interesting graphic, but you err in purporting to show that one party or the other is "responsible" for combat fatalities. In cases like WW II, wasn't there a guy named Adolph involved somehow? And in the Civil War, how can you group all the deaths as the fault of the Republicans? - the Confederacy was created by the Democratics Party!
In WWII, we were attacked by Japan (not Adolph) yet FDR decided to send American troops into North Africa, Burma, Europe, and lots of other places for strategic reasons. These decisions directly increased the war's blood toll (but were important in securing victory).
I believe I can rightly attribute wars to presidents or political parties because it is America's Commander-in-Chief and his enablers in Congress who make the most influential decisions in war.
In the Civil War, the Confederate secession was triggered by Lincoln's election. The Confederates then presented a peace treaty in 1861 (probably because they knew they couldn't win) and offered to pay for the federal forts which they seized, but their offer was roundly rejected by the administration. It was Lincoln who made the decision to escalate the conflict into a "total war", do-or-die scenario. This led to deadly campaigns such as Sherman's March to the Sea which greatly increased the body count, but won the war and saved the Union. These were my main reasons for attributing it to the Republicans.
Another error is that the republican and democratic parties switched at some point (in terms of the political ideas they held). Thus, while Lincoln is in name a Republican, he actually held ideas that we think of as Democratic. He would better be thought of as a Democrat (a rose by any other name...)
Some of these wars are attributed incorrectly, such as WWI which was supposedly solely the Democratic Party's fault. However, one of the main causes of American intervention in WWI was the Zimmerman Telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania, both of which are not political provacations, but nationalistic.
WWII is also incorrectly labelled in that the mass murder of Jews is an atrocity to all Americans , whether they were Republican or Democrat. The same thing with Japan, which was an attack on American soil. It wasn't just one party that wanted to go to war after the attack -- it was a complete bipartisan decision.
Finally, the Civil War I believe that the blame was on both, because although the Confederacy offered a treaty in 1861, the chance of secession if that treaty was ratified was present, only afterwards the Confederacy would be more prepared for war. Furthermore, it was the Democrats who held slaves during that time, though it was shown that Lincoln only cared about preserving the Union and not abolition. It was both the unrest of the Democrats and the conflicting desires of the Republicans that started the war.
It doesn't matter who was in charge during the war or who started it. What matters is if we did the right thing. It doesn't matter if Republicans or Democrats were responsible for doing the right thing. What matters is if the ring thing is done.
History is not some bedrock of truth, it's gossip. It is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. I have no responsibility to adhere to our current perception of 'history,' but only to faithfully uphold the hard facts of past events.
My work is not propaganda - it is fact. These were real wars, and they were started and escalated by the decision-makers of our country. Our troop's marching orders are signed by politicians whose authority and loyalty are derived from their political party. Many of these conflicts were righteous and necessary, but let's not forget who makes the utlimate decision on matters of war. It's not one man, or two. It's an cohesive ideological group of leadership. It's a political party.
I find fault in your suggestion that the Democratic and the Republican parties have anything in common with parties of the same name from 150 years ago. I don't think it is really an issue of propaganda, or of "gossip" turned into fact, but just misinformation.
The concept is interesting, but the arbitrary 90 seconds is much too fast for me to absorb the info presented. I recognize that there is a pause button, but I suggest that manual control of the advance would be preferable.
I'm not sure the point of this map. The US has over 100 uses of troop deployments into combat. Why the 7 times the US moved into Cuba isn't listed, but the one time we moved into Russia is just doesn't make sense.
Also, the cirlces used to ID the each war should be sized to represent the number of deaths.
Further more, there are several errors in which war applied to which party. (Somalia started under Bush Sr, not Clinton)
And the use of "founding fathers" doesn't make any sense at all. The Democratic Party is the modern version of the Anti-Federalist party with no broken link in the chain of history of that party. The name changed each time the party made a major expansion. At no time did it stop existing.
Over all, I was excited to see that something like this had been done, but upon seeing it, I don't think it was executed well. Needs a lot of work.
Interesting enough, as the graphics go, but it actually tells very little. In sum, we see what Presidents / parties were in power when global or national events embroiled them in armed conflicts. The Mexican-American war cannot be set on the same level as World War II. The Mexican adventure was a fiasco orchestrated by a president and thus a real reprehensible "blood letting," whereas hardly anyone today would blame FDR for his willingness to support Britain and other countries, militarily, in WWII. The mistake in this map is to suggest RESPONSIBILITY.
and why only 2 sides too chose from democratic or republicain are american that simple do you agree with all the topic off one party thats bullshit its just one big show who has the biggest amount of money the political ideas doesnt even matter
in The Netherlands we have lots of sides to chose from
Other commentators have commented upon the absurdity of connecting one party to a war purely because it was in power at the time. This seems harsh if the war was imposed upon America, although I accept that "imposition" is subjective.
However, this very unsatisfactory when dealing with the American civil war. Regardless of who started the war, both sides fought it under their own leaders. For the time that the Confederates held out, they had a Democrat President in their rump state and the Unionists had a Republican President in their rump state. They both chose to go to war. Either side could have backed down at any point.
Your comment that The Confederates then presented a peace treaty in 1861 is either a joke or the most partisan reading of events. The peace treaty was relevant only in the context of the South seceding. To claim that an agressor, who successfully obtains his goals in the short term, merely has to offer peace to escape responsibility for the remainder of the war is frankly bizarre. May I remind you that in most wars such an offer is made: Hitler offered peace to Britain after Dunkirk.
Choosing one event as more important than another is always going to be subjective, but you have done this for the civil war. Far better to a. leave it out - weak because of the relatively huge death toll b. share the deaths between Dems and Repubs c. colour civil war a different colour a la Founding Fathers
I think sometimes the period immediately preceding the war is more important than who finished it. Many of the wars finished by Republican presidents were only necessary after Democratic presidents had disarmed us and made us appear vulnerable.
We are about to see this effect as a result of the current cut and run policy that will lead to a much larger war. Bush was set up by Clinton in Somalia. Bush failed to attack the root cause and only went after the symptoms in Iraq. Syria, Iran, and extremist Islam will have to be defeated or they will rule us.
In the interest of streamlining the debate, why not change the heading to something like "Under which presidents were American troops deployed in existing or new wars?" This way you stick to the pure descriptive facts and are removed from the debate of "such and such war was started at this date, not this date, due to event X"
I don't appreciate the expression of 'pirates of North Africa' concerning The Barbary Wars...this map is not precise and the work is not serious .. the Barbary States were under the laws of this great and powerful administrative empire whose name is Ottoman Empire.. and considering the inhabitants and governments of certains provinces as simply 'pirates of North Africa' is just europeocentric, stupid, non realistic and racist too! Were romans of the Roman Empire simply "pirates of Southern Europe".? etc.. etc.. History is always more complex to describe than just our opinions of the moment...
So, it looks like WAR IS necessary and everyone has played their part. So, get off the WAR kick and get back to AMERICA and lets fight for our right to have our country under God. Everyone else can come here and worship as they want - thats what we fight for. Now lets tell them they can be here but they have to leave our flag and our God alone.
If you consider non civil war death losses, the Demos have killed us at an alarming rate. "Walking softly" looks to invite others to push the demos into a corner with no options but to go to war. Or are there other reasons?
I'm belgian and I think this map is perfect, now we can see which country is the most violent in this world! It's easy to say "we help you against Nazis", but don't foreget France (yes Belgium was in France before) helped you against the Britains. And you say that a lot wars you did are to help opressed countries, very nice, I think it is only by interest. Otherwise they are blind, because Africa need help and Americans do nothing (like Europe...) Stop fighting countries for strategy, pwer or money. We have to fight in Africa, in Sudan, in Rwanda, in Somalia,... Fight for those poor people who doesn't have anything to eat or to drink. One war of United States can finance an African's country...
in the war with Yugoslavia, there were't 2 deaths!!!! THE US bombarded the city of Belgrade and killed inocend people!!! (hundreads) the American gov. is the satan!!! the Mass media does a terible job of informing the American nation of the governments foreign policy...why is that???
I just don't get the point. Why split this up between Republican and Democrat? Why not between popular and unpopular wars? Or unilateral vs. multilateral? Dividing it the way it is doesn't tell us anything really significant. Unless you want to make some kind of claim that Democrats are bloodier or more war-thirsty. Which I don't think stands up with other qualifiers that allow for real understanding. This doesn't say anything.
Great work. I would not state 'war is a necessary evil.' - such a quip is irrational and insensitive to the lives lost in your flash animation of death. In general, this site needs some editing.
This was commissioned as a neocon talking point. OOO LOOK! THOSE EVIL DEMS HAVE CAUSED MORE DEATHS THAN US!
