[Infographics] WWII deaths compared w. others

[tomos]

This video is well worth a look imo:

Vimeo:
The Fallen of World War II

An animated data-driven documentary about war and peace, The Fallen of World War II looks at the human cost of the second World War and sizes up the numbers to other wars in history, including trends in recent conflicts.
Visit fallen.io for the interactive version and more information
Written, directed, coded, narrated by twitter.com/neilhalloran
Sound and music by twitter.com/Dolhaz

there is an interactive version here: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
where you can on occasion pause and mouse over graphs for more info
(a drawback is that you cannot rewind using left-arrow)

[tomos]

I originally posted this in the basement, wraith808 suggested it be posted 'upstairs'.
(For reference, the basement thread is here)

[mouser]

pretty impressive video/visualization, thanks for sharing.
makes you wonder what software they used to create it.

[KynloStephen66515]

Looking the code, it seems to be standard video, with JS set to overlay at certain times.

[superboyac]

pretty impressive video/visualization, thanks for sharing.
makes you wonder what software they used to create it.

indeed, really well done. 

[tomos]

Looking the code, it seems to be standard video, with JS set to overlay at certain times.

I presumed he meant what was used to create the video animation - that's what I'd be wondering about anyways...

[IainB]

@tomos: Thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it before. One of the most informative and objective statistical reviews of WW2 v. the other wars that I have ever seen. Shocking impact.

[wraith808]

Looking the code, it seems to be standard video, with JS set to overlay at certain times.

I presumed he meant what was used to create the video animation - that's what I'd be wondering about anyways...

Agreed.  The question is in the production, not the implementation.

[Curt]

I like how the ending of the interactive version is ruled by your PC's clock.

---------------
modified:

Thankfully, very few war deaths have occurred in Japan, Western Europe and North America after 1945. However, I don't like how the wartime killings (after 1945) of more than 50 million people in other areas of the world not is mentioned in this video - except "they were not rich countries", without telling how extremely many it has been.

Because of this, I think the video is a lie!  

[KynloStephen66515]

Looking the code, it seems to be standard video, with JS set to overlay at certain times.

I presumed he meant what was used to create the video animation - that's what I'd be wondering about anyways...

Agreed.  The question is in the production, not the implementation.

I forgot I even replied to this post...must have been half asleep when I did lol

[superboyac]

I like how the ending of the interactive version is ruled by your PC's clock.

---------------
modified:

Thankfully, very few war deaths have occurred in Japan, Western Europe and North America after 1945. However, I don't like how the wartime killings (after 1945) of more than 50 million people in other areas of the world not is mentioned in this video - except "they were not rich countries", without telling how extremely many it has been.

Because of this, I think the video is a lie! 

good point.  I hope that wasn't deliberately avoided for some kind of reason. 

[tomos]

I like how the ending of the interactive version is ruled by your PC's clock.

---------------
modified:

Thankfully, very few war deaths have occurred in Japan, Western Europe and North America after 1945. However, I don't like how the wartime killings (after 1945) of more than 50 million people in other areas of the world not is mentioned in this video - except "they were not rich countries", without telling how extremely many it has been.

Why did you remove the link in your original post Curt? (Was is not your source of the number of deaths?)
I was curious about your changed number - I did find this site which says 51 million war deaths between 1945 and 2000:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=287

IIRC, the narrator did say that most deaths since WWII were related to conflicts within a country as opposed to between countries.
This could be taken as suggesting that the 'problem' (and presumably, the solution) belongs to those countries with the conflicts. Of course the problem belongs to people, whether the conflicts are between countries, or within countries.

To leave out the total number of deaths since WWII seems to be biased in favour of their argument that, to paraphrase, things aren't so bad. I dont know the source of their information - but did come across this page (ourworldindata.org) that seems to be making a similar argument with the data:

[attachthumb=#]

[superboyac]

I like how the ending of the interactive version is ruled by your PC's clock.

---------------
modified:

Thankfully, very few war deaths have occurred in Japan, Western Europe and North America after 1945. However, I don't like how the wartime killings (after 1945) of more than 50 million people in other areas of the world not is mentioned in this video - except "they were not rich countries", without telling how extremely many it has been.

Why did you remove the link in your original post Curt? (Was is not your source of the number of deaths?)
I was curious about your changed number - I did find this site which says 51 million war deaths between 1945 and 2000:
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=287

IIRC, the narrator did say that most deaths since WWII were related to conflicts within a country as opposed to between countries.
This could be taken as suggesting that the 'problem' (and presumably, the solution) belongs to those countries with the conflicts. Of course the problem belongs to people, whether the conflicts are between countries, or within countries.

