LETS TALK NUMBERS!! [Archive]

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 16:13

Much RIDICULOUS talk has been spewed about US deaths and how many people the U.S. has "murdered" in its quest for WORLD DOMINATION!! :blink: Others have totally (and ignorantly) skimmed over the MURDERS caussed by so many of your beloved "leaders". Many of you guys have put up such conflicting and blown-up numbers that many others on here don't even believe your bullshit!

I've put up some numbers below WITH MULTIPLE REFERENCES (from different sources), from an UNBIASED WEBSITE (ie NOTHING with the words, FOX, CNN, Socialist, Peace, Communist, Feminist, Pro-life, ANSWER, Micheal Moore, Pro-Choice, Red-Cross, etc!)! NOTHING that would lean to EITHER SIDE!! Read it and weep (literally, because its pretty sad!)

I've taken the time to underline some important numbers for BOTH ideologies. Believe me. even I'VE learned something about the US from THIS!!!!

Deaths by Mass Unpleasantness:
Estimated Totals for the Entire 20th Century
How many people died in all the wars, massacres, slaughters and oppressions of the Twentieth Century? Here are a few atrocitologists who have made estimates:

M. Cherif Bassouni, from an unspecified "1996" source which I have been unable to track down (Cited in an article in the Chicago Tribune, 25 Oct. 1998)
33 million "military casualties" (That's how the article phrased it, but I presume they mean military deaths.)
170 million killed in "conflicts of a non-international charater, internal conflicts and tyrannical regime victimization")
86M since the Second World War
TOTAL: 203,000,000
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century (1993)
"Lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage":
167,000,000 to 175,000,000
Including:
War Dead: 87,500,000
Military war dead:
33,500,000
Civilian war dead:
54,000,000
Not-war Dead: 80,000,000
Communist oppression:
60,000,000
David Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)
Christian martyrs only: 45.5M [commentary & context]
Stephane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism
Victims of Communism only: 85-100M
Milton Leitenberg [http://www.pcr.uu.se/Leitenberg_paper.pdf]
Politically caused deaths in the 20th C: 214M to 226M, incl...
Deaths in wars and conflicts, incl. civilian: 130M-142M
Political deaths, 1945-2000: 50M-51M
Not The Enemy Media [http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Counts.htm]
Killed through U.S. foreign policy since WWII: 10,774,706 to 16,856,361 (1945-May 2003)
Rudolph J. Rummel, Death By Government
"Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87)
169,198,000
Including:
Communist Oppression: 110,286,000
Democratic democides: 2,028,000
Not included among democides:
Wars: 34,021,000
Non-Democidal Famine (often including famines associated with war and communist mismanagement):
China (1900-87): 49,275,000
Russia: (1921-47): 5,833,000
Total:
258,327,000 for all the categories listed here.
Me (Matthew White, Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, 2001):
Deaths by War and Oppression:
Genocide and Tyranny:
83,000,000
Military Deaths in War:
42,000,000
Civilian Deaths in War:
19,000,000
Man-made Famine:
44,000,000
TOTAL:
188,000,000

FAQ: How did you get these totals?
Simple -- I added everything up. If you sum the first five of the century's top 30 atrocities, you get a bit over 142M.

1 50,000,000 Second World War (Some overlap w/Stalin. Includes Sino-Japanese War and Holocaust. Doesn't incl. post-war German expulsions) 1937-45
2 48,250,000 China: Mao Zedong's regime. (incl. famine) 1949-76
3 20,000,000 USSR: Stalin's regime (incl. WW2-era atrocities) 1924-53
4 15,000,000 First World War (incl. Armenian massacres) 1914-18
5 8,800,000 Russian Civil War 1918-21
6 4,000,000 China: Warlord & Nationalist Era 1917-37
7 3,000,000 Congo Free State [n.1] 1900-08
8 2,800,000 Korean War 1950-53
9 2,700,000 2nd Indochina War (incl. Laos & Cambodia) 1960-75
10 2,500,000 Chinese Civil War 1945-49
11 2,100,000 German Expulsions after WW2 1945-47
12 1,900,000 Second Sudanese Civil War 1983-
13 1,700,000 Congolese Civil War 1998-
14 1,650,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge Regime 1975-79
15 1,400,000 Afghanistan: Civil War 1980-
15 1,400,000 Ethiopian Civil Wars 1962-92
17 1,250,000 Mexican Revolution 1910-20
18 1,250,000 East Pakistan: Massacres 1971
19 1,000,000 Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
19 1,000,000 Nigeria: Biafran revolt 1967-70
21 800,000 Mozambique: Civil War 1976-92
21 800,000 Rwandan Massacres 1994
23 650,000 French-Algerian War 1954-62
24 600,000 First Indochina War 1945-54
25 500,000 India-Pakistan Partition 1947
25 500,000 Indonesia: Massacre of Communists 1965-67
25 500,000 Angolan Civil War 1975-94
25 500,000 First Sudanese Civil War 1955-72
25 500,000 Decline of the Amazonian Indians 1900-99
30 365,000 Spanish Civil War 1936-39
31 350,000 Somalia: Civil War 1991-
? Unknown North Korea: Communist Regime 1948-

Summing the first 10 brings the total to 157M, while the sum of the first 20 is 171.7M. It may look like, at this rate, we'll shoot past 188M in no time at all, but notice how the body counts get smaller at each level -- from 142M for the 1st 5 to 15M for the next 5 to a mere 14M or so for the next 10. Pretty soon, we get to the point where a single atrocity doesn't noticably shift the total at all.
(Note: It's commonly said that more civilians than soldiers die in war, but you may notice that my numbers don't seem to agree with that. Before you jump to any conclusions, however, remember that most civilian deaths in war are intentional, and therefore fall into the "genocide and tyranny" category. Many others are the result of starvation.)

My estimate for the Communist share of the century's unpleasantness:
Genocide & Tyranny: 44M
(incl. intentional famine)
Man-made Famine: 37M
(excl. intentional famine)
Communist-inspired War (for example the Russian Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, etc.)
Military: 5M
Civilian: 6M
NOTE: With these numbers, I'm tallying every combat death and accidental civilian death in the war, without differentiating who died, who did it or who started it. According to whichever theory of Just War you are working from, the Communists may be entirely blameless, or entirely to blame, for these 11M dead.
TOTAL: 92M deaths by Communism.
RESIDUE: 96M deaths by non-Communism.

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 16:18

AGAIN...I HOPE you all took the time to at least look at some of the numbers.

I hope you ALL can view this with an open mind, and WITHOUT fabricated and delusional notions about the U.S. backing ALL major incidents of mass extermination! In other words, WITHOUT you all blaming the U.S. for it ALL!

You either ACCEPT it or CONTINUE to live in your ignorant fantasy world! Hey, even I learned something from these numbers about the U.S. I didn't know before! I learned that the U.S. INDEED has blood on its hands as well!!! But NOWHERE NEAR what many of you claim.

redstar2000

19th December 2003, 18:33

What your post illustrates, Sr. Sucks, is the extremely limited utility of all "body count" arguments--I've been against them since I came to this board and saw them for the first time.

Somebody makes "an estimate". Somebody else makes a different "estimate". Somebody else adds the two numbers and divides the total by two, creating yet another "estimate".

Blah, blah, blah.

Assessing responsibility is a different matter. The official policy of the German Government from 1940-45 was to murder as many Jews as they could...the evidence for this is incontrovertible. Whether it was 5 million or 6 million does not matter.

Now look at some of the items in your list...

What is a famine "associated with communist mis-management"? How would that be determined? If weather conditions cause wide-spread crop failures, is "communism" responsible? If peasants slaughter their farm animals to keep them out of the hands of collective farms, who is to "blame"?

What's the difference between "communist-inspired" war and just ordinary war? Do "communists" get the "blame" if they "participate"?

Most of the deaths in the Russian and Chinese civil wars were almost certainly the result of malnutrition and disease, not directly inflicted by military action from either side. Are the "communists" responsible?

On the other hand, who is directly responsible for the deaths in IndoChina? The people who lived there and wished their colonial masters to depart at once or the colonial powers--France and America--who slaughtered large numbers of people in the vain attempt to hold on to their dominance?

The "rape of Nanking" was clearly official Japanese Government policy...and was even celebrated in Japanese newspapers while it was happening. The mass bombings of German and Japanese cities were likewise deliberate and conscious efforts by the Americans and the British to maximize civilian deaths. (I'm told that even when bombing Berlin, they did their best to target working class neighborhoods while leaving wealthy neighborhoods inhabited by the Nazi elite relatively untouched.) The Turkish massacre of Armenians was also a matter of official government policy...there is no doubt about this.