In addition to everything that's already been said (WWI/WWII = not Dems fault, Civil War not Repub fault), the two parties have changed pretty drastically over time as well.
This animation is really not very worthwhile and not very accurate. It's politically motivated, and not very truthful.
Great idea ruined by bias or pedestrian scholarship and a puzzling scheme of categorization. Also I've never heard of a "Rebel Dictator" (Hussein) before; what exactly is this?
I think this piece might be more accurately entitled 'A history of War from an American Perspective'. Mapsofwar.com does have a tendency to simplification - in itself not always a bad thing, the subject is complex, there are always opposing viewpoints - however the casualty figures quoted should be accurate. IMHO civilian deaths and 'enemy' deaths should be included as well as American deaths. Perhaps then the destruction and futility of war would be better illustrated.
Technically VietNam\SE Asia should be divided in two between the dems and the republicans - Nixon's invasion of Cambodia had nothing to do with the dems and I'm sure you are counting that part of the 58, 000 in the Viet Nam number.
Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy, since you are being accused of being a propagandist...
I am largely agreeing with coriolan. Attempting to assign "responsibility" for deaths in combat in this way neglects the overall big picture. All history is a result of previous events. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and since this site seems to be created as a reference for people seeking information, it is a disservice to present so narrow a picture. It is downright misleading to show any military action as the responsibility or decision of only one man or even one party. Do we not have a Congress? Secretary of State? In any case, your other maps (religion and control of the Middle East) are wonderful and have provided a solid quick snapshot for many of my students.
this is not particularly helpful in that it does not break down wars or invasions initiated unilaterally by US (like Vietnam and Iraq) vs. when the US is attacked (like WWI). yes, we were attacked by Japan, but Germany also declared war on us and had allies in Italy and other places. It was WORLD WAR initiated by others, not a US initiated one.
An interesting graphic for creating a historical overview of just how many conflicts the united states has been involved in but if you want to talk about "deadliest wars" surely your calcualations should be based on the total number of casualties - the number of casualties in the indian "wars" for example was alot lower on the American Government side but virtually wiped out the native population of North America. If you could develop other grahpics to show the casualties suffered by both sides I think this whole experiment would be greatly improved. Many Thanks
"War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn't be." So why show political party stuff as the ONLY data on the graph? Is the implication that somehow people have the wrong idea about Republicans, it's really the Democrats who are the bloodthirsty warmongers? Are we supposed to draw some weird conclusion that Iraq isn't so bad because WW2 was worse, or that the Democrats somehow forfeit legitimacy as an opposition force because they've waged wars with far higher casualties? Garbage, total garbage because of incomplete contextual linkage.
also, remember that the parties switch philisophical basis after WWII, ie 19th and early 20th century Republicans were progressives, while the Democrats were controlled by conservative Southerners, who began to support the Republicans during the McCarthy era (example: Ronald Reagan changed party affiliations). A much better analysis would be whether the party leading us into war was representative of progressive, or business interest. For example, although the Democrats in the South called for Secession upon progressive Republican Lincoln's election, they had been threatening to seceed for half a century, and propaganda by large Southern business interests (slave-labor plantation owners), led Southerners to believe that Lincoln would ban slavery and eliminate the basis of their economy (which he actually had no intention of doing). Conservative interests started the Civil War. This holds true for probably every war started by the United States , as well as the call for War against Germany (Hitler had American Business support until he nationalized large industries, in effect stealing large capital investments of American corporations. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler attacked America's financial interest. We promptly declared war on both.
Sorry, but that map is completely bogus. For me, it reeks of finger-pointing like "So what if Bush is a Republican? More troops died under Democratic rule!!!"
Is someone trying to take a stab at the Democrats here?
And neither WWI or WWII is any party's "fault". Complain about any Allied country's involvement in either of those wars, and you'll find yourself having to answer to a lot of very upset veterans (those who are still alive of course).
What was done in Europe in the first half of last century were not wars of aggression, and are a poor measure for determining which political party is "responsible" for US soldier's deaths. America joined it's Allies in defending the rest of Europe against unthinkable fascism and murder. Don't point the finger of blame for that war at anyone but Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito, in the case of the Pacific War.
Vietnam is another story altogether. You can rightly pin those deaths on whoever was in office at the time.
Otherwise, this map smacks of inaccurate propaganda and spitefulness.
It's not, but what the map dares to infer is that you can just do a body count of US soldiers and claim "which political party is the most responsible", regardless of the cause of any given war. It borders on being shamelessly ungrateful for the sacrifice made by America's (and other country's) armed forces (and civilians) over the centuries.
Why are everyone's comments anonymous? I like to hear all side's of the issue...but I like to contact people if I have a question about specifics or where in fact they dug up their information, etc. I feel more and more people are using forums to hide. You can use an alias for security reasons, but contact information is nice.
The criteria for determining who was responsible is faulty, as the determination of who gets the "blame" for a war is not consistent.
Democrats were "blamed" with all of Vietnam (even though more deaths occured under Nixon than under Johnson). Republicans were "blamed" for Korea even though deaths occured under both Truman and Eisenhower. It only takes into account the President and not control of Congress. It doesn't make allowances for wars of desire versus wars of necessity. It doesn't take into consideration political philosophy or ideology (that has changed between the two parties over time).
Perhaps a more comprehensive accounting would provide some historical benefit, but the producer of this particular flash animation just seemingly wants to show that Democrats are more bloodthirsty than Republicans.
If you look at the policies at the time period, modern day republicans would have been the democrats and vice versa during the civil war. This means democrats are "Responsible" for more many more deaths than modern day republicans
1. There were no political parties before 1860? Until that point there were apparently just "Founding Fathers," and any suggestion that there were Federalists, Whigs or Democratic Republicans is doubleplus untrue.
2. The Republicans were responsible for the Civil War? In what sense? In the sense that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery immediately upon taking office, thus forcing the Southern states to secede from the Union to protect their economic interests? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Last time I checked, Southern Democrat lunatics, upset that their guy didn't win the presidency, hailed the 1860 election as a harbinger of the apocalypse and decided to start their own stupid country.
2. World War 2 took place only in Europe? I had no idea. And the Democrats were responsible for going to war? I seem to remember something about a daring sneak attack and a day that would live in infamy, but since those things happened in the mythic land of the Pacific, I guess they don't count. But I also remember something about a German declaration of war, though I might want to consult Wikipedia on that.
3. The Democrats get total blame for Vietnam? Now, are they counting Kennedy's decision to send in Green Berets or just Johnson's escalation? Doesn't Eisenhower deserve any credit for sending in the first military advisers? Were there any Republicans who were opposed to the war in Vietnam? What about Nixon's infamous excursions into Cambodia?
4. The Iran hostage crisis was a war? Since when? And does it really qualify as one of America's "deadliest wars?"
5. Republicans were the only ones responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq? Democrat politicians surely opposed the Iraq invasion from the start, right? Right?
Clearly, Maps-of-War has reached a level of abject retardation. While their other offerings have been guilty of over-simplifying complicated historical matters, this poorly researched, simplistic on a special-education level examination of American military history is a new low. I don't think I'll be interested in any more of their little Flash barfbags.
This timeline simply indicates who was in office when wars happened. But it tries to imply that those presidents were responsible for those wars by associating war deaths with political parties. Blaming Republicans for the Civil War is irresponsible, as is blaming the Democrats for both World Wars. Would you rather we had not fought those wars? What would the world be like had that not happened?
How many wars were under the influence of the consumption mentality, and how many were started by leadership that made cooperative agreements with suppliers? How many were actually a matter of resource consumption and exploitation simply for the sake of increasing the profits of monopolistic corporations (bananas, sugar, gold, water, oil, shipping passages)? If you want Change, keep it in YOUR pocket, as the dollars you spend go places you CAN control if you buy less, buy local, and cooperate with your neighbors. Set an example for our leaders so they don't think we all just want more junk and cheap gas to go nowhere.
yeah there are a lot of arbitrary distinctions being made in this chart. I think that the issue of the almost continuous pattern of American wars since 1776 is more noteworthy than the conclusion that democrats are supposedly responsible for more combat fatalities than republicans, especially since these parties didn't exist as such until the 2nd half of America's history.
This also includes wars that were not called wars, in that there was no formal declaration. That muddies it, and I agree that calling the Civil War "Republican" and WWII "Democratic" is way too simplistic.
Nice bit of animation, but essentially a warped view.
The Somalia expedition was begun bu President Bush I, and Clinton inherited the occupation from him.
n WWII, we were attacked by Japan (not Adolph) yet FDR decided to send American troops into North Africa, Burma, Europe, and lots of other places for strategic reasons
In WWII, Germany declared war on the United States BEFORE Congress declared war on Germany.
