• earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    I hate charts where they use the absolute numbers for coloring. Obviously bigger countries will have more people and thus had more casualties. If you calculate the percentage already, use that number for coloring.

  • karpintero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Highly recommend Hardcore History podcast’s “Blue Print for Armageddon” that covers a lot of the events from WW1 and its various battles of attrition (Verdun, Somme, Brusilov offensive, Passchendaele). Hard to imagine loss on this scale, but Dan is an amazing story teller

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Looking at the wikipedia it seems they didn’t suffer many military casualties but suffered a lot from civilian deaths by military action at 1.5 million, probably mostly the Armenian genocide which estimates put at about 1 million. Also another 1 million from increase in civilian deaths which is harder to determine, maybe the empire was reliant on food imports pre-war that went away once the allies took control of the Mediterranean and blockaded them.

  • blahsay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Geeze which country lost 16% of their population!? There’d be barely a young adult male left standing!