Beyond this, matters get "fuzzier". The American sanctions against Iraq resulted in the collapse of modern sanitation and medical care in that country...causing a substantial rise in infant and childhood mortality. Who is to "blame"?

Anti-communists often claim that World War II was "Stalin's fault" and add the entire number of casualties to his "total". Does this not overlook the fact that Germany and Japan (both capitalist countries) diligently planned and initiated wars of conquest?

As it happens, I find the "revisionist" argument on the origins of World War I compelling; what should have been a "small" war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia turned into World War I because France and Russia had that as their goal. To put it crudely, France suckered England into it...and England suckered the U.S. into it. But whoever you hold responsible for the great slaughter, it can't be the "communists".

A note on two of your sources. Zbigniew Brzezinski is an infamous war-criminal in his own right...it was during his tenure in the Carter administration that the U.S. first began military training in the Egyptian desert in preparation for the imperial wars of our own time. He's also well-known as a passionate advocate of American global hegemony.

And the World Christian Encyclopedia? Why would it be thought that they would tell the truth about anything except by accident?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Le LibÃ©rer

19th December 2003, 18:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:18 PM

You either ACCEPT it or CONTINUE to live in your ignorant fantasy world! Hey, even I learned something from these numbers about the U.S. I didn't know before! I learned that the U.S. INDEED has blood on its hands as well!!! But NOWHERE NEAR what many of you claim.
Tony I have also learned there are extremes to every story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

19th December 2003, 19:09

Why dont we add such incidents such as the irish potato famine, and the perpetual famine in africa under "capitalist mismanagement"?

el_profe

19th December 2003, 19:13

You still wont get people to accept the facts. I bet most here blame the USA for the 2nd World War, and blame the USA for all the wrongdoings in the world. this is the problem with poeple on this board they think that the rich are to blame for everything. but they dont stop and think that some of those very rich people (like Andre carnegie who was very poor when he came to america from scotland and he self educated himslef and he worked hard to become the worlds richest man, yet people hate him for that, they wanted him to always be poor and miserable) where once poor and worked their way out of poverty and people hate them for thatm , mostly because they are jealous.

cubist

19th December 2003, 20:15

el profe good points,

though globalisation is cuasing huge problems in underdeveloped countries, globalisation is pretty much ran by the west and the key players in the west are the U$ and the UK.

i agree many are jealous of those that are successful, but i feel most on this site dislike the rich becuase the money they have has a better use than being sat on. The money they make is from equally hard working people,

U$ tax cuts only seem to benifit the rich,

alot of the rich people own business' which exploit 3rd world countries.

el_profe

19th December 2003, 20:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 09:15 PM
el profe good points,

though globalisation is cuasing huge problems in underdeveloped countries, globalisation is pretty much ran by the west and the key players in the west are the U$ and the UK.

i agree many are jealous of those that are successful, but i feel most on this site dislike the rich becuase the money they have has a better use than being sat on. The money they make is from equally hard working people,

U$ tax cuts only seem to benifit the rich,

alot of the rich people own business' which exploit 3rd world countries.
SOme but not all.
And in those 3rd world countries their no jobs so people will take any money they can to work and the corporations use that to their advantage.

Edward Norton

19th December 2003, 21:18

I bet most here blame the USA for the 2nd World War, and blame the USA for all the wrongdoings in the world.

No, you just have such a paranoid far right mentality that you ASSUME that all left-wingers have an irrational urge to blame the wrong culprit.

Germany was to blame or WW2, along with Japan and Italy joining in when they thought Hitler was on the winning side. MOST of the war crimes were also commited by these three nations. However like RD2000 said, US/UK bombing of civilian districts and the US atomic bombings of Japan in 1945, as both served no military gain and were done in pure retribution aimed at the highest number of civilian causualties possible.

[QUOTE]And in those 3rd world countries their no jobs so people will take any money they can to work and the corporations use that to their advantage.[QUOTE]

Is this what you far right fanatics call free market capitalism?

The biggest LIE capitalism has is that it gives people 'individual rights' and the 'freedom to choose'. Doesn't look like there is much choice in the 3rd World, either work slave like conditions OR face starvation, even when working, the pay is so low that they have to CHOOSE which family member gets food and which will starve. I suppose you can be very ironic when you talk of 'freedom of choice'!

Saying that you (el-profe) go nuts when I talked of certain 'businessmen' deserving death, yet why is it ok, in your eyes to kill someone through starvation/economic genocide, which is what most corporations do globally, yet you get angry if a rebel-/guerrilla delivers justice to one of these mass mudering individuals?

You seem to only care aobut human life if it has a large bank account.

Then again capitalism and right-wingers are by there very nature irrational and have a consistency to defy logical thinking.

Makes on think that you could be mentally unwell and in need of some help, though I just forgot you hate free/state health care, so you are gonna have to pay for it!

redstar2000

19th December 2003, 22:39

I bet most here blame the USA for the 2nd World War...

You'd lose the bet. Japan and Germany deserve the "credit", such as it is.

this is the problem with people on this board, they think that the rich are to blame for everything.

The capitalist ruling class and its lackeys make the decisions in our society. They set the priorities, establish the alternatives, conduct the discussions, write the agendas, fund the "think tanks", etc., etc., etc.

To the extent that human responsibility can be established at all...there's usually one or more rich sonsof*****es at the bottom of it.

Why do you have a "problem" with that?

...but they don't stop and think that some of those very rich people...were once poor and worked their way out of poverty, and people hate them for that, mostly because they are jealous.

Yes, a few "worked their way out of poverty"...usually by some form of thinly disguised piracy or gangsterism.

In general, the reason people "hate them" is for what they did after they got rich.

For example, you can read about your "hero" Andrew Carnegie, here...

The Strike at Homestead, 1892 (http://www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/HomesteadStrike1892/)

Nice guy. A real "sweetheart". :angry:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Faceless

19th December 2003, 22:46

Mr Sucks,
Dont you get it yet? you'll be hard pushed to find an individual who would in any way justify any government organised killing. The idea though that you would include all those killed in leninidt revolution as "communist inspired" is ... ... wrong. Your largely bullshit calculations aside, look at the number of interventions.

The Soviet Empire (which I in no way intend to endorse) intervened in Afghanistan and positioned tanks in Eastern Europe for coercion.

America killed 150,000 dissidents in Niceragua (which hardly counts as a major "incident"), was indirectly responsible for the Islamic Revolution in Iran due to the overthrow of Mossadeq. Overthrew Allende and gave the world the good man known as Pinochet, killed many others in Guatamala, has sponsered the most organised terrorist campaign against civilians from miami against the people of Cuba and has supported the suppression of millions of others across Latin America in Colombia, Venezuela, the Southern Cone neonazis.
If the indochina revolution was Communist inspired and hence you give blame to all those who call themselves "Communists" then I guess we could describe the Afghan incident as "Capitalist or religion inspired". That's right, the U$ was happy to sponser Islamic fundamentalists when it suited them. To whom though would you attribute blame? Dont forget to leave your bias behind ;) cause you cant have things both ways. I will leave the suppression of the Palestinian people in the background as "insignificant" and will forget about the U$ rejectionist attitude to all those who say "no" to its allies.

So where would you have rather lived? In Eastern Europe or Latin America; the two corresponding empires of two imperial powers. You ever hear of a starving Eastern European? We will make sure to sweep domestic deaths and those resulting directly from exploitation under the carpet. If Commie/Cappie deaths from oppression are roughly equal (though I in no way conceed this point) then deaths caused by the economic systems show clearly to lean in favour of the U$ as the top killer. 20 million a year suffer starvation in the modern, cappie world. That's not one famine caused by reactionaries but a permanent, global famine.

What of modern Eastern Europe and indochina. Well Social inequity has upped since the fall of the USSR and the living standards are down for almost all but those few luckey oligarchs. Yes, Indochina is still being made to suffer the consequences of economic imperialism even after its economy was virtually obliterated becuase it never seemed right for them to tell the world that they were the aggressors and the U$ was the puny, pathetic defender of "all that is good and free".

I dont support U$ or Soviet Empire but you my friend are a jerk. A jerk in denial at that. Denying any alternative to Stalinism and denying that Capitalism is responsible for any misery. Understand this: you are living in a fairy world where we would all be better off as pacifists in which no one dies of hunger or thirst or otherwise preventable disease.

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 22:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 07:33 PM
On the other hand, who is directly responsible for the deaths in IndoChina? The people who lived there and wished their colonial masters to depart at once or the colonial powers--France and America--who slaughtered large numbers of people in the vain attempt to hold on to their dominance?