The corect term is the "Democratic" party, not "Democrat" as you use on your chart label. "Democrat" was a slur used by Senator Joseph McCarthy of "McCarthyism" and occaionally continued by current President George W. Bush.
Maps of War comment to Coriolan is erroneous in stating we were NOT atttacked by Adoph Hitler. After Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the U.S. -- you could look it up -- one of his greatest mistakes. We in turn declared war back on him. If he had not declared war on us we would have focused our war efforts vs. Japan which had attacked us. We would have had no incentive to declare war on Germany at that time, and would have had every incentive to focus our efforts vs. Japan which was inflicting heavy losses on us at that time.
This democrat vs. republican comparison is pretty useless, but its a fine graphic for understanding the historical legacy of intervention. Its also misleading as hell in making no mention of covert interventions or US 3rd party involvement in armed conflict between locals, in which case most of the world would be lit up, but I understand cartographers are only human.
This map blames the civil war on Lincoln, when it was the South that Started the war with the attack on Fort Sumpter, and claims Somolia was Clinton's idea, he inherited it from Bush sr. It also forgets Kosovo, Afghanistan, not to mention all the indian wars.
Also, it only counts American dead: are non-American bloodless subhumans?
Include the deaths of innocent civilians and the map will make even more clear: Democrats are willing to make sacrifices when their nation is in danger, while Republicans are just international bullies.
I see many negative comments here, but the work you have done on this site is appreciated by some! I do not expect a comprehensive history lesson in 90 seconds but I do believe you have done something educational here. The idea is to get an overview in a short time, and you have succeeded. The map showing the occupations of the Middle East over time is also enlightening.
I dont' really care who started/ was in power I don't think it is the Number of deaths that shocked me the most. What it was is the number of wars the US has been involved in in such a short history
i mean, thanks for making this, but there's SO MUCH missing from here. proxy wars in nicaragua, afghanistan (1979) matter... and yes, there were US troops involved.
How is Somalia a Democratic war? President Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted 1991 and that's what lead to the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM I). In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, George HW Bush organized a military coalition and deployed troops in August of 1992. The coalition, called Unified Task Force or UNITAF was beefed up in December 1992 with Operation Restore Hope. Democrats had yet to even occupy the White House. By March of 1993, the nature of the operation changed and by May of 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew. By your logic, the Korean War and Vietnam War should be Republican Wars because Republicans were in office for the end game.
War deaths attributed to Republicans during Civil War are need serious explanation. Lincoln's Republicans were an entirely different party than contemporary Republicans.
I noticed no one has taken you to task for the number of Civil War dead. The accepted figure for American deaths in the Civil War is over 600,000, more than all the other wars combined.
Of course you state "military deaths". I haven't done the work to see if you took out disease deaths from WWI and WW2. It doesn't much matter. The spread of disease was due to men being forced together in camps. A good number of men died in prisoner of war camps due to poor sanitation and rotten food.
They are just as valid as "war dead" as the men who died marching back to France from Russia with Napoleon, or the men who died during the Bataan death march.
It seems as though you deliberately under counted the Civil War dead in order to make a "Democrats are worse than Republicans" argument.
Oh, and about FDR and Europe, yes, Japan attacked the U.S. But Germany declared war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, not the other way around.
Somewhat echoing coriolan--the graphics are pretty, but pretty vacant. And politics is at least as necessary as war--absent a political purpose, war is mindless, self-serving violence. Go read Clausewitz or something.
The difference between the parties is not in how many solders are killed by each, but the reasons used to justify a war. WW2 was not optional. Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. WW1 might be seen as optional but it was done with good intentions. Korea and Viet Nam were to stop the spread of Communism. Compare that to the Mexican war for their land, the wars in South America, and elsewhere. The Dems go to war when attacked or to help others. The Reps go to war to take what belongs to others or to profit at home.
This is silly, for one it makes no mention of death toll relative to total population (the revolution seems small in death toll, but was much larger relative to population). Also, as noted by many others is the civil war question (assigned to both parties-or neither), the migration of political philosophies from one party to the other, you don't credit Ike for any Korea toll, the inevitability of WW2 etc, et al. This is either a) completely moot or b) deceptive as all get out.
In the Sino-Japanese Wars of 1894-1895 and 1937-1941, prior the run up to WWII, America and Americans were already fighting Japan directly and indirectly. American's Imperial interest within Asia-Pacific were already at economic war against Japan and manifest in physical war. Something that uneducated Americans appear to have not been informed about by their governments and which puts Pearl Harbor in context. From the Naval Mercenaries to Flying Tigers etc.
I think your big blobs also ought to cover Japan, out of respect for the women and children that died in the indiscriminate firebombing of all Japanese cities, and the atoms bombs used against civilians specifically marked.
There is a mistake in this map. The Somalia engagement was not started by a Democrat. Bill Clinton inherited this conflict from Republican George H.W. Bush, who ordered American troops to Somalia on December 4, 1992. he did this after losing the election to Clinton, and only weeks before Clinton took office.
I agree with anonymous, during the world wars, the united states didnt want to enter either of them. We were forced to enter because of the zimmerman telegram that was intercepted and we found out germany was making ties with mexico to form an attack on the U.S. Then wwii, japan attacked our country, we had no choice but to defend ourselves and we banded together as a nation to end these wars. As far as the civil war, when the southern states succeded from the union lincoln said fine but we are keeping all military bases and the southern states wouldnt give up Ft. Sumter Sc. That ended up being the first battle of the civil war.
In what way were Republicans responsible for the Civil War?! The first shots fired were by Democrats, at American navy shipping, BEFORE Lincoln took office. Not to mention that siezing the forts themselves was an act of war.
Some clear errors, such as 1) Eisenhower got us committed in Vietnam (with regular U.S> troops masquerading as "advisors"), 2) Kennedy Johnson "escalated" but did not start (color should change through course of a war), Nixon intentionally prolonged it. 3) Bosnia: Bush1 formally committed our troops and intentionally left Clinton holding the bag--I pointed this out in newspapers before Clinton took office--as Bush1 violated the Bush1 Doctrine as he left office: never commit US troops without a clear definition of victory AND a clear exit strategy. The clear intent was that the Democrats would inherit a quagmire. 4) Was civil war a Republican war? Highly debatable and insoluble. Speaking as a professional historian there is NO consensus on this issue. 5) If the map were more dynamic (changing colors as administrations changed ...) it maybe "might" be more representative. 6) Many more questionable calls, and other parties' roles (e.g.: Whigs, and the totally different Jeffersonian Republicans and the unrelated Fremont republicans) need to be recognized.
Ethnocentric at best, as if civilians and the "other" side's deaths (20+ million of our then Russian allies) don't count for anything why count anyone?
Haha.. Another ridiculous map. Throughout history the parties have swithed views according to popular opinion. To hold either party responsible for wars that happened a long time ago is plain silly, as they do not represent the current party's view.
Hey, guys, as much fun as it is to have random people pop in and make a quick (and... angry) judgement based on their own opinionated view of history, I think we'd rather have discussions based on facts and actual events. So please, don't shout "left/right-wing propaganda" without actually pointing out the percieved mistakes in the facts presented.
Your numbers for the Iraq & Afghanistan wars definitely need updating! They currently read 3,000+ & 336+ respectively, and need to be at least up to 4,200+ & 630+.
http://icasualties.org/
Plus, it would be MUCH BETTER if the wars that continued from one administration to the next, attributed the correlating death tolls to each administration. After all, I think it only fair (and probably quite enlightening) to reflect how each had handled the war they were sometimes elected-INTO too.
I see you are not including our allied troops deaths, nor those taken from our "enemies" but that's another issue all together. A more appropriate name for the map might be, "American Leadership, & American Deaths Due to Their Wars" That being said...
Perhaps in this day and age, it would be important to also show injured/wounded troops; as the medical field has advanced so much that there more injured survivors than ever before! Current stat, according to the DOD (for Iraq): 30,634
This is an incomplete accounting, because it says nothing of the myriad undeclared wars that Republicans ran during Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.
There's nothing in there about our financing death squads in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Columbia, Angola, South Africa, Paraguay, El Salvador, or Nicaragua.
In Guatemala alone, you're talking about the deaths or "disappearances" of over 200,000 people. I mean, they used to just stack the bodies up on the street corners.
Nor does it address when we're turned a blind eye to problems as we did under Clinton in both Rwanda or East Timor.
We're just as responsible for destruction in those instances.
I guess this is trying to let people know how both parties are responsible for war. I agree with that. However, outside of WWII, which I fully support US involvement in, as do most citizens of the world(and which most of the Democrat death count falls under), the deaths of soldiers under the leadership of Republicans far exceeds that of the democrats, for arguably less noble causes than fighting Fascism and the Nazis.
I think you are all missing the point. The point of this map is not to assign blame necessarily or point out that one party has "killed" more than another party.
