Diese Analyse dient dem Verständnis Relatives Risikoverhältnis (RR) Todesfälle in mehr als 50 bewaffneten Konflikten seit Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts.
RR = (Getötete Militärs / Militärs insgesamt) ÷ (Getötete Zivilisten / Zivilisten insgesamt)
Das aus der Epidemiologie stammende relative Risiko (RR) ist ein Schlüsselmaß, das verwendet wird, um die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Ereignissen in exponierten Bevölkerungsgruppen mit denen nicht exponierter Bevölkerungsgruppen zu vergleichen.
- RR < 1 — Zivilisten sterben proportional häufiger als Soldaten (Zeichen von Völkermord / Massengräueltaten)
- RR ≈ 1 – Die Unterscheidung zwischen Zivilisten und Kombattanten ist zusammengebrochen
- RR » 1 — Soldaten ertragen die Kämpfe; Zivilisten blieben weitgehend verschont
Die Balken haben eine geteilte Skala – logarithmisch oberhalb von RR=1, linear unterhalb –, sodass der Sub-1-Schwanz nicht ausbreitet. Wo glaubwürdige Quellen anderer Meinung sind, wird der Balken zu einem gestapelten Bereich: zunehmend hellere Farbtöne markieren jede Quelle, mit weißen Häkchen an den Grenzen.
Von JoshuaJosephson
23 Kommentare
I am genuinely surprised by Gaza 2023-25 score, any idea why it’s so high?
Really, really interesting chart!
People are going to downvote this because it conflicts with their viewpoint that the wars in Gaza were genocides.
Bruh
https://preview.redd.it/i5ry9z1gotvg1.png?width=1100&format=png&auto=webp&s=cb102da02b44c8390d881be56f1147a3b5b541dc
Data: IDF ? Why would you ever use an active party as your source ?
Crazy to see that Nanjing is not recognised as a genocide
Reposting my comment:
Puts modern day into perspective, and trends show that total war/independent actors are way deadlier than limited conflicts involving proper states
Raqqah (2017) was SDF (kurds) vs islamic state, not USA VS Syria
Very interesting analysis, even with all the nuance that we could argue about.
Concerning the Iraq-Iran war 1980-1988, I think that thousands of young boys brainwashed to wear military uniforms, don a key around their neck and run into the field, would like to have a word with you about the nuances in the distinctions between mil/civ.
No credibility with the IDF as a source. It’s like getting holocaust numbers from the Wehrmacht.
Dahm didn’t expect Russia-Ukraine to be so high. Really shows that both sides claim of genocide is BS. On the other hand, the extremely high military casualties on both sides are probably driving this number so high
Why are some events counted separately, and others aggregated into a broader conflict? This is comparing 2 different type of events by the same metric.
I find this rating very wired how can you say at 1 civilians and combatant distinction has collapsed – if the fighting force is much smaller then the civilian population this metric falls apart. If the army is 10k and there are 1 mill civilians killing 2k soldiers and 100k civilians would be genocide most likely but gets you an RR of 2.
Fuck the list where Israel is not in top 5.
So others have mentioned not finding this data credible for several conflicts, and I think a lot of the discrepancy comes down to what counts as a military casualty. Take Vietnam for example: I don’t know exactly how that was calculated, but there are documented cases of civilians being killed and various forces claiming they were legitimate military targets. The My Lei massacre is a failed example, but some reports have come out saying there was ‚a My Lei a month‘ during parts of the war.
You see the same in Afghanistan and Iraq. Particularly early on the in the war(sorry, military action), cluster bombs were used on targets in populated areas. In Fallujah, an ‚uprising‘ was put down rather brutally and more or less caused by the actions of the American Occupation towards civilians. Are they counted as combatants or civilians?
The point is that someone being recorded as a ‚military‘ or ‚civilian‘ target can be as much a matter of who is counting as it is who is actively fighting.
When I look at the amount of buildings and infrastructure destroyed in Gaza I find it absolutely impossible to believe this chart.
Some day, East Timor will be included in such charts. 1975-1999, about 1/3 of the population killed by the Indonesian military (with the crucial help of the US). Virtually all of them civilians. Relative to population perhaps the worst since the Holocaust. My PhD is in International Relations and over the decades the profound ignorance about it in my field never ceased to amaze/anger me.
Do you have numbers for WW2 as a whole, both with and without the genocides? I’d be interested to see how that shifts the ratio.
I’m sorry, how is Gaza that high on the „Military Casualties almost exclusively“ scale?!
Where did you get these figures from? It’s from Israel’s numbers where they consider every single Arab a legitimate combatant, isn’t it?
Gaza in there 3 times is heartbreaking and undoubtedly it’s a genocide
Just as a note for Afghanistan, Gaza and the war in Iraq. Because one side didn’t have proper documentation, practically all fighting age men are sometimes considered combatants if they die nearby a known combatant.
.005 is insane, even in the context of other atrocities.
We really need to be more forceful against people who draw Holocaust comparisons and engage in Holocaust denial and inversion.
Bullshit of a bullshit of a bullshit, only you can find in reddit.
Fantastic chart and fantastic post. This is irrefutable evidence that puts to bed the ridiculous notion that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. And, contextualizes the absurdity of the antisemitic comparisons to the nazis’ Holocaust.