To leave out the total number of deaths since WWII seems to be biased in favour of their argument that, to paraphrase, things aren't so bad. I dont know the source of their information - but did come across this page (ourworldindata.org) that seems to be making a similar argument with the data:
(see attachment in previous post)

I think you got it...i have to go back and listen to the video closely again to see how that got around that in the part where they talk about the rich nations.  To be honest, that did strike me as an odd thing to stick in there.
I guess they want to emphasize it's not so bad if you are in a rich country.  But how about this, what if someone does the same kind of nifty animation with JUST the poor nations, with the percentages and everything since WWII.  What if it shows that things are relatively awful there?  What if you exclude the rich nations and find out that 50% of poor nation people have been killed since WWII?  Obviously not nearly as positive an attitude as what is expressed in the video.

great...i was feeling hopeful...now not so sure.

[Curt]

Why did you remove the link in your original post Curt? (Was is not your source of the number of deaths?)
I was curious about your changed number -

I gave up explaining myself, because I was too mixed up in my feelings.

At first I gave the UN link which said 20 millions by year 1992 (after WW2). But then I wondered about the following 23 years... and found this page saying "more than 50 mio", by year 2000 - so I thought, "more than 50 mio" by year 2015 cannot be exaggerated.

I also got upset because...:
The writer made us imagine that only rich countries are killing MANY people, poor countries can only kill a few. However, these poor countries seemingly managed to be inefficient, and yet kill off more than fifty million people! And we didn't even have a fraction of a world war!!

Then I read that these video people wants to make a lot more videos of the same kind.... and I realized that they are not in it for peace & love, but because they are impressed with themselves,

and just like fools such as Bob Geldof, Richard Dawkins or Lance Armstrong, just to name a few, they think that surely they must be teachers to the masses. Oh hail, Messiah II.

But all that was far too much to talk about, so I clicked delete & post ;-)

---
moodified_":

PS! Thank you for the ourworldindata -link. At first I found it difficult to trust, because their total killed-in-war number for year 2007 is 21.189, but that is a smaller number than were killed merely by terror attacks: 22.719 ! Please don't argue that terror is not war. Other than that, the site seems okay.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/ !

[tomos]

Thanks for your response Curt - yes, I can very much understand the mixed up feelings...
The not-trusting is helpful - it means that things get double/triple-checked.

PS! Thank you for the ourworldindata -link. At first I found it difficult to trust, because their total killed-in-war number for year 2007 is 21.189, but that is a smaller number than were killed merely by terror attacks: 22.719 ! Please don't argue that terror is not war. Other than that, the site seems okay.

Your last point is a very good one:
the authors (in general) should have at least defined their terms clearly. I'd agree with your approach.

[Renegade]

I didn't get the same impression as Curt. My impression was that the presentation was genuine, but that it was lacking a good deal of information. While WWII may be an ok arbitrary benchmark (and for decent reasons as it is well studied and well known), I thought that perhaps an overview of the 20th century might have been better to present civilian casualties as it would provide a better perspective.

Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii has perhaps the most exhaustive information available on what he terms "democide" - the murder of civilians by their own government.

With 70 million people murdered in WWII (war is nothing but organised mass murder), the democides of the 20th century are nothing short of shocking, and a brief reflection on them is more than enough to bring one to tears. 262 million people were murdered, or almost 4x the number of people murdered in WWII. That's innocent people who had done nothing wrong. People who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when twisted people began reigns of terror that are unimaginable.

You can find Rummel's research on the web here:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

The video really doesn't do justice to the countless millions of murdered, innocent civilians.

[Curt]

"more than 50 mio" by year 2015 cannot be exaggerated.

-"always stick to your first thought". ... (of course not "always", but...)



It was choking to read Rummel / Bond. A couple of years ago I heard the number 70 mio, but I didn't dare to quote it in my first post, and I was hoping 50 mio was too big a number. But what do you say when the number is a quarter of a billion? I have no words for this.

[superboyac]

it is confusing.  i don't know what the specifics are that are going on but I definitely got confused by the presentation when they started making it seem like there are almost no violent deaths now than before wwii.  so i really don't know yet where i stand on the video.

maybe their point is more to show those that are living in wealthy countries to appreciate what they have?  something like that?  but again, that is not clear.  to me, it initially felt like there just isn't as many war related deaths anymore, so i feel confused and partly misled by that.