The point is that when it comes to war, to dreams of empire, and to inane logic to justify bloodshed, there is NO difference between the parties. Obama is proving that now. He's no different than Bush in his war-mongering ways.
You're all so blind to think that one party is "better" than the other when it comes to war. Once in a while, there is a justifiable war. But often, the war fought is no justifiable and both parties are equally guilty of going to war for reasons that don't hold up.
You truly are the ignorant one if you feel Obama and Bush are in the same category. I understand being on the far left, being against war, and having strong feelings, but to be so blind by your political views that you do not have the ability to distinguish between these two men, is something that very few people can boast. If I were you I would consider spending more time writing misguided and disgruntled comments on posts and leaving the political game to those of us who can see what this simple map was created to show.
The indigenous of North America are certainly not included in the casualties. As a Dakota person, knowing the millions of Native people killed since the coming of Europeans expands the figures. Of course, citizenship wasn't granted until the 20th century....
I bet this has been mentioned several times but still the fact remains that all those wars that were strictly democratic or republican... yeah i dont think wwI &II were not fought with only democrats and i know that all the republican soldiers in WWI&II were not that good.
This is an interesting graphic for its ability to concisely document the history of Amercan wars. It is certainly sobering to see the large scale of violence that has been a part of American history since the beginning. The forgotten wars of American history, like the Barbary Wars and the Indian Wars, must be rememberd. However, I think there is a fundamental flaw in the intent of the graphic. If you are trying to make a claim regarding the proclivity for violence of one political party or another, you run into several problems. For one thing, the Democratic and Republican parties as we know them today have not progressed linearly throughout history. For example, the Democrats were the party of the south in the Civil War era. The main reason one party or another has called itself republican or democrat is for the sake of convention- that is, the other one was taken. Furthermore, I think the emphasis on the party in power undercuts a more important issue: that war has been a matter of course throughout our history. It is not helpful to count up casualties in one party's corner or another. Since war seems to occur regardless of the party it power, it might be more useful for us to ask 'why does the US go to war so often?" instead of "why does this party go to war somewhat more than this party?"
It gives you a headache this... It moves too fast. Also, the contrast between lands and seas is very poor. Why didn't you use green for the lands? That would be much more visible.
Just a passing thought, as I noticed Obama counted in 2012. Sometimes, presidents come into office after a war has already begun. It is not always possible for a president to immediately end a war once they are in office. Sometimes it is necessary for them to continue a war that they did not start (and possibly would not have started had they been in office at the time). It'd be interesting to only see the numbers on presidents (and their affiliated political party) who actually started wars or initiated the US's involvement in them.
What data are you using for the Civil War? Only battle deaths? That seems inaccurate as most wars measure all deaths of enlisted soldiers regardless of causes.
As far as the technical aspect is concerned, the only two thing I would suggest you consider, would be the ability to full screen and a small control over speed (for example a -0.5x or -1.0x speed buttons).
When it comes to the information presented, I must admit I am not very familiar with US history, so I can be of no assistance in terms of feedback or comment on what is said.
However, I could not help but notice that you do not mention the war in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, October 7th and has been going on since. Up until now there have been officially 1184 US casualties* and much more overall.
Finally and unfortunately the war in Iraq is far from ended, with a total of 4412 US casualties (and a total of 4730* and again much more overall.
May they all rest in peace...
I hope you find my feedback helpful. Keep up the good work :) Peace & Love
This graphic tries to show when wars started or continued under which President. It doesn't try to attribute the exact casualties under each President. It also is not necessarily attributing blame but just shows that what was going on time wise.
No wars under Obama? What did Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly disappear? Those two "theaters" of the war on terrorism should also be tied to Obama since they are ongoing just like you did with Korea and Vietnam. WW2 should be tied to Truman as well.
The scale bar in the second part of the animation lists "Reublican Wars" and "Democrat Wars." I find it interesting that the site administrator can correctly label "Republican" but not "Democratic". What a childish display of partisan politicking.
I'm sure the best for you pxYOcGXO [URL=http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/]burberry trench[/URL] online tGAlHenX [URL=http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/ ] http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/ [/URL]
I knew an older veteran in college who was involved in Operation Powerpack, the invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic during 1965-1966. He said there was urban guerilla warfare for about 6 months, especially in the capital, Santo Domingo. There were plenty of casualties, American and Dominican. LBJ ordered the invasion to "prevent another Cuba" although the guerilla fighters may have been Marxists, but not Communists.
I am really inspired together with your writing abilities as neatly as with the format to your blog. Is this a paid subject matter or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent high quality writing, it's rare to look a great blog like this one these days..
wonderful points altogether, you just received a new reader. What could you recommend in regards to your put up that you simply made a few days in the past? Any certain?
Excellent way of explaining, and fastidious paragraph to get facts on the topic of my presentation subject matter, which i am going to deliver in university.
excellent points altogether, you just received a emblem new reader. What would you recommend in regards to your put up that you just made a few days ago? Any sure?
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite certain I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading? I'm trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is fantastic blog. An excellent read.
http://clemokfevi.tk/ind/anketa80682.htm Проститутки M. Шоссе энтузиастов - Индивидуалка Ангелина, +7 (968) 525-26-23 http://nemoroomar.tk/ind/anketa38148.htm Проститутки M. Чернышевская - Индивидуалка Ника барби, Район Центральный, +7 (812) 912-18-27 http://saywtenasun1972.tk/comments/anketa/88562 Отзывы о девушке Ника, Москва, (916)5121268 http://diserare.tk/checked/anketa/39390 Оценки Ульяна, Москва, (925)3598815 http://lippprinpere.tk/ind/anketa85262.htm Проститутки M. Теплый стан - Индивидуалка Vanesa, +7 (926) 808-94-71
As commented on before, using the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans" in this graphic is both inaccurate and self serving. The graphic would have been much more powerful without the propaganda, and more enlightening historically.
Iraq is small red circle, yet it continues to cost lives and gold to this day. Iraq was an illegal war propagated by false premises. That war now reaches the entire world thanks to Bush and Cheney's lack of fore site allowing ISIS to grow. Soon Iraq will surpass WWII. http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/2013/04/democrat-or-republican-presidents-who.html
134 Comments:
interesting graphic, but you err in purporting to show that one party or the other is "responsible" for combat fatalities. In cases like WW II, wasn't there a guy named Adolph involved somehow? And in the Civil War, how can you group all the deaths as the fault of the Republicans? - the Confederacy was created by the Democratics Party!
In WWII, we were attacked by Japan (not Adolph) yet FDR decided to send American troops into North Africa, Burma, Europe, and lots of other places for strategic reasons. These decisions directly increased the war's blood toll (but were important in securing victory).
I believe I can rightly attribute wars to presidents or political parties because it is America's Commander-in-Chief and his enablers in Congress who make the most influential decisions in war.
In the Civil War, the Confederate secession was triggered by Lincoln's election. The Confederates then presented a peace treaty in 1861 (probably because they knew they couldn't win) and offered to pay for the federal forts which they seized, but their offer was roundly rejected by the administration. It was Lincoln who made the decision to escalate the conflict into a "total war", do-or-die scenario. This led to deadly campaigns such as Sherman's March to the Sea which greatly increased the body count, but won the war and saved the Union. These were my main reasons for attributing it to the Republicans.
Another error is that the republican and democratic parties switched at some point (in terms of the political ideas they held). Thus, while Lincoln is in name a Republican, he actually held ideas that we think of as Democratic. He would better be thought of as a Democrat (a rose by any other name...)
Some of these wars are attributed incorrectly, such as WWI which was supposedly solely the Democratic Party's fault. However, one of the main causes of American intervention in WWI was the Zimmerman Telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania, both of which are not political provacations, but nationalistic.
WWII is also incorrectly labelled in that the mass murder of Jews is an atrocity to all Americans , whether they were Republican or Democrat. The same thing with Japan, which was an attack on American soil. It wasn't just one party that wanted to go to war after the attack -- it was a complete bipartisan decision.
Finally, the Civil War I believe that the blame was on both, because although the Confederacy offered a treaty in 1861, the chance of secession if that treaty was ratified was present, only afterwards the Confederacy would be more prepared for war. Furthermore, it was the Democrats who held slaves during that time, though it was shown that Lincoln only cared about preserving the Union and not abolition. It was both the unrest of the Democrats and the conflicting desires of the Republicans that started the war.
It doesn't matter who was in charge during the war or who started it. What matters is if we did the right thing. It doesn't matter if Republicans or Democrats were responsible for doing the right thing. What matters is if the ring thing is done.
In the serie "Propaganda 101" ... the following episode!
Please don't dare calling this History. What you provide is nothing but a vulgar and faulty propaganda tool.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
History is not some bedrock of truth, it's gossip. It is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. I have no responsibility to adhere to our current perception of 'history,' but only to faithfully uphold the hard facts of past events.
