That's pretty heartbreaking when it's actually put into detail like this.
That went from interesting to depressing to beautiful/optimistic
When watching on the interactive website, the ending that zooms in on the time will zoom into what your computer clock is set to.
Apparently I don't have a "modern computer" because the interactive version is broken.
My grandmother survived the siege of Leningrad and lost all her family during it. To this day, she remember almost everything that happened.
the amount of deaths from the soviet union is unfathomable
[QUOTE=milktree;51401783]the amount of deaths from the soviet union is unfathomable[/QUOTE]
yeah, i've watched this around 4 times now and everytime i gets to the USSR tally, i still get chills from it
fuck my k/d
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("shitposting/grossly insensitive" - BANNED USER))[/highlight]
the line at the end is beautiful
I would really like to have a clock that operates like the end of the video. The visualization puts into perspective a minute's worth.
[QUOTE=DaBeaver;51401731]My grandmother survived the siege of Leningrad and lost all her family during it. To this day, she remember almost everything that happened.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, what to people in St. Petersburg think of Stalin? I know the personality cult is still strong in parts of Russia.
the supposed decline at the end is a statistical illusion
[QUOTE=catchall;51403348]the supposed decline at the end is a statistical illusion[/QUOTE]
Yeah man. The Illuminazi invented WW2 so we can think that the world has been relatively peaceful for the past seven decades #JustScepticThings
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51403377]Yeah man. The Illuminazi invented WW2 so we can think that the world has been relatively peaceful for the past seven decades #JustScepticThings[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/longpeace.pdf[/url]
[quote]Abstract—We examine statistical pictures of violent conflicts over the last 2000 years, finding techniques for dealing with incompleteness and unreliability of historical data.
We introduce a novel approach to apply extreme value theory to fat-tailed variables that have a remote, but nonetheless finite upper bound, by defining a corresponding unbounded dual distribution (given that potential war casualties are bounded by the world population).
We apply methods from extreme value theory on the dual distribution and derive its tail properties. The dual method allows us to calculate the real mean of war casualties, which proves to be considerably larger than the sample mean, meaning [b]severe underestimation of the tail risks of conflicts from naive observation[/b]. We analyze the robustness of our results to errors in historical reports, taking into account the unreliability of accounts by historians and absence of critical data.
We study inter-arrival times between tail events and find that [b]no particular trend[/b] can be asserted.
All the statistical pictures obtained are at variance with the prevailing claims about "long peace", namely that violence has been declining over time.[/quote]
sample statistics are not unbiased estimators of the properties of the real distribution for war deaths.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51403342]I'm curious, what to people in St. Petersburg think of Stalin? I know the personality cult is still strong in parts of Russia.[/QUOTE]
Same as the rest of Russia - opinions differ. Some see him as an idol or something, some see him as a bloodthirsty tyrant. What baffles me the most is that Soviet regime was silent about the siege, like "nothing bad happened folks, get back to work."
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;51403342]I'm curious, what to people in St. Petersburg think of Stalin? I know the personality cult is still strong in parts of Russia.[/QUOTE]
Well I know that there's a movement to rename Volvograd back to Stalingrad.
I still believe that Stalin is still widely viewed as a hero in Russia.
Really good presentation, but the authors bias is clearly shown when he tallies the Soviet and German civilian casualties.
When he refers to the Soviet civilian casualties he brings up the things that Stalin did against his people while completely ignoring the millions of Russians that were killed during Operation Barbarossa. But when he refers to German civilian casualties he brings up the deaths caused by Allied firebombing and the atrocities Soviet soldiers committed when marching through Germany.
I don't know why I watched this - very interesting way of demonstrating the data, even if its up for debate.
It still brought down my Sunday night a bit. That's no good.
[QUOTE=Fayez;51403520]Really good presentation, but the authors bias is clearly shown when he tallies the Soviet and German civilian casualties.
When he refers to the Soviet civilian casualties he brings up the things that Stalin did against his people while completely ignoring the millions of Russians that were killed during Operation Barbarossa. But when he refers to German civilian casualties he brings up the deaths caused by Allied firebombing and the atrocities Soviet soldiers committed when marching through Germany.[/QUOTE]
I think his main point was to illustrate that the Allies were not purely 'the good guys' in this war. In the UK, the Blitz is still something we discuss quite heavily, but people rarely mention that we bombed the Germans back- and to a much worse extent, with atrocities like Dresden.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;51404758]I think his main point was to illustrate that the Allies were not purely 'the good guys' in this war. In the UK, the Blitz is still something we discuss quite heavily, but people rarely mention that we bombed the Germans back- and to a much worse extent, with atrocities like Dresden.[/QUOTE]
pretty much this.
its why the video mentioned not only the UK bombings (such as dresden) but more specifically what the soviets did to civilians and POWs, and how the US nuclear bombed Japan.
its not so much that its biased, but moreso that it puts it into perspective that the Axis powers weren't the only players in WW2 that committed atrocities. when I was taught the history of WW2 in all instances, it was always "japan and germany were evil", which they were, but it was never a full view of what everyone did as a whole.
my grandma got tortured by the Japanese cause her dad was a high level govt official in China
And then my grandpa was dealing with espionage operations against the Japanese in China and Thailand
[url]http://www.fallen.io/ww2/#[/url]
interactive version
[editline]21st November 2016[/editline]
man fuck ww2
One thing I never liked about this documentary is the claim that Commonwealth troops had the same amount of casualties as the Americans did, and if you look at the graph it states that the Commonwealth actually lost less people. This frankly isn't true the Commonwealth lost more than 100, 000 more soldiers killed more than America.
