Number of deaths in the WWI per country

[vostok]

 

[war&peace]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

 

[vostok]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

Their soldiers fought in some battles. That is why they losts were so small.

 

[Nein]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

Not just Europe you had the Middle Eastern, African and Asia-Pacific front.

But also naval fronts in the Atlantic, Meditreanean and the Pacific.

Australia and New Zealand were part of WW1 they fought under the British Empire. Japan fought Germany and took Tsingato and some of its pacific colonies.

Usa was part of it from 1917 to 1918. They participated in the Western and Italian front. American entry in the war considered to be last minute but it did give the Allies breathing space against Germany.

 

[T-123456]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

The British Empire brought soldiers in from India,AUS and New Zealand(Anzacs)

Yes Comrade,we both lost the most but we are here,stronger then ever.

 

[KediKesenFare3]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_Day

 

[Nein]

The British Empire brought soldiers in from India,AUS and New Zealand(Anzacs)


Yes Comrade,we both lost the most but we are here,stronger then ever.

Not to mention the Turks had 4 wars. Italian invasion of Libya, Balkan Wars, World War 1 and the Independance war.

 

[vostok]

WW1 in Russia transformed into Civil War. Started in 1914 war ended only in 1923. It costs Russia near 15 mln people in total (including the losses from famine, epidemics, terror and emigration).

 

[Nein]

WW1 in Russia transformed into Civil War. Started in 1914 war ended only in 1923. It costs Russia near 15 mln people in total (including the losses from famine, epidemics, terror and emigration).

Russian Civil War was just an awful war no doubt one of the biggest tragedies in Russian History and World History

 

[jhungary]

Were Japan, New Zealand, USA and Australia part of the WWI?
I think it was localised to Europe.

A Large part of battlefield during WW1 is in Asia.

Japan seize a German colony in China (Qingdao, Shandong), the Pacific and other South East Asia destination is the prelude to Japanese imperialism during WW2.

New Zealand and Australia were part of British Empire Force mostly fought in Western Front (Somme, Yrpes and the 100 days offensive) and also predominately, Turkey before 1915. Gallipoli is the founding of or the defining moment of ANZAC spirit with the New Zealander and Australian which was fought in Turkey during 1915.

America join the war in 1917 and tipped the Allied Power over Central power after Russian withdraw from the alliance, and has been engage in the Pacific and Western front. It is the core American troop and materiel which basically turn the war between Allied Power and Central Power, when the German and Austro-Hungary cannot sustain new wave of men and material being thrown into the Western Front and breaking the will to fight for the Central power.

Their soldiers fought in some battles. That is why they losts were so small.

………….That is a very big understatement.

Little do you know, Australia combat lost during WW1 is actually quite high, it may not look like that in absolute term (ie the total, 61,000) but that's because Australia back then have a 5 millions population, in term of ratio on killed/population, Australia ranked number 17 (at 1.2%), New Zealand ranked 15 (at 1.6%) and Russia, although losing upward to 900,000 (combat death, 1.7 million total) ranked only 14 at 1.9% British lost more in term of Percentage to their Total Population than Russia. And whenever British fought, they have their commonwealth soldier, so, in term of war contribution, Australia and New Zealander have contribute more to the war effort by engage in more campaign than the Russia, who withdraw from the war in 1917 where the ANZAC were engaged til the last minutes of the war.

Please do not diminish ANZAC contribution in WW1 just because they have a relatively small casualty. You did not paint the whole picture and that is Russia lost 900,000 compare to Australia 61,000 and NZ 20,000 does not mean Russia contribute more to the war, it just mean Russia lose more soldier than the Australian and the Kiwis.

 

[vostok]

………….That is a very big understatement.

Little do you know, Australia combat lost during WW1 is actually quite high, it may not look like that in absolute term (ie the total, 61,000) but that's because Australia back then have a 5 millions population, in term of ratio on killed/population, Australia ranked number 17 (at 1.2%), New Zealand ranked 15 (at 1.6%) and Russia, although losing upward to 900,000 (combat death, 1.7 million total) ranked only 14 at 1.9% British lost more in term of Percentage to their Total Population than Russia. And whenever British fought, they have their commonwealth soldier, so, in term of war contribution, Australia and New Zealander have contribute more to the war effort by engage in more campaign than the Russia, who withdraw from the war in 1917 where the ANZAC were engaged til the last minutes of the war.

Please do not diminish ANZAC contribution in WW1 just because they have a relatively small casualty. You did not paint the whole picture and that is Russia lost 900,000 compare to Australia 61,000 and NZ 20,000 does not mean Russia contribute more to the war, it just mean Russia lose more soldier than the Australian and the Kiwis.

If I'm not mistaken the Serbs lost the most - almost 1/3 of the population.
You can not say Australia and New Zealand contributed more, than Russia. You could say this about British Empire combined. How many Central Power soldiers did Australia and New Zealand killed? I bet lesser, then Russians did.