My work is not propaganda - it is fact. These were real wars, and they were started and escalated by the decision-makers of our country. Our troop's marching orders are signed by politicians whose authority and loyalty are derived from their political party. Many of these conflicts were righteous and necessary, but let's not forget who makes the utlimate decision on matters of war. It's not one man, or two. It's an cohesive ideological group of leadership. It's a political party.
Where is my argument flawed?
P.S. The deleted comment above was my own (for spelling revisions). I do not delete comments in this forum.
I find fault in your suggestion that the Democratic and the Republican parties have anything in common with parties of the same name from 150 years ago. I don't think it is really an issue of propaganda, or of "gossip" turned into fact, but just misinformation.
The concept is interesting, but the arbitrary 90 seconds is much too fast for me to absorb the info presented. I recognize that there is a pause button, but I suggest that manual control of the advance would be preferable.
I'm not sure the point of this map. The US has over 100 uses of troop deployments into combat. Why the 7 times the US moved into Cuba isn't listed, but the one time we moved into Russia is just doesn't make sense.
Also, the cirlces used to ID the each war should be sized to represent the number of deaths.
Further more, there are several errors in which war applied to which party. (Somalia started under Bush Sr, not Clinton)
And the use of "founding fathers" doesn't make any sense at all. The Democratic Party is the modern version of the Anti-Federalist party with no broken link in the chain of history of that party. The name changed each time the party made a major expansion. At no time did it stop existing.
Over all, I was excited to see that something like this had been done, but upon seeing it, I don't think it was executed well. Needs a lot of work.
Interesting enough, as the graphics go, but it actually tells very little. In sum, we see what Presidents / parties were in power when global or national events embroiled them in armed conflicts. The Mexican-American war cannot be set on the same level as World War II. The Mexican adventure was a fiasco orchestrated by a president and thus a real reprehensible "blood letting," whereas hardly anyone today would blame FDR for his willingness to support Britain and other countries, militarily, in WWII. The mistake in this map is to suggest RESPONSIBILITY.
3,000+deaths in the current Irag war.
Ridiculous.
This is a stupid idea -- to say that the Republicans were "responsible" for the Civil War or the Democrats were responsible for WW I.
Misleading and partisan...and also inaccurate
and why only 2 sides too chose from democratic or republicain are american that simple do you agree with all the topic off one party thats bullshit its just one big show who has the biggest amount of money the political ideas doesnt even matter
in The Netherlands we have lots of sides to chose from
americains are like sheep dont think just follow
Other commentators have commented upon the absurdity of connecting one party to a war purely because it was in power at the time. This seems harsh if the war was imposed upon America, although I accept that "imposition" is subjective.
However, this very unsatisfactory when dealing with the American civil war. Regardless of who started the war, both sides fought it under their own leaders. For the time that the Confederates held out, they had a Democrat President in their rump state and the Unionists had a Republican President in their rump state. They both chose to go to war. Either side could have backed down at any point.
Your comment that The Confederates then presented a peace treaty in 1861 is either a joke or the most partisan reading of events. The peace treaty was relevant only in the context of the South seceding. To claim that an agressor, who successfully obtains his goals in the short term, merely has to offer peace to escape responsibility for the remainder of the war is frankly bizarre. May I remind you that in most wars such an offer is made: Hitler offered peace to Britain after Dunkirk.
Choosing one event as more important than another is always going to be subjective, but you have done this for the civil war. Far better to
a. leave it out - weak because of the relatively huge death toll
b. share the deaths between Dems and Repubs
c. colour civil war a different colour a la Founding Fathers
I think sometimes the period immediately preceding the war is more important than who finished it. Many of the wars finished by Republican presidents were only necessary after Democratic presidents had disarmed us and made us appear vulnerable.
We are about to see this effect as a result of the current cut and run policy that will lead to a much larger war. Bush was set up by Clinton in Somalia. Bush failed to attack the root cause and only went after the symptoms in Iraq. Syria, Iran, and extremist Islam will have to be defeated or they will rule us.
In the interest of streamlining the debate, why not change the heading to something like "Under which presidents were American troops deployed in existing or new wars?" This way you stick to the pure descriptive facts and are removed from the debate of "such and such war was started at this date, not this date, due to event X"
I don't appreciate the expression of 'pirates of North Africa' concerning The Barbary Wars...this map is not precise and the work is not serious .. the Barbary States were under the laws of this great and powerful administrative empire whose name is Ottoman Empire.. and considering the inhabitants and governments of certains provinces as simply 'pirates of North Africa' is just europeocentric, stupid, non realistic and racist too!
Were romans of the Roman Empire simply "pirates of Southern Europe".? etc.. etc..
History is always more complex to describe than just our opinions of the moment...
So, it looks like WAR IS necessary and everyone has played their part. So, get off the WAR kick and get back to AMERICA and lets fight for our right to have our country under God. Everyone else can come here and worship as they want - thats what we fight for. Now lets tell them they can be here but they have to leave our flag and our God alone.
I think this is a little lopsided, as coriolan points out. Interesting, though.
If you consider non civil war death losses, the Demos have killed us at an alarming rate. "Walking softly" looks to invite others to push the demos into a corner with no options but to go to war. Or are there other reasons?
I'm belgian and I think this map is perfect, now we can see which country is the most violent in this world! It's easy to say "we help you against Nazis", but don't foreget France (yes Belgium was in France before) helped you against the Britains. And you say that a lot wars you did are to help opressed countries, very nice, I think it is only by interest. Otherwise they are blind, because Africa need help and Americans do nothing (like Europe...) Stop fighting countries for strategy, pwer or money. We have to fight in Africa, in Sudan, in Rwanda, in Somalia,... Fight for those poor people who doesn't have anything to eat or to drink. One war of United States can finance an African's country...
in the war with Yugoslavia, there were't 2 deaths!!!!
THE US bombarded the city of Belgrade and killed inocend people!!! (hundreads)
the American gov. is the satan!!!
the Mass media does a terible job of informing the American nation of the governments foreign policy...why is that???
This map still needs a lot of work. As it stands, it is a poorly executed POV piece.
I just don't get the point. Why split this up between Republican and Democrat? Why not between popular and unpopular wars? Or unilateral vs. multilateral? Dividing it the way it is doesn't tell us anything really significant. Unless you want to make some kind of claim that Democrats are bloodier or more war-thirsty. Which I don't think stands up with other qualifiers that allow for real understanding. This doesn't say anything.
Great work. I would not state 'war is a necessary evil.' - such a quip is irrational and insensitive to the lives lost in your flash animation of death. In general, this site needs some editing.
Since noone seems to get this...
This was commissioned as a neocon talking point. OOO LOOK! THOSE EVIL DEMS HAVE CAUSED MORE DEATHS THAN US!
In addition to everything that's already been said (WWI/WWII = not Dems fault, Civil War not Repub fault), the two parties have changed pretty drastically over time as well.
This animation is really not very worthwhile and not very accurate. It's politically motivated, and not very truthful.
Great idea ruined by bias or pedestrian scholarship and a puzzling scheme of categorization. Also I've never heard of a "Rebel Dictator" (Hussein) before; what exactly is this?
I think this piece might be more accurately entitled 'A history of War from an American Perspective'. Mapsofwar.com does have a tendency to simplification - in itself not always a bad thing, the subject is complex, there are always opposing viewpoints - however the casualty figures quoted should be accurate. IMHO civilian deaths and 'enemy' deaths should be included as well as American deaths. Perhaps then the destruction and futility of war would be better illustrated.
Technically VietNam\SE Asia should be divided in two between the dems and the republicans - Nixon's invasion of Cambodia had nothing to do with the dems and I'm sure you are counting that part of the 58, 000 in the Viet Nam number.
Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy, since you are being accused of being a propagandist...
I am largely agreeing with coriolan. Attempting to assign "responsibility" for deaths in combat in this way neglects the overall big picture. All history is a result of previous events. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and since this site seems to be created as a reference for people seeking information, it is a disservice to present so narrow a picture. It is downright misleading to show any military action as the responsibility or decision of only one man or even one party. Do we not have a Congress? Secretary of State? In any case, your other maps (religion and control of the Middle East) are wonderful and have provided a solid quick snapshot for many of my students.
Thank you for this presentation, should be required watching for all "polititions".
Terry Andrews
this is not particularly helpful in that it does not break down wars or invasions initiated unilaterally by US (like Vietnam and Iraq) vs. when the US is attacked (like WWI). yes, we were attacked by Japan, but Germany also declared war on us and had allies in Italy and other places. It was WORLD WAR initiated by others, not a US initiated one.
