They said Mao killed 80,000,000 of his own people. I recently read a book on the Khmer Rouge calledl"First They Killed My Father" that details the terror of the Khmer Rge and Pol Pot. They wiped out 25 % of the Cambodian pop. A great read. And you think it could not happen today, but look at Isis and it's persecution of Christians. America and England and Israel should wipe the Isis off the face of the Earth. I believe it will happen.
Genghis and his hordes took out 12% of the world's population. There is only a battle for second place.
Found this on the ever trustworthy internet. http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1fd3ab475acf0e21442baef591009753?convert_to_webp=true
Then I guess Mao has it. There is a book called Atrocitology, which systematically ranks the worst events in human history, in terms of the number of people killed. Obviously world war II tops the list, but from there it gets interesting. I assumed that the second place would be held a by a 20th century war, but Genghis Khan's rampage still holds the second place. The East India famines are in the top five!
Obviously we are talking about successful offences. Nit picking sentences is a huge sign of great despiration. This is history 101. However the English always seem to have a bit distorted historical outlook. As mentioned in terms of military losses Russia was no 1 with 10 million. US No 2 with 400,000.
Not only are you wrong, (China lost millions more than the US), you are also cherry-picking. It's really, really asinine to argue over who died, it's in poor taste, but it's easy to find estimates for the European nations with losses listed as higher than the US. This one has Poland and Romania losing more military personell: http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html This one has Britain, Yugoslavia and Romania losing more military personell: http://secondworldwar.co.uk/index.php/fatalities This one has Yugoslavia losing more military personell: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...eaths.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/ You've gone for wikipedia. I'm not going to argue with you over who lost more men as a mark of who was more involved, because it's disgusting. But it's a known issue surrounding WW2 that many different estimates exist and nobody can degree. For example, is a tossed together militia "military"? Or not? You, meanwhile, are determined to deal in the absolutes that support your case. Even when it comes to death. Think about that.
Per percentage of the world's population at the time of the event, nothing touches Genghis Khan. The An Lushan Revolt in the 8th century is a hotly contested topic but may be close depending on one's belief of the accuracy of census reports from the time. Another cool book, that cites Atrocitology but puts everything in a better context, is Of Our Better Angels by Pinker. Interestingly, the post-tribal civilization that holds the highest percentage of homicidal violence is the pre-Columbian Aztec. Pre-State societies, in general, were enormously violent... even into the 20th century. Fascinating but disturbing stuff.