And before you say "he's only counting british casualties" he literally says "And counting the colonies", they clearly didn't put in the Indian, Australian, Canadian and the rest of the Commonwealths men killed statistics, and in a documentary about statistics that's pretty disheartening. Especially how they imply they are going for a non biased statistical view but they completely gloss over Commonwealth causalities but have a whole section dedicated to American.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;51404758]I think his main point was to illustrate that the Allies were not purely 'the good guys' in this war. In the UK, the Blitz is still something we discuss quite heavily, but people rarely mention that we bombed the Germans back- and to a much worse extent, with atrocities like Dresden.[/QUOTE]
Really? It seems to be mentioned every single time WW2 comes up for me
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;51404758]I think his main point was to illustrate that the Allies were not purely 'the good guys' in this war. In the UK, the Blitz is still something we discuss quite heavily, but people rarely mention that we bombed the Germans back- and to a much worse extent, with atrocities like Dresden.[/QUOTE]
The atrocities Nazi Germany committed against the Russian people are incomparable to anything any of the Allies did. The German government literally legalized the rape of Slavic women and the mass murder of Slavic civilians with the Barbarossa Decree. If you were to tally every single death that Allied bombing campaigns caused and every civilian death that resulted from the invasion of Germany it would barely be a fraction of what the Russian people suffered at the hands of Germany.
The bombings the Allied committed against German and Japanese cities can hardly be considered atrocities. Allied Strategic Air Command dropped leaflets over Axis cities days before the actual raid would take place, putting their own bomber crews in danger by telling the Luftwaffe their next targets.
And I don't know where you're coming from with "people rarely mention that we bombed the Germans back." It's constantly brought up in any discussion regarding WWII's death toll.
[QUOTE=Fayez;51407398]The bombings the Allied committed against German and Japanese cities can hardly be considered atrocities. Allied Strategic Air Command dropped leaflets over Axis cities days before the actual raid would take place, putting their own bomber crews in danger by telling the Luftwaffe their next targets.[/QUOTE]so they gave them a warning. doesn't make it any less of an atrocity to raze civilian targets to the ground as a terror tactic, war crimes are war crimes no matter how much you apologize in advance.
and yeah the germans and japanese did some way horrible shit, and that's widely known. however, that doesn't excuse the Allied actions either. "BUT THEY DID WORSE" should never be a valid excuse, can you imagine what short of shit can be brushed under the rug with that?
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51407433]so they gave them a warning. doesn't make it any less of an atrocity to raze civilian targets to the ground as a terror tactic, war crimes are war crimes no matter how much you apologize in advance.
and yeah the germans and japanese did some way horrible shit, and that's widely known. however, that doesn't excuse the Allied actions either. "BUT THEY DID WORSE" should never be a valid excuse, can you imagine what short of shit can be brushed under the rug with that?[/QUOTE]
And what should the Allies had done then? Don't bomb the cities so that they can keep cranking out war machines that are being sent out to kill their own people? Sacrifice thousands of their own soldiers in the taking of said cities? Don't pressure the Axis government into surrender by keeping the war far away from them?
I'm sorry, but the Allies' actions are excusable. The bombings against Axis cities, while awful, brought the war to a swifter end with less people dying on both sides. "They did worse" is not the excuse for the Allied bombings, "the war ended faster and less people died overall" is the excuse.
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." - William Sherman
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51408362]Production facilities were seperate from cities.
They did fight over ruins either case, like Soviets fought over the ruins of Stalingrad. The difference was that Germans didnt fight as zealously, and that wouldnt have differed whether the city were intact or not. France comes to mind.
Never happened, and I think this was clear to Allies too. Allies wouldnt accept anything less than an unconditional surrender, and Hitler would never deliver. "Morale" (of civvies and army alike) argument didnt work either.
**
There was one reason for bombing of cities that helped the war effort in a non-insignificant manner and it is not pretty either. Crippling the labor force.
You see, Allies bombed factories. From 42 to 45 they did. However, they seemed to realize that, for the effort they spent on crippling factories and the bombers they lose, Germans could return the said factory into business or retool another place relatively easily. When they bombed cities though, they realized, while the massive scale morale and refugee problems didnt happen (not as much as the REd Army's sight accomplished anyway) , what happened was these civilians, who died or got injured or became refugees, couldnt work. Engineers, miners, factory workers. Assembly lines could be replaced by Germans, but people couldnt be.
American bombing of select targets of importance did yield very good results in crippling German logistics with minimum civilian casualties as well. But British mass murder of civilians did hurt German economy too. Morale, insignificant. Economy, yes.
This is why I think it is understandable, but mining the Rhein and the Danube, destroying bridges and railroads etc. like Americans wouldve been enough and avoided ... avoidable civilian deaths.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough point. But if the Allies wanted to ensure the most amount of civilian deaths they wouldn't have bothered dropping leaflets over the cities before they bombed them. It's why only ~25,000 people were killed in the bombing of Dresden despite the city's 350,000 people and the 1,300 heavy bombers taking part in the raid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.