An interesting graphic for creating a historical overview of just how many conflicts the united states has been involved in but if you want to talk about "deadliest wars" surely your calcualations should be based on the total number of casualties - the number of casualties in the indian "wars" for example was alot lower on the American Government side but virtually wiped out the native population of North America. If you could develop other grahpics to show the casualties suffered by both sides I think this whole experiment would be greatly improved.
Many Thanks
"War is a necessary evil. Politics, however, shouldn't be." So why show political party stuff as the ONLY data on the graph? Is the implication that somehow people have the wrong idea about Republicans, it's really the Democrats who are the bloodthirsty warmongers? Are we supposed to draw some weird conclusion that Iraq isn't so bad because WW2 was worse, or that the Democrats somehow forfeit legitimacy as an opposition force because they've waged wars with far higher casualties? Garbage, total garbage because of incomplete contextual linkage.
also, remember that the parties switch philisophical basis after WWII, ie 19th and early 20th century Republicans were progressives, while the Democrats were controlled by conservative Southerners, who began to support the Republicans during the McCarthy era (example: Ronald Reagan changed party affiliations). A much better analysis would be whether the party leading us into war was representative of progressive, or business interest. For example, although the Democrats in the South called for Secession upon progressive Republican Lincoln's election, they had been threatening to seceed for half a century, and propaganda by large Southern business interests (slave-labor plantation owners), led Southerners to believe that Lincoln would ban slavery and eliminate the basis of their economy (which he actually had no intention of doing). Conservative interests started the Civil War. This holds true for probably every war started by the United States , as well as the call for War against Germany (Hitler had American Business support until he nationalized large industries, in effect stealing large capital investments of American corporations. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler attacked America's financial interest. We promptly declared war on both.
Sorry, but that map is completely bogus. For me, it reeks of finger-pointing like "So what if Bush is a Republican? More troops died under Democratic rule!!!"
Is someone trying to take a stab at the Democrats here?
And neither WWI or WWII is any party's "fault". Complain about any Allied country's involvement in either of those wars, and you'll find yourself having to answer to a lot of very upset veterans (those who are still alive of course).
What was done in Europe in the first half of last century were not wars of aggression, and are a poor measure for determining which political party is "responsible" for US soldier's deaths. America joined it's Allies in defending the rest of Europe against unthinkable fascism and murder. Don't point the finger of blame for that war at anyone but Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito, in the case of the Pacific War.
Vietnam is another story altogether. You can rightly pin those deaths on whoever was in office at the time.
Otherwise, this map smacks of inaccurate propaganda and spitefulness.
"Where is my argument flawed?"
It's not, but what the map dares to infer is that you can just do a body count of US soldiers and claim "which political party is the most responsible", regardless of the cause of any given war. It borders on being shamelessly ungrateful for the sacrifice made by America's (and other country's) armed forces (and civilians) over the centuries.
Why are everyone's comments anonymous? I like to hear all side's of the issue...but I like to contact people if I have a question about specifics or where in fact they dug up their information, etc. I feel more and more people are using forums to hide. You can use an alias for security reasons, but contact information is nice.
The criteria for determining who was responsible is faulty, as the determination of who gets the "blame" for a war is not consistent.
Democrats were "blamed" with all of Vietnam (even though more deaths occured under Nixon than under Johnson). Republicans were "blamed" for Korea even though deaths occured under both Truman and Eisenhower. It only takes into account the President and not control of Congress. It doesn't make allowances for wars of desire versus wars of necessity. It doesn't take into consideration political philosophy or ideology (that has changed between the two parties over time).
Perhaps a more comprehensive accounting would provide some historical benefit, but the producer of this particular flash animation just seemingly wants to show that Democrats are more bloodthirsty than Republicans.
If you look at the policies at the time period, modern day republicans would have been the democrats and vice versa during the civil war. This means democrats are "Responsible" for more many more deaths than modern day republicans
this means nothing because parties have changed over time, and it makes a big difference whether the war was an offensive or defensive decision.
I don't even know where the fucking begin.
1. There were no political parties before 1860? Until that point there were apparently just "Founding Fathers," and any suggestion that there were Federalists, Whigs or Democratic Republicans is doubleplus untrue.
2. The Republicans were responsible for the Civil War? In what sense? In the sense that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery immediately upon taking office, thus forcing the Southern states to secede from the Union to protect their economic interests? Oh, wait, that didn't happen. Last time I checked, Southern Democrat lunatics, upset that their guy didn't win the presidency, hailed the 1860 election as a harbinger of the apocalypse and decided to start their own stupid country.
2. World War 2 took place only in Europe? I had no idea. And the Democrats were responsible for going to war? I seem to remember something about a daring sneak attack and a day that would live in infamy, but since those things happened in the mythic land of the Pacific, I guess they don't count. But I also remember something about a German declaration of war, though I might want to consult Wikipedia on that.
3. The Democrats get total blame for Vietnam? Now, are they counting Kennedy's decision to send in Green Berets or just Johnson's escalation? Doesn't Eisenhower deserve any credit for sending in the first military advisers? Were there any Republicans who were opposed to the war in Vietnam? What about Nixon's infamous excursions into Cambodia?
4. The Iran hostage crisis was a war? Since when? And does it really qualify as one of America's "deadliest wars?"
5. Republicans were the only ones responsible for Afghanistan and Iraq? Democrat politicians surely opposed the Iraq invasion from the start, right? Right?
Clearly, Maps-of-War has reached a level of abject retardation. While their other offerings have been guilty of over-simplifying complicated historical matters, this poorly researched, simplistic on a special-education level examination of American military history is a new low. I don't think I'll be interested in any more of their little Flash barfbags.
there is also no mention of the to US invasions to the Dominican Republic (1916 and 1965).
i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Powerpack
Why is Somalia credited to the Democrats? That intervention began under Bush I.
This timeline simply indicates who was in office when wars happened. But it tries to imply that those presidents were responsible for those wars by associating war deaths with political parties. Blaming Republicans for the Civil War is irresponsible, as is blaming the Democrats for both World Wars. Would you rather we had not fought those wars? What would the world be like had that not happened?
Yes, I think this map is kind of stupid.
Very interesting data. It is a pity that you refer to war as necessary. War is not necessary. However, your diagrams are good.
I hate to be a downer, but FDR's middle name was not "Delanore," but "Delano." His wife was Eleanor.
How many wars were under the influence of the consumption mentality, and how many were started by leadership that made cooperative agreements with suppliers?
How many were actually a matter of resource consumption and exploitation simply for the sake of increasing the profits of monopolistic corporations (bananas, sugar, gold, water, oil, shipping passages)?
If you want Change, keep it in YOUR pocket, as the dollars you spend go places you CAN control if you buy less, buy local, and cooperate with your neighbors. Set an example for our leaders so they don't think we all just want more junk and cheap gas to go nowhere.
yeah there are a lot of arbitrary distinctions being made in this chart. I think that the issue of the almost continuous pattern of American wars since 1776 is more noteworthy than the conclusion that democrats are supposedly responsible for more combat fatalities than republicans, especially since these parties didn't exist as such until the 2nd half of America's history.
This also includes wars that were not called wars, in that there was no formal declaration. That muddies it, and I agree that calling the Civil War "Republican" and WWII "Democratic" is way too simplistic.
Nice bit of animation, but essentially a warped view.
The Somalia expedition was begun bu President Bush I, and Clinton inherited the occupation from him.
n WWII, we were attacked by Japan (not Adolph) yet FDR decided to send American troops into North Africa, Burma, Europe, and lots of other places for strategic reasons
In WWII, Germany declared war on the United States BEFORE Congress declared war on Germany.
The corect term is the "Democratic" party, not "Democrat" as you use on your chart label. "Democrat" was a slur used by Senator Joseph McCarthy of "McCarthyism" and occaionally continued by current President George W. Bush.
Please change your description.
Maps of War comment to Coriolan is erroneous in stating we were NOT atttacked by Adoph Hitler. After Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the U.S. -- you could look it up -- one of his greatest mistakes. We in turn declared war back on him. If he had not declared war on us we would have focused our war efforts vs. Japan which had attacked us. We would have had no incentive to declare war on Germany at that time, and would have had every incentive to focus our efforts vs. Japan which was inflicting heavy losses on us at that time.
You really ought to list Confederate battle deaths under the Democratic banner and Union deaths under the GOP.
All southerners, before and after the War, were Democrats.
This democrat vs. republican comparison is pretty useless, but its a fine graphic for understanding the historical legacy of intervention. Its also misleading as hell in making no mention of covert interventions or US 3rd party involvement in armed conflict between locals, in which case most of the world would be lit up, but I understand cartographers are only human.
This map blames the civil war on Lincoln, when it was the South that Started the war with the attack on Fort Sumpter, and claims Somolia was Clinton's idea, he inherited it from Bush sr. It also forgets Kosovo, Afghanistan, not to mention all the indian wars.