 

[Nein]

A Large part of battlefield during WW1 is in Asia.

Japan seize a German colony in China (Qingdao, Shandong), the Pacific and other South East Asia destination is the prelude to Japanese imperialism during WW2.

New Zealand and Australia were part of British Empire Force mostly fought in Western Front (Somme, Yrpes and the 100 days offensive) and also predominately, Turkey before 1915. Gallipoli is the founding of or the defining moment of ANZAC spirit with the New Zealander and Australian which was fought in Turkey during 1915.

America join the war in 1917 and tipped the Allied Power over Central power after Russian withdraw from the alliance, and has been engage in the Pacific and Western front. It is the core American troop and materiel which basically turn the war between Allied Power and Central Power, when the German and Austro-Hungary cannot sustain new wave of men and material being thrown into the Western Front and breaking the will to fight for the Central power.



………….That is a very big understatement.

Little do you know, Australia combat lost during WW1 is actually quite high, it may not look like that in absolute term (ie the total, 61,000) but that's because Australia back then have a 5 millions population, in term of ratio on killed/population, Australia ranked number 17 (at 1.2%), New Zealand ranked 15 (at 1.6%) and Russia, although losing upward to 900,000 (combat death, 1.7 million total) ranked only 14 at 1.9% British lost more in term of Percentage to their Total Population than Russia. And whenever British fought, they have their commonwealth soldier, so, in term of war contribution, Australia and New Zealander have contribute more to the war effort by engage in more campaign than the Russia, who withdraw from the war in 1917 where the ANZAC were engaged til the last minutes of the war.

Please do not diminish ANZAC contribution in WW1 just because they have a relatively small casualty. You did not paint the whole picture and that is Russia lost 900,000 compare to Australia 61,000 and NZ 20,000 does not mean Russia contribute more to the war, it just mean Russia lose more soldier than the Australian and the Kiwis.

Im Australian sorry to say our contribution in both wars was a drop in the pond.

The Germans, Russians and ths Ottomans lost millions of men. Russians had to fight a civil war while the Turks had a independance war.

Australias casualties does not come close to the scale of Russia. Plus in WW1 Russia nearly crushed Austria-Hungary and they were also beating the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus.

Russia might have performed badly against Germany but they did perfom well against Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans.

Australia in WW1 never had a such a important victory at all for example Brusilov Offensive. I know a lot of Australians are going to be pissed off but a lot of our stuff in ww1 is always taken credit by the British afterall it was the British Empire.

 

[jhungary]

If I'm not mistaken the Serbs lost the most - almost 1/3 of the population.

You can not say Australia and New Zealand contributed more, than Russia. You could say this about British Empire combined. How many Central Power soldiers did Australia and New Zealand killed? I bet lesser, then Russians did.

You can not say Australia and New Zealand contributed more, than Russia. You could say this about British Empire combined. How many Central Power soldiers did Australia and New Zealand killed? I bet lesser, then Russians did.

This is the problem.

Again, please do show me the co-relation between losing more of your own people and killing more enemy soldier have to do wit h contribution in winning a war?

First of all, how many German/Austro-Hungary troop did Russian kills? In the whole WW1, Germany and Austro-Hungary lose anywhere between 2.8 to 3 millions combat death, Eastern front 1914 to 1918 contributed less than 1 millions death, a large part of it is on Turkey and Ottoman empire which accounts for 308,000 troop KIA. So, for the 1.7 Russian Combat lost during the 3 years fighting, Russian killed roughly 600,000 German/Austro-Hungary troop. Compare to Germany/Astro-Hungary losing 1.8 to 2 millions combat death in Western Front.

On the other hand, if you want to argue the contribution of Russian troop by troop death and killed, then how about Germany and Hungary? They killed more Russian troop, in fact, more troop than anywhere in the world during the whole war, does that mean they have more "Contribution" to the war? But then how can that be when they are on the losing side?

And back in WW1, Australian and New Zealander were both British Subject, they did not serve under Australia and New Zealand government, they are British Force, so yes, in term of Status, an Australian Soldier or New Zealand Soldier are basically the same as a British Soldier from East Anglia, because back then Australia and New Zealand were still Part of British Empire.

Contribution to a war is based on how many campaign won and how many battle contribute to the final victory, We did not kill all German soldier in WW1 which mean number of casualty means nothing on the total contribution, in fact, most military would consider it negatively if you achieve an objective with excessive amount of casualty. So causality number is basically just that, they are casualty.

When we look at WW1, Russia, despite "Numerous" German/Hungarian kills on your claim, by the end of Russian Involvement, German and Hungarian was actually winning the war, and they are in a more favourable condition than the Allied Force prior to US joining the war. So, If you have to ask me, which side contribute more in WW1 toward final victories? Australian and New Zealander or Russian? It is always the ANZAC because they fought more battle and more campaign than Russian even the British themselves.