Why don't YOU decide for yourself? Mr "blah blah blah"

French Indochina (1930-31)
Nghe Tinh Revolt
10,000 killed (Dictionary of 20th Century World History; also M. Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics (1995))
First Indochina War (1945-54)
Our Times: 1,300,000
Clodfelter, Michael, Vietnam in Military Statistics (1995)
French Union dead: 74,220
French: 20,685
Foreign Legion: 11,620
Africans: 15,229
Indochinese: 26,686
Allied Indochinese states: 18,714
Viet Minh: 175,000
Civilians: 125,000
TOTAL: 392,934
Bernard Fall
Street Without Joy: 75,867 French Union dead and missing; 18,714 Indochinese allies dead; 94,581 Total.
The Two Vietnams (1963): 250,000 civilians killed; Vietminh casualties three times the French losses.
D. Smith: 600,000
Eckhardt: 300,000 civ. + 300,000 mil. = 600,000
B&J: 500,000
S. Karnow, Vietnam : a History (1983): 400,000
Spencer Tucker, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1998)
French Union dead: 75,867
Allied Indochinese states: 18,714
Viet Minh: 3 times that
Civilians: 250,000
TOTAL: 630,000 (?)
T. Lomperis, From People's War to People's Rule (1996)
French dead: 92,707
Viet Minh: >500,000
Civilians: 250,000
TOTAL: 842,707
Stanley Kutler: Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1996)
French and Indochinese client states: 94,581 killed
Viet Minh: 300,000
WHPSI: 44,165 deaths by political violence in both Vietnams, 1948-54
6,000 civilians killed in French shelling of Haiphong, 1946 (Dictionary of 20th Century World History; Grenville)
Second Indochina War (1960-75)
Vietnam War: Most historians of the Second Indochina War concern themselves primarily with the American Phase of the conflict, 1965-73; however, many do not specify whether their estimated death tolls cover only this phase of the war or the whole thing. An asterisk(*) indicates that the number seems to cover the entire conflict rather than just the American Phase, but check the "Sources" section to see exactly which years are covered by each authority:
South Vietnam military: 185,000 to 225,000 (Britannica) or 220,357 (Lewy) or 223,748 (Summers; also 3 April 1995 AP) or 224,000 (Kutler, Olson) or 250,000 (Clodfelter, Grenville*) or 254,257 (Wallechinsky*) or 650,000 (Small & Singer) [MEDIAN: 224,000]
North Vietnamese military and Viet Cong: 500,000 (S&S) or 660,000 (Olson) or 666,000 (Lewy, with the possibility that as many as 222,000 (1/3) of these were actually SVN civilians mistaken for VC) or 666,000 (Summers) or 700,000-1,000,000 (Wallechinsky*) or 900,000 (Britannica; Grenville*) or 1,000,000 (Clodfelter) or 1,100,000 (Tucker*, Official VN* [1954-75]) [MEDIAN: ca. 875,000]
South Vietnamese civilians: 250,000 (Olson) or 287,000 (Clodfelter = 247,600 war deaths + 38,954 assassinated by NLF) or 300,000 (Kutler; Summers) or 340,000 (Lewy's estimate, with the possibility that an additional 222,000 counted as VC (above) belong in this category) or 430,000 (The Sen. E. Kennedy Commission, according to Lewy, Olson) or 522,000 (Wallechinsky*) or 1,000,000 (Britannica [in both North and South]; Eckhardt; Grenville*) or 2,000,000 (Tucker*, Official VN* [N&S, 1954-75],) [MEDIAN: ca. 476,000]
North Vietnamese civilians: 65,000 (Kutler, Lewy, Olson, Summers, Wallechinsky) by American bombing.
USA: 58,000 (Britannica) or 58,153 (Wallechinsky*) or 58,159 (Kutler) or 47,244 KIA + 10,446 other = 57,690 (Olson, Summers, 1961-80) or 56,146 (Lewy: 46,498 KIA + 10,388 other + 719 MIA) or 56,000 (S&S)
South Korea: 4,407 (Lewy, Olson, Summers); 4,687 (Wallechinsky); 5,000 (S&S)
Philippines: 1,000 (S&S)
Thailand: 351 (Lewy, Olson, Summers, Wallechinsky); 1,000 (S&S)
Australia: 469 (Lewy, Summers, Olson [w/NZ]); 492 (S&S); 494 (Wallechinsky); 520 (AWM)
TOTAL: 1,216,000 (military only, S&S) or 1,312,000 (Summers) or 1,353,000 (Lewy) or 1,520,453 (WHPSI: S. Vietnamese only, 1965-75) or 1,637,000 (Olson) or 1,721,000 (Kutler) or 1,749,000 (Wallechinsky*) or 1,800,000 (B&J, 1960-75) or 2,058,000 (Eckhardt) or 2,163,000 (Britannica) or 2,500,000 (Grenville*) or 3,000,000 (1965-75, Chomsky* (1987)) or >3,100,000 (Tucker*; Official VN*)
[MEDIAN of TOTALS: ca. 1,900,000] or [TOTAL of MEDIANS: ca. 1,710,000]
Misc. Atrocities:
Lewy:
36,725 civilians assassinated by VC/NVA, 1957-72
2,800 civilians executed and 3,000 missing after Hue was captured by VC/NVA, 1968
400 civilians massacred by USAns in the area of Son My village, incl. 175-200 in My Lai hamlet, 1968
Because of the lack of weapons recovered from many bodies, Lewy considers the possibility that up to 222,000 VC KIA may have actually been innocent bystanders. (Or maybe not. Poor evidence either way.)
Harff & Gurr: 475,000 civilians in NLF areas were victims of repressive politicide, 1965-72
Young: Hue massacre, 1968:
Officially: 2,800-5,700
Len Ackland: 300-400
Chomsky (1987): 21,000 VC civilian officials assassinated under US/GVN Phoenix project (-in text. Endnote gives estimates ranging 40-48,000.). Lewy considers these to be (mostly) legitimate military targets.
Rummel:
90,000 democides by South Vietnam:
1954-63: 39,000, incl. 24,000 dead in forced resettlement programs
1963-75: 51,000, incl. 30,000 executions
166,000 democides by NVN/VC in SVN:
Officials assassinated: 17,000
Civilians assassinated: 49,000
Refugees killed, 1975: 50,000
Misc: 50,000
In addition to the American Phase of the War, there are four tangental conflicts which are sometimes discussed as part of the Vietnam War, but usually considered peripheral:
Vietnamese Civil War, internal phase, 1960-65
Clodfelter, 1961-64
South Vietnam, military: 21,442
Communist: 71,000
Civilian: 160,000
TOTAL: 252,442
Chomsky (1987):
1957-61: 66,000 VC (p.274, citing B. Fall), 80,000 Vietnamese (p.323)
1961-4/65: 89,000 VC
to mid 1966: 60,000 ("enemy" (McNamara) - "probably" including civilians (Chomsky))
Total, 1954-65: 160-170,000 VNese (p.324)
S&S: 300,000 battle deaths, 1960-65
Eckhardt: 200,000 civ. + 100,000 mil. = 300,000 (1960-65)
Young: NLF lost 100,000 dead 1961-(?)64
WHPSI:
21,686 deaths by political violence in South Vietnam, 1960-64
4,021 from 1955 to 1959
Cambodian Civil War (1970-75)
Chomsky (1987): half a million to a million.
Rummel, 1954-75:
War Dead: 429,000
Democide: 288,000
TOTAL: 717,000
Tucker: 10% of 7M [which comes to 700,000]
Clodfelter; also Wallechinsky (1970-75)
Cambodian govt.: 50,000
Total violent deaths, incl. Comm. and civ.: >250,000
Total war-related deaths, incl. hunger: 600,000
T. Lomperis, From People's War to People's Rule (1996), citing a Finnish commission: 600,000
MEDIAN: ca. 0.5-0.6M
Chirot: 500,000
B&J: 300,000
SIPRI 1989: 156,000
S&S, 1970-73
Cambodia: 150,000
USA: 500
SVietnam: 5,000
NVietnam: 500
TOTAL: 156,000
Eckhardt: 156,000
WHPSI: 55,750 k. by pol.viol., 1970-75
Laos
Wallechinsky, 1959-75: 250,000
Martin Stuart-Fox A History of Laos: 200,000 by 1973, incl. 30,000 Hmong.
Rummel, 1954-75:
War Dead: 32,000
Democide: 38,000
TOTAL: 70,000
Eckhardt: 12,000 civ. + 12,000 mil. = 24,000 (1960-73)
S&S, 1960-73
Laos: 5,000 (1960-62), 15,000 (1963-73)
USA: 500
NVietnam: 3,000
TOTAL: 23,500
WHPSI: 22,355 k. by pol.viol., 1963-72
T. Lomperis, From People's War to People's Rule (1996): 20,000 Meo irregulars and 15,000 Royal Lao Army
Harff & Gurr: 18-20,000 Meo tribemen were victims of genocide, 1963-65
Vietnamese Civil War, final phase, 1973-75
Young, citing Pentagon estimates:
ARVN: 26,500 (1973) + 30,000 (1974)
PRG/DRV: 39,000 (1973) + 61,000 (1974)
Civilians: 15,000
TOTAL: 171,500 killed in the "Cease-Fire War".
Sources:
Britannica: not specified, but the implication is that the statistics cover the entire war.
Clodfelter, Michael, Vietnam in Military Statistics (1995)
Eckhardt: covers the years 1965-75 (unless otherwise noted)
Grenville: does not specify which years are covered, but by context, it seems to be 1960-75
Kutler, Stanley: Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1996)
Lewy, Guenter, America in Vietnam (1978): Lewy's estimates cover the years 1965-74. (u.o.n.)
Official VN: On the 20th Anniversary of the war's end, Hanoi announced its official tally of losses for 21 years of war: 1954-75 [3 April 1995 AP; 30 April 1995 Washington Post]
Olson, James: Dictionary of the Vietnam War (1988): covers the years 1965-74 (u.o.n.)
Summers, Harry: Vietnam War Almanac (1985)
Tucker, Spencer, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (1998)
Wallechinsky: death tolls apparently cover the years 1957-75. (u.o.n.)
Young, Marilyn, The Vietnam Wars: 1945-1990 (1991)

