded folk who ocymoronically call themselves "libertarian socialists".

I'm one of those! Although I like to think I'm neither deluded nor (oxy)moronic in doing so.

Libertarianism's older usage, and the one prevailing in Europe, is the leftist one.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm one of those! Although I like to think I'm neither deluded nor (oxy)moronic in doing so.

Libertarianism's older usage, and the one prevailing in Europe, is the leftist one.

The even older usage (originating in Britain) matches the N Americastanian usage.
You're not one of the deluded ones....just suffering from a language glitch.

 

[Kirran]

The even older usage (originating in Britain) matches the N Americastanian usage.
You're not one of the deluded ones....just suffering from a language glitch.

Oh yeah? That's interesting. Anyway, I more often use the word anarchist, which is what libertarian socialist means anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh yeah? That's interesting. Anyway, I more often use the word anarchist, which is what libertarian socialist means anyway.

Uh oh....another language issue.
Can't impose socialism on anyone without a powerful government, which isn't exactly anarchistic.
You sound more like what we'd call a "liberal" here....but the good kind.
I blame language for so much of our disagreements here.

 

[Kirran]

Uh oh....another language issue.
Can't impose socialism on anyone without a powerful government, which isn't exactly anarchistic.
You sound more like what we'd call a "liberal" here....but the good kind.
I blame language for so much of our disagreements here.

Ah, you are confining socialism to its authoritarian forms! That's only one part of socialism. There was a split between vanguard statism and non-compromising anti-statism during the First International, and then a further split within the statists over reform vs revolution in the Second International.

I tend to think of liberal as referring to economic liberals who support parliamentary democratic systems. This is an alright paradigm insofar as it can keep even more authoritarian forms of government at bay, but I don't think it's particularly good in and of itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, you are confining socialism to its authoritarian forms! That's only one part of socialism. There was a split between vanguard statism and non-compromising anti-statism during the First International, and then a further split within the statists over reform vs revolution in the Second International.

I tend to think of liberal as referring to economic liberals who support parliamentary democratic systems. This is an alright paradigm insofar as it can keep even more authoritarian forms of government at bay, but I don't think it's particularly good in and of itself.

Much of what's called "socialism" here is actually just social safety net stuff....not the people controlling the means of production.
I'm on the dole (a little) now...collecting Social Security. I can live with that.
Now....work harder so I can get more!
(Not you...you don't live here. Just Americastanians. Work, work, work!)