Also, it only counts American dead: are non-American bloodless subhumans?
Include the deaths of innocent civilians and the map will make even more clear: Democrats are willing to make sacrifices when their nation is in danger, while Republicans are just international bullies.
I see many negative comments here, but the work you have done on this site is appreciated by some! I do not expect a comprehensive history lesson in 90 seconds but I do believe you have done something educational here. The idea is to get an overview in a short time, and you have succeeded. The map showing the occupations of the Middle East over time is also enlightening.
Rich D.
I dont' really care who started/ was in power
I don't think it is the Number of deaths that shocked me the most.
What it was is the number of wars the US has been involved in in such a short history
i mean, thanks for making this, but there's SO MUCH missing from here. proxy wars in nicaragua, afghanistan (1979) matter... and yes, there were US troops involved.
How is Somalia a Democratic war? President Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted 1991 and that's what lead to the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM I). In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, George HW Bush organized a military coalition and deployed troops in August of 1992. The coalition, called Unified Task Force or UNITAF was beefed up in December 1992 with Operation Restore Hope. Democrats had yet to even occupy the White House. By March of 1993, the nature of the operation changed and by May of 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew. By your logic, the Korean War and Vietnam War should be Republican Wars because Republicans were in office for the end game.
War deaths attributed to Republicans during Civil War are need serious explanation. Lincoln's Republicans were an entirely different party than contemporary Republicans.
I noticed no one has taken you to task for the number of Civil War dead. The accepted figure for American deaths in the Civil War is over 600,000, more than all the other wars combined.
Of course you state "military deaths". I haven't done the work to see if you took out disease deaths from WWI and WW2. It doesn't much matter. The spread of disease was due to men being forced together in camps. A good number of men died in prisoner of war camps due to poor sanitation and rotten food.
They are just as valid as "war dead" as the men who died marching back to France from Russia with Napoleon, or the men who died during the Bataan death march.
It seems as though you deliberately under counted the Civil War dead in order to make a "Democrats are worse than Republicans" argument.
Oh, and about FDR and Europe, yes, Japan attacked the U.S. But Germany declared war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, not the other way around.
This is fantastic - really interesting!
good food for thought, I like your ideas put into graphics. thanks
Somewhat echoing coriolan--the graphics are pretty, but pretty vacant. And politics is at least as necessary as war--absent a political purpose, war is mindless, self-serving violence. Go read Clausewitz or something.
The difference between the parties is not in how many solders are killed by each, but the reasons used to justify a war. WW2 was not optional. Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. WW1 might be seen as optional but it was done with good intentions.
Korea and Viet Nam were to stop the spread of Communism. Compare that to the Mexican war for their land, the wars in South America, and elsewhere. The Dems go to war when attacked or to help others. The Reps go to war to take what belongs to others or to profit at home.
It would be a more interesting map if it included total deaths (or estimates thereof), not just US casualties.
This is silly, for one it makes no mention of death toll relative to total population (the revolution seems small in death toll, but was much larger relative to population). Also, as noted by many others is the civil war question (assigned to both parties-or neither), the migration of political philosophies from one party to the other, you don't credit Ike for any Korea toll, the inevitability of WW2 etc, et al. This is either a) completely moot or b) deceptive as all get out.
In the Sino-Japanese Wars of 1894-1895 and 1937-1941, prior the run up to WWII, America and Americans were already fighting Japan directly and indirectly. American's Imperial interest within Asia-Pacific were already at economic war against Japan and manifest in physical war. Something that uneducated Americans appear to have not been informed about by their governments and which puts Pearl Harbor in context. From the Naval Mercenaries to Flying Tigers etc.
I think your big blobs also ought to cover Japan, out of respect for the women and children that died in the indiscriminate firebombing of all Japanese cities, and the atoms bombs used against civilians specifically marked.
Thank you
There is a mistake in this map. The Somalia engagement was not started by a Democrat. Bill Clinton inherited this conflict from Republican George H.W. Bush, who ordered American troops to Somalia on December 4, 1992. he did this after losing the election to Clinton, and only weeks before Clinton took office.
I agree with anonymous, during the world wars, the united states didnt want to enter either of them. We were forced to enter because of the zimmerman telegram that was intercepted and we found out germany was making ties with mexico to form an attack on the U.S. Then wwii, japan attacked our country, we had no choice but to defend ourselves and we banded together as a nation to end these wars.
As far as the civil war, when the southern states succeded from the union lincoln said fine but we are keeping all military bases and the southern states wouldnt give up Ft. Sumter Sc. That ended up being the first battle of the civil war.
In what way were Republicans responsible for the Civil War?!
The first shots fired were by Democrats, at American navy shipping, BEFORE Lincoln took office.
Not to mention that siezing the forts themselves was an act of war.
Some clear errors, such as
1) Eisenhower got us committed in Vietnam (with regular U.S> troops masquerading as "advisors"),
2) Kennedy Johnson "escalated" but did not start (color should change through course of a war), Nixon intentionally prolonged it.
3) Bosnia: Bush1 formally committed our troops and intentionally left Clinton holding the bag--I pointed this out in newspapers before Clinton took office--as Bush1 violated the Bush1 Doctrine as he left office: never commit US troops without a clear definition of victory AND a clear exit strategy. The clear intent was that the Democrats would inherit a quagmire.
4) Was civil war a Republican war? Highly debatable and insoluble. Speaking as a professional historian there is NO consensus on this issue.
5) If the map were more dynamic (changing colors as administrations changed ...) it maybe "might" be more representative.
6) Many more questionable calls, and other parties' roles (e.g.: Whigs, and the totally different Jeffersonian Republicans and the unrelated Fremont republicans) need to be recognized.
Ethnocentric at best, as if civilians and the "other" side's deaths (20+ million of our then Russian allies) don't count for anything why count anyone?
"Every man's death diminishes me ..."
Haha.. Another ridiculous map. Throughout history the parties have swithed views according to popular opinion. To hold either party responsible for wars that happened a long time ago is plain silly, as they do not represent the current party's view.
Hey, guys, as much fun as it is to have random people pop in and make a quick (and... angry) judgement based on their own opinionated view of history, I think we'd rather have discussions based on facts and actual events. So please, don't shout "left/right-wing propaganda" without actually pointing out the percieved mistakes in the facts presented.
Your numbers for the Iraq & Afghanistan wars definitely need updating! They currently read 3,000+ & 336+ respectively, and need to be at least up to 4,200+ & 630+.
http://icasualties.org/
Plus, it would be MUCH BETTER if the wars that continued from one administration to the next, attributed the correlating death tolls to each administration. After all, I think it only fair (and probably quite enlightening) to reflect how each had handled the war they were sometimes elected-INTO too.
I see you are not including our allied troops deaths, nor those taken from our "enemies" but that's another issue all together. A more appropriate name for the map might be, "American Leadership, & American Deaths Due to Their Wars" That being said...
Perhaps in this day and age, it would be important to also show injured/wounded troops; as the medical field has advanced so much that there more injured survivors than ever before! Current stat, according to the DOD (for Iraq): 30,634
You left off the occupation(s) of Nicaragua.
This is an incomplete accounting, because it says nothing of the myriad undeclared wars that Republicans ran during Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.
There's nothing in there about our financing death squads in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Columbia, Angola, South Africa, Paraguay, El Salvador, or Nicaragua.
In Guatemala alone, you're talking about the deaths or "disappearances" of over 200,000 people. I mean, they used to just stack the bodies up on the street corners.
Nor does it address when we're turned a blind eye to problems as we did under Clinton in both Rwanda or East Timor.
We're just as responsible for destruction in those instances.
I guess this is trying to let people know how both parties are responsible for war. I agree with that. However, outside of WWII, which I fully support US involvement in, as do most citizens of the world(and which most of the Democrat death count falls under), the deaths of soldiers under the leadership of Republicans far exceeds that of the democrats, for arguably less noble causes than fighting Fascism and the Nazis.
I think you are all missing the point. The point of this map is not to assign blame necessarily or point out that one party has "killed" more than another party.
The point is that when it comes to war, to dreams of empire, and to inane logic to justify bloodshed, there is NO difference between the parties. Obama is proving that now. He's no different than Bush in his war-mongering ways.
You're all so blind to think that one party is "better" than the other when it comes to war. Once in a while, there is a justifiable war. But often, the war fought is no justifiable and both parties are equally guilty of going to war for reasons that don't hold up.
You truly are the ignorant one if you feel Obama and Bush are in the same category. I understand being on the far left, being against war, and having strong feelings, but to be so blind by your political views that you do not have the ability to distinguish between these two men, is something that very few people can boast. If I were you I would consider spending more time writing misguided and disgruntled comments on posts and leaving the political game to those of us who can see what this simple map was created to show.