Cambodian Civil War (1978-91)
Eckhardt
Vietnam vs Cambodia, 1978-87
14,000 civ. + 10,000 mil. = 24,000
CDI: >25,000 (possibly just refers to the substantiated Vietnamese losses)
SIPRI 1996, (1979-89)
Vietnamese battle dead: 25,300
Cambodian battle dead: >50,000
Wallechinsky:
Cambodians: 200,000
Vietnamese: 25,300
Clodfelter, Michael, Vietnam in Military Statistics (1995)
Vietnamese: 25,300
Cambodians: 100,000 (1978-79) + 100,000 thereafter, not including deaths among refugees
B&J: 500,000, incl. 50,000 Vietnamese
Rummell: 1,160,000 deaths, 1979-87
War Dead: 60,000
Famine: 250,000 (non-democidal)
Democide: 850,000
by Samrin: 230,000
by Vietnam: 460,000
by Khmer Rouge: 150,000
by others: 10,000

Lets see how much "blah blah blah" you can ascertain from THAT! TRY not to choke on the complexity!

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 22:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:13 PM
You still wont get people to accept the facts.
Yeah....I'm beginning to see that many of these guys like to make up their own statistics, and REFUSE to see the FACTS. Oh well.....Truth is truth...and NONE of these guys can EVER change THAT!!

I got PLENTY more numbers to pretty much EVERY conflict and event in the 20th century boys and girls! Come and get it!!!

Bolshevika

19th December 2003, 22:55

Mr C Sucks, you forgot the 900 million Jamaican babies killed by Stalin and Stalinists

Lardlad95

19th December 2003, 22:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:13 PM
You still wont get people to accept the facts. I bet most here blame the USA for the 2nd World War, and blame the USA for all the wrongdoings in the world. this is the problem with poeple on this board they think that the rich are to blame for everything. but they dont stop and think that some of those very rich people (like Andre carnegie who was very poor when he came to america from scotland and he self educated himslef and he worked hard to become the worlds richest man, yet people hate him for that, they wanted him to always be poor and miserable) where once poor and worked their way out of poverty and people hate them for thatm , mostly because they are jealous.
.....What a sterotypical Cappie oppinion...Leftists hate all rich people. Man did you even think about that when you were typing it?

No one blames the US for WWII, I blame them for dropping two Atomic Bombs..but I don't blame them for being involved in the world.

I don't blame the US for every bad thing in the world...I thik they've done more than their fair share of fucking things up, but every bad thing is a little too much of a stretch.

As far as rich people are concerened, some are evil, some aren't. Whether they are or not isn't why I'm a socialist. I jut want to see better distribution of the wealth. It's wonderful that that man pulld himself up to a point where he was sucessful, but the problem with capitalism is that everyone can't do that, and I'm not saying they don't have the ability to, I'm saying they actually can't, capitalism would collapse if they did.

toastedmonkey

19th December 2003, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:13 PM
like Andre carnegie who was very poor when he came to america from scotland and he self educated himslef and he worked hard to become the worlds richest man, yet people hate him for that, they wanted him to always be poor and miserable
I dont hate him, i just wish people that started working class or whatever and got rich, would remember their roots.
The people that hate him and want him to stay poor and miserable are the capitalists, another top dog means less money for them as they have another guy taking a slice of 'their' money.

Faceless

19th December 2003, 23:10

Yeah....I'm beginning to see that many of these guys like to make up their own statistics, and REFUSE to see the FACTS. Oh well.....Truth is truth...and NONE of these guys can EVER change THAT!! Whoa! Easy on that caps lock button brother! You'll blow a blood vessel
Question:
Where are these "made up" statistics? Why do you keep coying and pasting loads of numbers? I would make my mind up over those facts but I can't be arsed to read it. If you have a point to make just make it. Go ahead and copy and paste (this being the function you are most effective at) the quotes where people from the board deny knowledge of the estimates of Stalin-related deaths and where a commie goes, "the world's problems can be boiled down to the U$."

Lardlad95

19th December 2003, 23:11

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 19 2003, 11:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 19 2003, 11:52 PM)
[email protected] 19 2003, 08:13 PM
You still wont get people to accept the facts.
Yeah....I'm beginning to see that many of these guys like to make up their own statistics, and REFUSE to see the FACTS. Oh well.....Truth is truth...and NONE of these guys can EVER change THAT!!

I got PLENTY more numbers to pretty much EVERY conflict and event in the 20th century boys and girls! Come and get it!!! [/b]
Are you asserting that you are speaking the absolute truth? Well then I can see why no one would believe you. Truth is a perception, not something set in concrete.

Those facts being truth or not is dependent on how you view them. Obviously since you are the one who came up with them you would accept them as truth. But to someone else they may or may not be truth depending on what they believe.

A capitalist would be quick to believe them..and of course they would, they promote their case. But whenever a socialist or a communist presents a statistic you guys are quick to pass it off as skewed. Everyone's perception influences what they see as truth my friend.

Empirical Evidence is a funny thinig, there is always another set of evidence to refute it.

Now do I claim to have such evidence? No, I"m sure someone else does, and if you ask them I'm sure they'll give it to you.

And in actuality I really don't care whether or not you are right because historically capitalism and "communism"(people who claim they are communists but turlly aren't) have both fucked up royally.

So unless you can find me a statistic saying the SPUSA killed millions of Vietnamese children or something I have no beef with your statistics.

My only complaint like I said above, is that you assert that you are speaking the absolute truth. You must realize this is the truth to you, and people who share your personal opinion

New Tolerance

19th December 2003, 23:16

C Sucks, we do not support the killing of anything of those people that you have listed. (If they truely did happen)

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 23:16

Originally posted by Faceless+Dec 20 2003, 12:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faceless @ Dec 20 2003, 12:10 AM) Whoa! Easy on that caps lock button brother! You'll blow a blood vessel[/b]
Its called I N F L E C T I O N, little one.

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 12:10 AM
Question:
Where are these "made up" statistics? Why do you keep coying and pasting loads of numbers? I would make my mind up over those facts but I can't be arsed to read it. If you have a point to make just make it.
Gee, lets see...because unlike YOU...I have a life...and it involves WAY MORE than REWRITING numbers already posted so that little kids like you can thumb their wet noses at them and QUESTION where they come from.

[email protected] 20 2003, 12:10 AM
.... "the world's problems can be boiled down to the U$."
Heh heh heh ....you're so blind, I'll stop resopnding to your ridiculous posts from now on. Buh-bye!

redstar2000

19th December 2003, 23:19

Perhaps you should take up accountancy, Sr. Sucks...you seem to have a "head" for numbers.

You clearly lack an understanding of anything else...how does your massive compilation answer my question?

Who was responsible for the two wars in IndoChina?

Are not France and the United States directly accountable for the casualties of those wars? In the exact same sense as Germany and Japan were directly accountable for all the casualties of World War II?

France "could" have recognized Vietnamese independence in 1945. The United States "could" have recognized Vietnamese independence in 1963. Neither chose to do so; both insisted on a fight "to the bitter end"...to hold onto a colonial "possession".

Do you deny these plain historical facts? Do you want to still hide behind "body count" arguments?

Or do you wish to argue that "some" imperialist wars are "ok"? Somehow, I have this feeling that such is exactly what you really think.