 

[vostok]

This is the problem.

Again, please do show me the co-relation between losing more of your own people and killing more enemy soldier have to do wit h contribution in winning a war?

First of all, how many German/Austro-Hungary troop did Russian kills? In the whole WW1, Germany and Austro-Hungary lose anywhere between 2.8 to 3 millions combat death, Eastern front 1914 to 1918 contributed less than 1 millions death, a large part of it is on Turkey and Ottoman empire which accounts for 308,000 troop KIA. So, for the 1.7 Russian Combat lost during the 3 years fighting, Russian killed roughly 600,000 German/Austro-Hungary troop. Compare to Germany/Astro-Hungary losing 1.8 to 2 millions combat death in Western Front.

On the other hand, if you want to argue the contribution of Russian troop by troop death and killed, then how about Germany and Hungary? They killed more Russian troop, in fact, more troop than anywhere in the world during the whole war, does that mean they have more "Contribution" to the war? But then how can that be when they are on the losing side?

And back in WW1, Australian and New Zealander were both British Subject, they did not serve under Australia and New Zealand government, they are British Force, so yes, in term of Status, an Australian Soldier or New Zealand Soldier are basically the same as a British Soldier from East Anglia, because back then Australia and New Zealand were still Part of British Empire.

Contribution to a war is based on how many campaign won and how many battle contribute to the final victory, We did not kill all German soldier in WW1 which mean number of casualty means nothing on the total contribution, in fact, most military would consider it negatively if you achieve an objective with excessive amount of casualty. So causality number is basically just that, they are casualty.

When we look at WW1, Russia, despite "Numerous" German/Hungarian kills on your claim, by the end of Russian Involvement, German and Hungarian was actually winning the war, and they are in a more favourable condition than the Allied Force prior to US joining the war. So, If you have to ask me, which side contribute more in WW1 toward final victories? Australian and New Zealander or Russian? It is always the ANZAC because they fought more battle and more campaign than Russian even the British themselves.

Good that you are not from Bulgaria. Otherwise, you would say that the most important part of the Central Powers was Bulgaria.
This is ridiculous. I am stunned. I've seen many absurd here. But never at such scale.

 

[jhungary]

Im Australian sorry to say our contribution in both wars was a drop in the pond.

The Germans, Russians and ths Ottomans lost millions of men. Russians had to fight a civil war while the Turks had a independance war.

Australias casualties does not come close to the scale of Russia. Plus in WW1 Russia nearly crushed Austria-Hungary and they were also beating the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus.

Russia might have performed badly against Germany but they did perfom well against Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans.

Australia in WW1 never had a such a important victory at all for example Brusilov Offensive. I know a lot of Australians are going to be pissed off but a lot of our stuff in ww1 is always taken credit by the British afterall it was the British Empire.

Again, casualty is not related to the contribution of a war.

As a soldier myself, when I fight a war, I want it to have LESS casualty as possible, not more, it does not matter which side you are on, it's illogical to think "Hey since I have this great amount of number killed that mean I am making progress on a war."

You cannot compare the Australian involvement and the Russian involvement, if we have the combat death as much as the Russian, Australia will ceased to exist. We contributed more in proportion of our troop than the Russian (~8% of total Australian population (421,000 over 5.1 millions population) vs 4% of Russian (7.8 millions over 171 millions population)

You cannot compare the absolute number because we do not even have 7.8 millions as a total population, that is not possible at all even if you send all the women and children over to the war.

There are quite a few famous Australian Victory, Ypres for one, when the third battle of Ypres we took over from the Canadian and win the final 6 week battle, although Third Battle pf Ypres are always going to be remembered as Canadian Victory as Battle of Passchendaele, without the I Corp ANZAC, Canadian would not have the break thru. Other significant battle such as Gaza, Messines and Egypt.

The fact that Russia have to fight a civil war beside WW1 does not mean anything toward the contribution to WW1, as this is not related.

Good that you are not from Bulgaria. Otherwise, you would say that the most important part of the Central Powers was Bulgaria.

This is ridiculous. I am stunned. I've seen many absurd here. But never at such scale.

Well, you are being delusional.

Russian contribution in WW1 is no where near the scale of WW2, even so, we will not claim Russian contribution in WW2 that much exceed other allies.

Your definition of "Contribution" is not a valid term as a whole, it may be remotely valid in term of "Materiel Contribution", because you are basing it on the "Absolute" number of soldier involved in a war. Which have never been in any way shape or form valid.

Just because I lost more soldier than other country, that does not mean I contribute "More" toward the war.

How many theatre Russian troop engage in? Compare to how many theatre Australian and New Zealand troop were engage in? And then look at the time the engagement last. Russian involvement is quite local during WW1, and quite sequested in Eastern European Front, while the Australian and New Zealander were involved in the Pacific, Turkey, Africa and Continental Europe