4 ms·

The number of people who have died in armed conflicts throughout the entirety of the globe as a percentage of the population is the lowest it has ever been in h

The number of people who have died in armed conflicts throughout the entirety of the globe as a percentage of the population is the lowest it has ever been in human history. The number of wars between nations is at the lowest rate in all of human history. Yes, wars occur and will continue to occur, but to assert that the last 70 years of human history is not in a relatively peaceful time is historically disengenious. Edit to add: the last 70 years have been the first in human history where no major conflicts occured on the European continent. Same with the north American continent. All of this has been under the blanket of American military dominance and the threat of mutually assured destruction.

euyyn 9y ago
Not to argue one way or the other because I don't know. But I think that the overall trend comes from way before American military hegemony. And the European Community-now-Union is usually acknowledged by historians for the peace in Europe.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  The peace in Europe today is a direct result of nato and the threat of invasion from the soviets during the 50s through early 90s. You gotta remember that the Americans occupied western Germany up until reunification (we still have huge military bases in germany) and provided finances to pretty much every european country during their reconstruction periods after the devastation of the world under thr conditions of alliance against communism . Europe hasn't been in a place to fight eachother again because of threat of Soviet invasion and forced alliances with eachother under the American umbrella. Edit: also how can European peace have come from before American hegemony when American hegemony was a direct result of the European powers destroying eachother in a world war?
  - euyyn 9y ago
    You misunderstand: the overall trend of deaths around the globe due to armed conflict. About Europe, I said I wouldn't argue because I don't have the knowledge to assess those claims. Just saying what is usually acknowledged by historians as the main cause.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "You misunderstand: the overall trend of deaths around the globe due to armed conflict." WWI killed 38 million. WWII killed 60 million. That doesn't look like a downward trend to me.
      - euyyn 9y ago
        This is where I got it from: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/ https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/ The downward trend since the middle ages is actually in wars between the major powers. War mortality seems more or less the same over the long term. The number of smaller conflicts goes up, though. The decreasing long-term trend in all violence, not just war, is stronger: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/title-slide https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/title-s...

euyyn 9y ago

Not to argue one way or the other because I don't know. But I think that the overall trend comes from way before American military hegemony. And the European Community-now-Union is usually acknowledged by historians for the peace in Europe.

ryanx435 9y ago
The peace in Europe today is a direct result of nato and the threat of invasion from the soviets during the 50s through early 90s. You gotta remember that the Americans occupied western Germany up until reunification (we still have huge military bases in germany) and provided finances to pretty much every european country during their reconstruction periods after the devastation of the world under thr conditions of alliance against communism . Europe hasn't been in a place to fight eachother again because of threat of Soviet invasion and forced alliances with eachother under the American umbrella. Edit: also how can European peace have come from before American hegemony when American hegemony was a direct result of the European powers destroying eachother in a world war?
- euyyn 9y ago
  You misunderstand: the overall trend of deaths around the globe due to armed conflict. About Europe, I said I wouldn't argue because I don't have the knowledge to assess those claims. Just saying what is usually acknowledged by historians as the main cause.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "You misunderstand: the overall trend of deaths around the globe due to armed conflict." WWI killed 38 million. WWII killed 60 million. That doesn't look like a downward trend to me.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      This is where I got it from: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/ https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/ The downward trend since the middle ages is actually in wars between the major powers. War mortality seems more or less the same over the long term. The number of smaller conflicts goes up, though. The decreasing long-term trend in all violence, not just war, is stronger: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/title-slide https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/title-s...