If the U.S. invades Cuba, I'm betting that you'd be volunteering to "get in on the action"...dreaming of riding into Havana on top of a U.S. tank.

Dream on! :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 23:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 12:19 AM
If the U.S. invades Cuba, I'm betting that you'd be volunteering to "get in on the action"...dreaming of riding into Havana on top of a U.S. tank.

Wow...you've really lost it now ole boy! USA invading cuba....Yeah..I heard the three little pigs were contracted to build the tanks and the fairy god mother is the new commanding general of all forces involved in the invasion. Say, did you also hear that Che was being cloned and is actually going to join castro again for a second revolution? Perhaps YOU should take up story telling..you seem to have a head for fantasy!

Lardlad95

19th December 2003, 23:29

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 20 2003, 12:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 20 2003, 12:25 AM)
[email protected] 20 2003, 12:19 AM
If the U.S. invades Cuba, I'm betting that you'd be volunteering to "get in on the action"...dreaming of riding into Havana on top of a U.S. tank.

Wow...you've really lost it now ole boy! USA invading cuba....Yeah..I heard the three little pigs were contracted to build the tanks and the fairy god mother is the new commanding general of all forces involved in the invasion. Say, did you also hear that Che was being cloned and is actually going to join castro again for a second revolution? Perhaps YOU should take up story telling..you seem to have a head for fantasy! [/b]
THEY HAVE CHE CLONES OUT NOW??? CAN I BUY ONE???HOW MUCH ARE THEY?????? TELL ME DAMN IT!!!!!

Don't Change Your Name

20th December 2003, 05:46

This topic pointed out an important question: who is to blame?

Those numbers you posted arent very trustable, because:
1) there's not a single mention of Hitler and the crimes under his government as "Hitler's regime" as they speak about "Stalin regime"(only speaks about WW2, which in fact was a fight between capitalist countries)
2) Civil wars can't be attributed to "Communism", you should attribute them to the system that first developed the conditions for a revolution.
3) Communism never existed as what the term means. What you call communism is Leninism/Stalinism, which is a system of authoritarian socialism which expects to reach communism one day. Marx said that to reach communism first you had to take a time with a state and a centrally planned economy which was called socialism. There's no term to exactly describe the system because it's a more radical socialism, so it was always named communism. Imagine studying in an university to be a lawyer, but also imagine the term student doesnt exist. If someone asks what's your profession, what do you say?
4) The deaths a certain army caused arent taken into account. You took into account yanqui-caused deaths in Vietnam as created from the VC, which is stupid. You have to blame imperialism for the Vietnam war. Imperialism = capitalism (unless practiced by Stalinists)
5) All deaths caused by "Communist" revolutions are caused by the fact that those in power will not allow a peaceful revolution.
6) Even if those numbers were correct, do you think changing completely the order of the society will follow the plans of the previous system? I mean everything is reorganised, this can always bring deaths.

el_profe

20th December 2003, 06:08

Originally posted by Edward [email protected] 19 2003, 10:18 PM

Saying that you (el-profe) go nuts when I talked of certain 'businessmen' deserving death, yet why is it ok, in your eyes to kill someone through starvation/economic genocide, which is what most corporations do globally, yet you get angry if a rebel-/guerrilla delivers justice to one of these mass mudering individuals?

You seem to only care aobut human life if it has a large bank account.

Then again capitalism and right-wingers are by there very nature irrational and have a consistency to defy logical thinking.

Makes on think that you could be mentally unwell and in need of some help, though I just forgot you hate free/state health care, so you are gonna have to pay for it!
WOW.
You should read the biography of Andrew carnegie, you will see he was once very poor and made his riches honestly.

I only care about rich people, YOU SEE I FUCKING LIVED IN LATIN AMERICA I WAS BORN their and only very few rich families like maybe 10 or so (in my country) really are ass-holes that have had the gov. (ever goverment leftist and right wing govs.) protect their bussiness. The rest which is not much made their money legally. AND WHAT IS RUCH FOR YOU MIDDLE CLASS, HIG MIDDLE CLASS?

Someone who was once poor was able to get good grades in high school got a scholarship to a University, and now has a good paying job. IS HE A RICH PERSON THAT DESERVES TO die.

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop talking about latin american countries which you have no idea how they are, look , and the way things work.

redstar2000

20th December 2003, 09:24

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 19 2003, 07:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 19 2003, 07:25 PM)
[email protected] 20 2003, 12:19 AM
If the U.S. invades Cuba, I'm betting that you'd be volunteering to "get in on the action"...dreaming of riding into Havana on top of a U.S. tank.

Wow...you've really lost it now ole boy! USA invading cuba....Yeah..I heard the three little pigs were contracted to build the tanks and the fairy god mother is the new commanding general of all forces involved in the invasion. Say, did you also hear that Che was being cloned and is actually going to join castro again for a second revolution? Perhaps YOU should take up story telling..you seem to have a head for fantasy! [/b]
I see that you have no answer to the serious questions I raised.

No surprise there. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

20th December 2003, 09:44

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop talking about latin american countries which you have no idea how they are, look, and the way things work.

Actually, the information available in English about Latin America is pretty extensive...Americans who are interested in politics at all are probably much better informed about Latin America than they are about the Middle East or Asia.

Ever since colonial times, Latin America has been ruled by more or less permanent oligarchies...originally landed aristocrats and, more recently, modern capitalists in growing numbers.

These oligarchies have always been and still are deeply corrupt, necessitating regular military dictatorships to "restore order" when popular outrage explodes.

The deeply reactionary Catholic Church has also played an important role in providing "social glue" to keep those societies from collapse.

Each country is different, of course, with its own history, particular characteristics, etc. Some are, or have been, slightly more "progressive" than others...roughly, Uruguay was probably the best place to live and Paraguay almost certainly the worst.

But if you look over the whole panorama, it's a depressing sight indeed. Maybe not as bad as India...but very much like it in many ways.

If ever a continent needed a couple of million "Che's", Latin America qualifies.

So, no, we will not "shut the fuck up". More importantly, neither will the exploited and oppressed masses of those unhappy lands.

Too bad for you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Faceless

20th December 2003, 11:44

Where are these "made up" statistics? You didn't answer the question Mr. Sucks. You accused everyone here of making up their own stats.

Heh heh heh ....you're so blind, I'll stop resopnding to your ridiculous posts from now on. Buh-bye! I'm so blind yet you accuse che-lives members of "skimming over" Soviet atrocities. You see the Soviet Union is dead and many here would happily call the ex-nation the spawn of satan if that's what you want. Is that what you want? I think you'll find though that U$ hegemony is infinitly more relevant today. I am not an apologist.

Someone who was once poor was able to get good grades in high school got a scholarship to a University, and now has a good paying job. IS HE A RICH PERSON THAT DESERVES TO die. If I go to university I will come out with £15,000 debt (equivalent to my parents's combined anual income). I will be unable to afford any private tutoring on the way and will recieve little help from my family as I also have siblings who have needs of their own. What a way to start out in life since I will expect other little things like cars, computers and even a nice mortgage (looking at house prices in the UK things really are grim). Nevertheless I may be able to climb to a reasonable level of lifestyle. The lucky few who can climb the slippery slope with little capital behind them may even have my blessing but you must understand that it is physically impossible for anything other than a minority to climb to this level. It requires a majority working class to support the bourgeoisie and I am not prepared to stop my fight in support of a lucky minority. And commies will not kill all of these people if they capitulate. No one deserves to die. The working classes will offer emancipation to the bourgeoisie but deplorably few will accept it.

Maynard

20th December 2003, 12:36

NOTHING that would lean to EITHER SIDE!!
The Black Book Of Communism is certainly unbaised, right ?

, they wanted him to always be poor and miserable

Who says that if you are poor you are miserable ? We are not out to get "rich people" , we are not "jealous". I am sure they are many here who are well educated enough to receive high paying jobs, we simply believe that the current system is skewed to favour a minority more so than everyone. There may be some examples of "rags to riches" stories used by capitalists to get people to believe it can happen to them too, when the fact is in the majority of cases it can't. That is the nature of capitalism there has to be "winners" or "Losers".

IS HE A RICH PERSON THAT DESERVES TO die.

Who said anything about rich people deserving to die here ?

redstar2000

21st December 2003, 03:39

IS HE A RICH PERSON THAT DESERVES TO DIE?

Now, there's an idea!

Tonight at midnight, using my magic commie wand, I cast an evil spell over the United States...causing everyone with a pre-tax income of $100,000 or more in 2002 or with a net worth exceeding $1,000,000 to suddenly die of heart failure.

