The estimate for Mao's reign of terror alone are about 20 million (source). Would you call China "Western"? And, I do recall that Japan was involved in WWII, so while yes, Europe(esp. Eastern Europe) saw the bulk of the killing, there was a pretty lethal eastern component as well. Would you call Japan "Western"?
My sources show about 16.8 million combatants died in all theaters in WWII. As for non-combatants, between 7 and 12 million Soviets, about 6 million in the holocaust, and another 6 million in all other theaters.
I think it is absurd to limit a war casualty to one caused by a bullet or bomb. If your city is fire bombed, and you count only the fraction of direct casualties, what do you call the more significant portion who now succumb to exposure, starvation and disease? If entire populations are rounded up and forced to march for weeks through frozen mountains without shelter, water, or food are they merely unlucky? If your ports are blockaded, and populations that grew large due to the free flow of goods now starve because they haven't enough, is that bad planning?
It also seems wrong to think about counting deaths in proportion to population size. If you have two kids and we kill one, that is 50%, but if you have 12 kids and we kill 3, it is a mere 25%. I think these quantitative and qualitative justifications are equally ludicrous.
The genocides that are occurring in Africa now, are not as much the killing and the raping (which occur frequently enough), as they are about the armed displacement of people from their land and livelihood.
My sources show about 16.8 million combatants died in all theaters in WWII. As for non-combatants, between 7 and 12 million Soviets, about 6 million in the holocaust, and another 6 million in all other theaters.
I think it is absurd to limit a war casualty to one caused by a bullet or bomb. If your city is fire bombed, and you count only the fraction of direct casualties, what do you call the more significant portion who now succumb to exposure, starvation and disease? If entire populations are rounded up and forced to march for weeks through frozen mountains without shelter, water, or food are they merely unlucky? If your ports are blockaded, and populations that grew large due to the free flow of goods now starve because they haven't enough, is that bad planning?
It also seems wrong to think about counting deaths in proportion to population size. If you have two kids and we kill one, that is 50%, but if you have 12 kids and we kill 3, it is a mere 25%. I think these quantitative and qualitative justifications are equally ludicrous.
The genocides that are occurring in Africa now, are not as much the killing and the raping (which occur frequently enough), as they are about the armed displacement of people from their land and livelihood.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)