The indigenous of North America are certainly not included in the casualties. As a Dakota person, knowing the millions of Native people killed since the coming of Europeans expands the figures. Of course, citizenship wasn't granted until the 20th century....
I bet this has been mentioned several times but still the fact remains that all those wars that were strictly democratic or republican... yeah i dont think wwI &II were not fought with only democrats and i know that all the republican soldiers in WWI&II were not that good.
I think Afghanistan should be red and blue, considering it is now Mr. Obama's war.
This is an interesting graphic for its ability to concisely document the history of Amercan wars. It is certainly sobering to see the large scale of violence that has been a part of American history since the beginning. The forgotten wars of American history, like the Barbary Wars and the Indian Wars, must be rememberd. However, I think there is a fundamental flaw in the intent of the graphic. If you are trying to make a claim regarding the proclivity for violence of one political party or another, you run into several problems. For one thing, the Democratic and Republican parties as we know them today have not progressed linearly throughout history. For example, the Democrats were the party of the south in the Civil War era. The main reason one party or another has called itself republican or democrat is for the sake of convention- that is, the other one was taken.
Furthermore, I think the emphasis on the party in power undercuts a more important issue: that war has been a matter of course throughout our history. It is not helpful to count up casualties in one party's corner or another. Since war seems to occur regardless of the party it power, it might be more useful for us to ask 'why does the US go to war so often?" instead of "why does this party go to war somewhat more than this party?"
Nice map but it's pretty flawed in some very fundamental ways.
1. Since the 1960's there has been a shift in the country's political parties -- Lincoln as a Republican is not the same as Bush as a Republican.
2. Who are you blaming for the Vietnam War, again? That is a war with a long, tangled history that we are still working out.
It gives you a headache this... It moves too fast. Also, the contrast between lands and seas is very poor. Why didn't you use green for the lands? That would be much more visible.
Just a passing thought, as I noticed Obama counted in 2012. Sometimes, presidents come into office after a war has already begun. It is not always possible for a president to immediately end a war once they are in office. Sometimes it is necessary for them to continue a war that they did not start (and possibly would not have started had they been in office at the time). It'd be interesting to only see the numbers on presidents (and their affiliated political party) who actually started wars or initiated the US's involvement in them.
This is neat but the administrations sometimes change in the midst of a war even though the war carries on, such as Vietnam.
Also the blue party is not the Democratic, but Democrat or Democrats. Democratic is a type of government, just as republic is.
What data are you using for the Civil War? Only battle deaths? That seems inaccurate as most wars measure all deaths of enlisted soldiers regardless of causes.
Hello guys.
First of all, nice work.
As far as the technical aspect is concerned, the only two thing I would suggest you consider, would be the ability to full screen and a small control over speed (for example a -0.5x or -1.0x speed buttons).
When it comes to the information presented, I must admit I am not very familiar with US history, so I can be of no assistance in terms of feedback or comment on what is said.
However, I could not help but notice that you do not mention the war in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, October 7th and has been going on since. Up until now there have been officially 1184 US casualties* and much more overall.
Finally and unfortunately the war in Iraq is far from ended, with a total of 4412 US casualties (and a total of 4730* and again much more overall.
May they all rest in peace...
I hope you find my feedback helpful. Keep up the good work :)
Peace & Love
This graphic tries to show when wars started or continued under which President. It doesn't try to attribute the exact casualties under each President. It also is not necessarily attributing blame but just shows that what was going on time wise.
No wars under Obama? What did Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly disappear? Those two "theaters" of the war on terrorism should also be tied to Obama since they are ongoing just like you did with Korea and Vietnam. WW2 should be tied to Truman as well.
The scale bar in the second part of the animation lists "Reublican Wars" and "Democrat Wars." I find it interesting that the site administrator can correctly label "Republican" but not "Democratic". What a childish display of partisan politicking.
(for the record, the above spelling of "Reublican" was not intentional. Merely moronic. --anonymous)
здорово!
авторегер mail ru :( 4961
штемпеля большинством сектору телефону исключается поделить ocenkamail прилежащих сообщаем кредиты
Fabulous !! I'll use it in my school classroom.
Вот новейшие кинофильмы что я нашла в интернете из рабочих
Варез - качай всё бесплатно.
Would be possible to add sound. A bomb blast with sound volume relative to casualties on every map location.
You should track which party controlled a majority of the Senate and House as well if you want to more accurately portray which party is responsible.
The map is inaccurate about the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War). It was started by President Eisenhower in 1954, and he was a Republican.
Really moronic placing blame on one party or the other... you have no idea how our government works.
Really moronic placing blame on one party or the other... you have no idea how our government works.
Is there any sound ?
Republicans are not credited for wars that they ended, not started in your presentation. Such as Nixon and Viet Nam. Why?
Um. Blaming a party for a world war seems a bit odd.. actually extremely odd.
And the Vietnam War was in multiple presidencies..
Ah well, it's a fun map anywya.
[url=http://levitranowdirect.com/#iwwbv]cheap levitra online[/url] - buy levitra online , http://levitranowdirect.com/#tzedf levitra 10 mg
[url=http://viagranowdirect.com/#byjpf]viagra 50 mg[/url] - generic viagra , http://viagranowdirect.com/#sedsa viagra online
[url=http://cialisnowdirect.com/#zajrd]cialis online without prescription[/url] - generic cialis , http://cialisnowdirect.com/#thkgn cialis 60 mg
I'm sure the best for you pxYOcGXO [URL=http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/]burberry trench[/URL] online tGAlHenX [URL=http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/ ] http://www.burberry--outlet-online.weebly.com/ [/URL]
I knew an older veteran in college who was involved in Operation Powerpack, the invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic during 1965-1966. He said there was urban guerilla warfare for about 6 months, especially in the capital, Santo Domingo. There were plenty of casualties, American and Dominican. LBJ ordered the invasion to "prevent another Cuba" although the guerilla fighters may have been Marxists, but not Communists.
I am really inspired together with your writing abilities as neatly
as with the format to your blog. Is this a paid subject
matter or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the
excellent high quality writing, it's rare to look a great blog like this one these days..
my website: garbage disposer
wonderful points altogether, you just received a new reader.
What could you recommend in regards to your put up that you simply made a few days in the past?
Any certain?
Also visit my web site: dog undercoat
Excellent way of explaining, and fastidious paragraph to get facts on
the topic of my presentation subject matter,
which i am going to deliver in university.
My homepage :: honda s2000 for sale dealers autos
excellent points altogether, you just received
a emblem new reader. What would you recommend in regards to your put up that you just made
a few days ago? Any sure?
my homepage: fred starring in marvin marvin
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles.
I will bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly.
I am quite certain I will learn many new stuff right here!
Best of luck for the next!
my web-site :: swiss ball buy
Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog
loading? I'm trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Also visit my blog post - maximum heart rate
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book
in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home
a bit, but instead of that, this is fantastic blog. An excellent read.
I'll definitely be back.
Also visit my site: workout
When some one searches for his vital thing, thus he/she wants to
be available that in detail, therefore that thing is maintained over here.
Feel free to surf to my web page; garbage disposal
http://clemokfevi.tk/ind/anketa80682.htm Проститутки M. Шоссе энтузиастов - Индивидуалка Ангелина, +7 (968) 525-26-23
http://nemoroomar.tk/ind/anketa38148.htm Проститутки M. Чернышевская - Индивидуалка Ника барби, Район Центральный, +7 (812) 912-18-27
http://saywtenasun1972.tk/comments/anketa/88562 Отзывы о девушке Ника, Москва, (916)5121268
http://diserare.tk/checked/anketa/39390 Оценки Ульяна, Москва, (925)3598815
http://lippprinpere.tk/ind/anketa85262.htm Проститутки M. Теплый стан - Индивидуалка Vanesa, +7 (926) 808-94-71
фото самых развратных проституток
For latest news you have to pay a quick visit world wide web and on web I found this web page as a most excellent website for latest updates.
my site ... baseball history
It would be great if i could see what year it was and who was president throughout the video.
Also, sources?
As commented on before, using the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans" in this graphic is both inaccurate and self serving. The graphic would have been much more powerful without the propaganda, and more enlightening historically.
The maps-of-war does not do well with DSL 5 mbps download speed.
This should be updated to include drone strikes and continued military conflicts.
Iraq is small red circle, yet it continues to cost lives and gold to this day. Iraq was an illegal war propagated by false premises. That war now reaches the entire world thanks to Bush and Cheney's lack of fore site allowing ISIS to grow. Soon Iraq will surpass WWII. http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/2013/04/democrat-or-republican-presidents-who.html
Nations probably think Democrats are weak & push it to the point were war is only option.....
Post a Comment
<< Home