As dawn breaks over America, the bodies are found, one by one. There are a lot of them...perhaps 10 million or more. Funeral homes are deluged with inquiries. Morgues are stuffed with well-fed corpses. Health Departments have to resort to mass burnings.

Meanwhile, the top of the American social pyramid is empty. Corporate boardrooms vacant; government offices deserted except for clerks and secretaries. All of the "famous" celebraties...dead.

Almost no experienced doctors are left alive...but there are a lot of young interns, if course, and all of the nurses and paramedics are still around.

Only minor-league professional sports are left...the entire roster of major league players are gone.

And so on...

Now, ask yourself this: if I did indeed possess such power and did this deed, how many "good people" would I have inadvertently killed and how many ruthless, greedy, brutal no-good bastards?

And would the U.S., at least for a little while, be a "better" or a "worse" country to live in?

Think about it. ;)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

el_profe

21st December 2003, 04:39

el_profe

21st December 2003, 04:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:36 PM

IS HE A RICH PERSON THAT DESERVES TO die.

Who said anything about rich people deserving to die here ?
Edward norton.

General A.A.Vlasov

22nd December 2003, 06:21

KA:"OH MAN!!! I HATE STALIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

...well, I'm "totally" agree! :angry:

CASTRO_SUCKS

22nd December 2003, 13:46

Having just spent the last 48 straight hours in hell saving lives, I'll post where I get my numbers, then take a MUCH NEEDED nap. Believe them or just brush them aside like so many facts that you try to justify and/or deny. That seems to be the trend here anyway. Believe the numbers or EAT em I don't really GIVE a shit, at this point, what your small minds want/can/are willing to absorb! Toodles!

Here's the website. Choke on it!: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

cubist

22nd December 2003, 14:57

i sense alot of sarcasm on this thread

Mr Castro Sucks

Dead people

so what,

heres a point

you gave us a list of deaths

history is one thing but america is still doing it.

el_profe

22nd December 2003, 15:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 02:46 PM
Having just spent the last 48 straight hours in hell saving lives, I'll post where I get my numbers, then take a MUCH NEEDED nap. Believe them or just brush them aside like so many facts that you try to justify and/or deny. That seems to be the trend here anyway. Believe the numbers or EAT em I don't really GIVE a shit, at this point, what your small minds want/can/are willing to absorb! Toodles!

you cant say thsi webstie is biased. they show the uk and the USA's killing also.

Of course , some will sill say these numbers are western propaganda.

This is from that website, castro gave:

:o
Here are a few illustrative estimates from the Big Numbers school:
Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.

MORE NUMBERS.
Famine, 1926-38
Green, Barbara ("Stalinist Terror and the Question of Genocide: the Great Famine" in Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique?) cites these sources for the number who died in the famine:
Nove: 3.1-3.2M in Ukraine, 1933
Maksudov: 4.4M in Ukraine, 1927-38
Mace: 5-7M in Ukraine
Osokin: 3.35M in USSR, 1933
Wheatcraft: 4-5M in USSR, 1932-33
Conquest:
Total, USSR, 1926-37: 11M
1932-33: 7M
Ukraine: 5M

This is a good website Castro, thanks for the link.

Exploited Class

22nd December 2003, 17:19

I find the time frame given as being biased.

These are just numbers from the 19th century, for a reason; nobody would want to give the numbers since America's conception.
Civil War, Mexican War, Genocide wars on Indians...

Numbers are going to be high for the 19th century as well. You have to remember prior to the 19th century they didn't have bombs, planes dropping bombs all over the place, landmines, rockets, helicopters, machine guns, grenades, tanks, half tracks... it goes on and on. Shrapnel is a biggie as well for casualties.

When you play the number game you get caught in a whose in first place and who is in 2nd place. It becomes a, who can tag who with the term Nazi. It is a losing race.

Who did more USSR or USA, it is a close call... It is too close and shouldn't be and that is why there shouldn't be any type of patriotism in America. Americans start this game of, "Hey we didn't kill 6 million people like Nazi Germany did we only did 1.5 million civilians".

America shouldn't be putting its numbers up against germany or USSR, try putting them up against Canada or Sweden. They don't want to because they know they would be 10,000 to 1. They would be blown out of the water by the numbers. It is because Americans are famous for, "We aren't as bad as so and so, or if you think it is so bad here go move to the Sudan and see how you like it." They always compare the worse to themselves as the line.

I am going to give as bought as big of shit about how many people Russia was responsible for killing as most Americans give a shit about how many Indians they killed in the past. I am going to trade in my ideals on communism for the deaths caused by it as most capitalist care about the deaths caused by their ideals.

We will both say the samething, "I wish those people didn't die and I wish it was preventable."

People died because of the communist manifesto and people died from Manifest Destiny.

I guess if we are suppose to be upset at numbers or say something, what is the number that revolutions are suppose to stop?

At what point was the American Revolution suppose to stop? How many deaths was the line not to cross to reach their goal? What is the number that the Russian Revolution was suppose to stop at?

How exact are we suppose to get on these numbers?
On the capitalism side I can think of a lot of deaths that are not counted.

Drunk Driving deaths - auto industry and alcohol industry, lack of public transportation, alcohol advertisments, society dependant on owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl.
Gun related Deaths - gun industry lobby, hollywood industry.
Early deaths related to poor health from poverty.
Industrial deaths on the job or shortening of life spans, like black lung, mercury.
Early deaths caused by pollution from the private sector like MTBs in the ocean, mercury in the drinking water and fish.
Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class. Advertisments and location placements of fast food.
Placing high prices on medication making it impossible for poor people to recieve proper and much needed medicines.

I am not going to battle numbers, battling it out for second place in the all time spot. Obviously both sides kill people, obviously sides that most of us don't even agree with. Like I am pro Stalin or something, like it is my fault that somebody hijacked a good idea and went nuts with it.

YKTMX

22nd December 2003, 18:05

The Black Book Of Communism is a total rag which most of the main participators have denounced. If we want to talk about "numbers", lets talk about the people dying off curable diseases because of the CAPITALIST drug multinationals in league with their goverments. Or lets talk about the hundreds of millions of starving people the CAPITALIST goverments of the world have let die. Lets talk about the famines and deaths at the hands of the British empire.

And another thing. As everyone hopefully knows, I am no fan of Stalin but to say that he was in anyway comparable to Hitler is unfair. Firstly the SU stopped Hitler before he chould finish of his job distinguishing EVERY non-aryan person on the planet, which would have numbered in the BILLIONS! Secondly, Stalinism and Maoism WERE murderous and do have a tendency towards "benine" genocide, but let's not forget that many of their victims were real Leninists and revolutionaries who fought againt their dictatorships. So any claim that their murderous reigns has ANYTHING to do with a genuine socialist tradition has to be called into question.

Even if you are "Castro Sucks" and think Robert Conquest is a good source :lol:

FarfromNear

22nd December 2003, 18:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 10:44 AM

PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop talking about latin american countries which you have no idea how they are, look, and the way things work.

Actually, the information available in English about Latin America is pretty extensive...Americans who are interested in politics at all are probably much better informed about Latin America than they are about the Middle East or Asia.

Ever since colonial times, Latin America has been ruled by more or less permanent oligarchies...originally landed aristocrats and, more recently, modern capitalists in growing numbers.

These oligarchies have always been and still are deeply corrupt, necessitating regular military dictatorships to "restore order" when popular outrage explodes.

The deeply reactionary Catholic Church has also played an important role in providing "social glue" to keep those societies from collapse.

Each country is different, of course, with its own history, particular characteristics, etc. Some are, or have been, slightly more "progressive" than others...roughly, Uruguay was probably the best place to live and Paraguay almost certainly the worst.

But if you look over the whole panorama, it's a depressing sight indeed. Maybe not as bad as India...but very much like it in many ways.

If ever a continent needed a couple of million "Che's", Latin America qualifies.

So, no, we will not "shut the fuck up". More importantly, neither will the exploited and oppressed masses of those unhappy lands.

Too bad for you.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I would say a lot of you obviously don't know because you keep on insisting that Latin America is capitalist.

el_profe

22nd December 2003, 18:40

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 22 2003, 06:19 PM
I find the time frame given as being biased.

These are just numbers from the 19th century, for a reason; nobody would want to give the numbers since America's conception.
Civil War, Mexican War, Genocide wars on Indians...

OKAY , lol. DIDnt you see the page.

You really try to find any little thing you can call biased. IF ANYONE ELSE THINKS THESE NUMBERS ARE BIASED, PLEASE GIVE A BETTER REASON THAN this moron did.

ITs a historical atlas of the 20th century. LOL. I dont know if you know 19th centruy was before the 20th. It goes 17,18,19,20. LOL

You really try to find any little thing you can call biased. IF ANYONE ELSE THINKS THESE NUMBERS ARE BIASED, PLEASE GIVE A BETTER REASON THAN this moron did.

WHY DONT YOU MAKE A historical atlas for the 19th centruy Atlas.

As for the numbers. The civil war was to end slavery so that is justified, unless you are for slavery?????

But yes the numbers for the wars on indians would be high, but the Czar's in Russia also murdered alot of people and there where alot of wars during that time.

The reason you give for these numbers being biased is just stupid, first because its a 20th century atlas, second because I could give the same argument about spain's numbers. Since they did all theri killing of the indians in latin america in the from th 16th centuty till about th 18th century.
And lets not forget the Spanish inquisition. SO YOURE argument only shows you try to find any little stupid thing to say those numbers are false, or disprove those numbers, why you do it, I dont KNOW. Then you say it is American biased because you hate America, that just shows you wnat to blame America for everything. Do you blame the USA for starting WWII?

As i kept reading your post I found this moronic statement:

America shouldn't be putting its numbers up against germany or USSR, try putting them up against Canada or Sweden. They don't want to because they know they would be 10,000 to 1. They would be blown out of the water by the numbers. It is because Americans are famous for, "We aren't as bad as so and so, or if you think it is so bad here go move to the Sudan and see how you like it." They always compare the worse to themselves as the line.

:o :o The USA and the USSR where the world powers in the 20th century (for the most part of the century) so they both are compared to eachother. Canda and Sweden where not involved in as many fihgitn as the USA and the USSR where, so you cant compare them. THIS IS JUST Common sense.

Just as i though your stupidist statement was in the past, i come upon this crap:

On the capitalism side I can think of a lot of deaths that are not counted.

Drunk Driving deaths - auto industry and alcohol industry, lack of public transportation, alcohol advertisments, society dependant on owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl.
Gun related Deaths - gun industry lobby, hollywood industry.
Early deaths related to poor health from poverty.
Industrial deaths on the job or shortening of life spans, like black lung, mercury.
Early deaths caused by pollution from the private sector like MTBs in the ocean, mercury in the drinking water and fish.
Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class. Advertisments and location placements of fast food.
Placing high prices on medication making it impossible for poor people to recieve proper and much needed medicines.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Drunk Driving deaths: where was liquour invented? cause you can blame them fro that also? Are you going to blame prostitutes for causing husband's to cheat on their wives?
Drunk driving is cause by personal irresponsabilty, of the person taking drinking. DO YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE ALL PERSONAL RESPONSABILTY, everyone's a victim in your world.
owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl?, I guess we should all still have horses?
So what youre against big cities now? I guess computers are also bad right, since they are a product of "capitalism".

GUN related deaths, again this could be blamed on the first gun makers. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, why where their wars before guns?

early deaths related to poor health from poverty. How about the deaths of poor people before the word capitalism existed? who do you blame those deaths on. So being poor comes from capitalism?

Industrial deaths, comeo one, with technology advancements (due to capitalism" jobs become safer and safer. And people in the past didnt know that those working conditions where that harmfull.

Pollution from the private sector? hmmmmm. How about the horrible pollution left by the state owned factories of the USSR in russia???? or are these reports also fake????

Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class?
yes when Mcdonalds was created it was created with the sole purpose of killing the poor by having fast serving, cheap food. I DONT KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, but it is cheaper

Placing HIGH PRICES ON MEDICATION so the poor cant afford them? thats true.

BUt the high prices of the medication are so high because a bill passes during the first years of the Clinton era made gov. the largest buyer of medications in the USA. And some vaccine and drug companies are subsidized by the gov. so they can keep the prices on certain prodcuts and for insured people low. what this does is not leave room fro much profit for the vaccine makers so there is no competition and only 3 or 4 companies are left making drugs thus they have to set prices high for people without insurance since most of their medicine sold to gov. does not make profit. The drug industry in the USA is socilized that is why it is so ineficcient.

If the would allow a free-market for vaccine makers and drug companies their would be competition to develpe better vaccines, better drugs and since you want to get more customers you see the companies lowering prices.

What this post showed is you just hate america , and you want to blame capitalism for all the problems in the world.

Hoppe

22nd December 2003, 18:44

Drunk Driving deaths - auto industry and alcohol industry, lack of public transportation, alcohol advertisments, society dependant on owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl.
Gun related Deaths - gun industry lobby, hollywood industry.
Early deaths related to poor health from poverty.
Industrial deaths on the job or shortening of life spans, like black lung, mercury.
Early deaths caused by pollution from the private sector like MTBs in the ocean, mercury in the drinking water and fish.
Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class. Advertisments and location placements of fast food.
Placing high prices on medication making it impossible for poor people to recieve proper and much needed medicines.

I am not even starting on the fallacies you state here, but it is quite funny to hear a socialist/communist etc claim that the monopoly on the use of force should be in the hands of the ruling class. :)

If the proletariat hasn't got access to guns how are they going to protect themselves against the oppressing bourgeoisie? With sticks?

cubist

22nd December 2003, 18:47

Actually, the information available in English about Latin America is pretty extensive...Americans who are interested in politics at all are probably much better informed about Latin America than they are about the Middle East or Asia.

true seeing as in a survey of 1000 people taking during the coalition action in iraq, 1 in 7 new where iraq was

Exploited Class

22nd December 2003, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 12:44 PM

Drunk Driving deaths - auto industry and alcohol industry, lack of public transportation, alcohol advertisments, society dependant on owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl.
Gun related Deaths - gun industry lobby, hollywood industry.
Early deaths related to poor health from poverty.
Industrial deaths on the job or shortening of life spans, like black lung, mercury.
Early deaths caused by pollution from the private sector like MTBs in the ocean, mercury in the drinking water and fish.
Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class. Advertisments and location placements of fast food.
Placing high prices on medication making it impossible for poor people to recieve proper and much needed medicines.

I am not even starting on the fallacies you state here, but it is quite funny to hear a socialist/communist etc claim that the monopoly on the use of force should be in the hands of the ruling class. :)

If the proletariat hasn't got access to guns how are they going to protect themselves against the oppressing bourgeoisie? With sticks?
Yah because the current military isn't already in the hands of the ruling class.

What will they use to defend themselves? I am sure a winchester 30'6 is really going to do well against an m-16, kevlar body armor, coordinated attacks, billions of dollars of straight out killing technology.

So short sided, not a whole lot of communists would say a 'blood bath' for the proletariat would be a good thing, and that is exactly what would happen if the proletariat of the US ever decides to take up arms against the ruling class. Us with our 22 rifles and .357s against the military that recieves 400 billion in one year. There is a fair fight.

Narrow minded, to think that revolution means violence.

Stupid to think that the use of force has to be a behind the barrel of a gun. You know what happens when every truck driver and longshorman strikes? That is the real power, and that is the real show of force.

CASTRO_SUCKS

22nd December 2003, 21:15

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 22 2003, 09:06 PM
Stupid to think that the use of force has to be a behind the barrel of a gun. You know what happens when every truck driver and longshorman strikes? That is the real power, and that is the real show of force.
Then someone tell THIS asshole fidel to STOP calling the AK-47 a symbol of ORDER!

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid94/pbbd2127c43fa730a3a93ec31565b0016/fa3a8fdd.jpg

Exploited Class

22nd December 2003, 23:02

Cuba is still in a revolutionary state, waiting for the rest of the world to catch up, and since it has been attacked and fended off the ruling class with the most powerful military in the world, sits less than 100 miles off the coast of that same ruling class' nation and since THEY ARE NOT THE PROLETARIAT OF THE US like I was just talking about, they can keep showing off the AK-47s.

Nice how the picture is probably photoshopped, that order is a font in photoshop. It is even hosted on "post your own" site.

It is pretty standard for leaders to show strenght. He is showing a what 1200 dollar weapon? Not like our leader. Showing off his multibillion dollar weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.tias.com/stores/donnaskorner/pictures/gwb0002ab.jpg

http://www.tias.com/stores/donnaskorner/pictures/gwb0002ac.jpg

http://www.tias.com/stores/donnaskorner/pictures/gwb0002ad.jpg

CASTRO_SUCKS

23rd December 2003, 01:40

Originally posted by Exploited Class+Dec 23 2003, 12:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Exploited Class @ Dec 23 2003, 12:02 AM) Cuba is still in a revolutionary state, waiting for the rest of the world to catch up......[/b]
Bahahahahahaha....that is botht the funniest and most stupid remark I've read yet on this site!

Exploited [email protected] 23 2003, 12:02 AM
Nice how the picture is probably photoshopped, that order is a font in photoshop. It is even hosted on "post your own" site.
Wow......photoshopped? You're an idiot you know that? NOW you think that's PHOTOSHOPPED? Bahahahahahahahahaha...are you morons THAT desperate to ridiculously explain away EVERYTHING you don't agree with?! Incredible!!! Hey BOZO.....as a matter of fact thats a poster for sale from a World Propaganda-Poster dealer from the Cold War Era. So....sorry charlie...thats DEFINITIVELY for real!!!!!

Exploited Class

23rd December 2003, 03:12

Bahahahahahaha....that is botht the funniest and most stupid remark I've read yet on this site!
I am glad you got a kick out of it, I don't see why it is both funny and stupid but obviously you don't want to explain, you just want to insult.

Wow......photoshopped? You're an idiot you know that?
No, I didn't know that. I guess I needed somebody awesome like you to tell me that.

NOW you think that's PHOTOSHOPPED?
Now? So before now I thought what?

Bahahahahahahahahaha...are you morons THAT desperate to ridiculously explain away EVERYTHING you don't agree with?!
I didn't say it was, I said it looked photoshoped to me and that the font is one I have seen in photoshop. And yes it is EVERYTHING, that picture = EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.

Hey BOZO
Bozo? ummmm 3rd grade insults, how to deal with them....
I am rubber you are glue everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

as a matter of fact thats a poster for sale from a World Propaganda-Poster dealer from the Cold War Era
I am glad you provided the link to that, and silly me for not visiting every possible poster site on the internet. Not to have looked at over 50 years of everything single thing Cuba has ever produced.

Also, you didn't get the image from this well stated World Propaganda-Poster Dealer from the Cold War Era web site. There has to be a good 20 or so sites fitting that description, would you like to give a link to the site. I mean you for some reason decided not to go with that link, instead going with a something off of http://www.imagestation.com .
Then I tried to go to http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid94/
Thinking hey maybe that is the website.

So excuse me for not knowing it is off of a poster website when you are linking it from somewhere else.

el_profe

23rd December 2003, 06:11

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 22 2003, 06:19 PM

On the capitalism side I can think of a lot of deaths that are not counted.

Drunk Driving deaths - auto industry and alcohol industry, lack of public transportation, alcohol advertisments, society dependant on owning a vehicle due to urban sprawl.
Gun related Deaths - gun industry lobby, hollywood industry.
Early deaths related to poor health from poverty.
Industrial deaths on the job or shortening of life spans, like black lung, mercury.
Early deaths caused by pollution from the private sector like MTBs in the ocean, mercury in the drinking water and fish.
Early deaths because unhealthy foods are cheaper and more affordable for the poverty class. Advertisments and location placements of fast food.
Placing high prices on medication making it impossible for poor people to recieve proper and much needed medicines.

Exploited class has said by far the dumbest things I have ever heard.
especially with his "capitalist deaths that are not counted".
you just showed how dumb you are with the examples you followed up that statement.

You blame alcoholism on capitalism. But you dont know that the USSR always had one of the highest alcoholism rates in the world. :lol: :lol:

Im not going to respond to you hole post, you can read my response at the end of page 2.

Exploited Class

23rd December 2003, 11:00

You blame alcoholism on capitalism.
No I didn't, I believe it was Drunk Driving Deaths. But give it to you for having zero reading comprehension skills.

I would respond to your response but your reading and comprehension skills are so low, that I would have to hand hold you through my entire post.

But let it be understood that the point of emphasis leading up to what you are quoting there is that it would be ridiculous to take numbers to that level. I guess it would require you to take in the general idea as a whole. In fact there wasn't an emphasis that, that paragraph should be used at all.

It is called a setting a mood, and I am pretty sure somebody with better reading comprehension skills could see from the mood of my post that I think the whole number games is silly and irrelevant. And by that paragraph I was proving the point.

I would reply to it, but if your writing skills are any indication of your reading skills, I would have to re-teach you english and become the miracle worker.

Anybody that says moron and stupid 20 times in one post obviously has a thesaurus 2 pages thick in their brain. You try to be insultive but it comes off like a little kid that just doesn't know how to do it well. Frankly anybody that draws a connection between "aggressive criticism" to "hating america" drives a very small road that would barely hold enough room for a bicycle of thought on what should be an interstate in width.

el_profe

23rd December 2003, 20:35

Originally posted by Exploited [email protected] 23 2003, 12:00 PM

You blame alcoholism on capitalism.
No I didn't, I believe it was Drunk Driving Deaths. But give it to you for having zero reading comprehension skills.

And why do Drunk driving deaths ocur, cause people get drunk, so you blame getting drunk on capitalism and getting drunk everyday is alcholism, thus you blame it on capitalism.

0 comprehension skills. Oh yes it was you that said that the info was biased because it didnt show any numbers from the 19th century, right. YET YOU FAILED TO READ that it was a 20th century historical atlas. :o
So who had 0 reading skills their?

I would respond to your response but your reading and comprehension skills are so low, that I would have to hand hold you through my entire post.
YES or you just dont know how to answer back. ;)

But let it be understood that the point of emphasis leading up to what you are quoting there is that it would be ridiculous to take numbers to that level. I guess it would require you to take in the general idea as a whole. In fact there wasn't an emphasis that, that paragraph should be used at all.
lol, yeah, that is why everyone else called you out on that statement.
And it was you who started your answer with "I believe these numbers are biased", this means you where already trying to disprove these numbers, so you had to resort to that dumb statement, you realized how dumb it was and now you wnat to back out... :o :lol:

It is called a setting a mood, and I am pretty sure somebody with better reading comprehension skills could see from the mood of my post that I think the whole number games is silly and irrelevant. And by that paragraph I was proving the point.

I would reply to it, but if your writing skills are any indication of your reading skills, I would have to re-teach you english and become the miracle worker.

Anybody that says moron and stupid 20 times in one post obviously has a thesaurus 2 pages thick in their brain. You try to be insultive but it comes off like a little kid that just doesn't know how to do it well. Frankly anybody that draws a connection between "aggressive criticism" to "hating america" drives a very small road that would barely hold enough room for a bicycle of thought on what should be an interstate in width.

Since you know your argumetn is lost, you go back to my reading skills and blab about it.
I said moron 1 time and stupid 1 time in my original answer, again showing you have 0 comprehension skills if you failed to see this.
And you do hate america, just admit it. you prabably have a post somwhere here saying that, but i dont want to look for it.

el_profe

23rd December 2003, 23:59

Exploited class. YOURE A COMPLETE RETARD.
I have no idea why I even respond to your stupid post.

I still cant get over you saying:

find the time frame given as being biased.

These are just numbers from the 19th century, for a reason; nobody would want to give the numbers since America's conception.
Civil War, Mexican War, Genocide wars on Indians...

LOL. first you didnt realize that it was 20th century almanac. So before you read the whole thing or actually knew the source, you came to post this stupid thing. you did the same thing with my Nazi, fascism discussion. you didnt read teh whole thing, thus your argumetn was crushed because you only read some line and maybe the 1st paragraph. After i pointed this out to you, you probably read a little more.

AS i said in my post you didnt answer. You can say these numbers are biased towards Spain.
Because it does not have the numbers of the millions of indians killed by the spanish in latin america and it does not show the numbers from the Spanish inquisition.

And as your statement about the deaths caused by capitalism, that was just retarded and i already answered that in my post.

SO i say again. Please answer my post on the bottom of page 2. the whole post.
I hate when people go off the subject instead of admitting defeat or saying they where wrong(like with the biased statement). And please answer the whole post, not just one sentence. AND ADmit you where wrong, i will bet it will be the first time you do that, although not the first time you where wrong

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

24th December 2003, 02:35

Who cares? Would you support Hitler if he was a pacifist? Just because a lot of people die, doesn't make something wrong, and just because not a lot of people die (feudalism, slavery?) doesn't make something right.

Xvall

24th December 2003, 04:05

(ie NOTHING with the words, FOX, CNN, Socialist, Peace, Communist, Feminist, Pro-life, ANSWER, Micheal Moore, Pro-Choice, Red-Cross, etc!)!

Yeah, of course that site isn't biased. They just use terms like Communist Oppression for kicks. Please. Even if those numbers were true (They probably aren't) you've killed more than us.

el_profe

24th December 2003, 06:09

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 24 2003, 05:05 AM

(ie NOTHING with the words, FOX, CNN, Socialist, Peace, Communist, Feminist, Pro-life, ANSWER, Micheal Moore, Pro-Choice, Red-Cross, etc!)!

Yeah, of course that site isn't biased. They just use terms like Communist Oppression for kicks. Please. Even if those numbers were true (They probably aren't) you've killed more than us.
Not true. Didnt you see he used the numbers given by different historians. Make your own conclusions from all those numbers.
And what does youve killed more than us mean?
who has, and who is us?