What's new

Number of deaths in the WWI per country

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
Actually it is you are the delusional here.
Russian trophies:
Germans - 250,000 prisoners and 550 guns,
Austro-Hungarians - 1,850,000 prisoners and 2,650 guns,
and the Turks - 100,000 prisoners with 650 guns.
2,200,000 prisoners and 3,850 guns captured!
Based on your logic. The Serbs were the leading force of the World War I. Because they made the largest contribution in the percentage.
Let us imagine some island have population 1 man. This man go to war and die. 100% of the population died - the largest contribution to the war!
 
.
Actually it is you are the delusional here.
Russian trophies:
Germans - 250,000 prisoners and 550 guns,
Austro-Hungarians - 1,850,000 prisoners and 2,650 guns,
and the Turks - 100,000 prisoners with 650 guns.
2,200,000 prisoners and 3,850 guns captured!
Based on your logic. The Serbs were the leading force of the World War I. Because they made the largest contribution in the percentage.
Let us imagine some island have population 1 man. This man go to war and die. 100% of the population died - the largest contribution to the war!

Dude, that is my point, you cannot count a single factor as a contribution on any war. Be that casualty, % of involvement or whatever.

Contribution on winning a war is a complicated matrix, a war is won because of several factor put together. How many campaign involved, how big of the involvement for each campaign, the duration of conflict all play a parts on the contribution.

Again, just because I send 40,000 soldier and you send 700,000, that does not mean your contribution is more than mine. If my 40,000 were used in more dimensional and engage in more battle than your 700,000, then my 40,000 soldier would have contribute more to the war effort than yours 700,000. Because my 40,000 leave more mark and fought more battle and fought longer than yours.

Just because you have 700,000 and lost 50% of those does not make you "contribute" more than me, did you get this?
 
Last edited:
. .
The British Empire brought soldiers in from India,AUS and New Zealand(Anzacs)
Actually, most came from what is now Pakistan. The first non European [other than a mixed African-American] to win the highest medal in British military - the Victoria Cross was Sepoy Khudadad Khan born in what is now Pakistan. The Rawalpindi District adjacent to what is now Islamabad provided more men to WW1 then any other district in the British Empire other than the home country. In some villages the losses were so high that further reruitment was banned by civil officers because there was no young men left to even do the farming. The first combat unit to see action on the Western Front against Germans from the Raj was 129th Balochis [Sepoy Khan belonged to this unit] is today part of Pakistan Army.

upload_2018-11-9_17-47-12.jpeg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/129th_Duke_of_Connaught's_Own_Baluchis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khudadad_Khan
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/...sent-men-fight-wwi-nearly-airbrushed-history/
http://www.centenarynews.com/article?id=3097


Dq3GESKW4AEJARd.jpg



kx2jy0g.png


And my great grand-dad was in France in WW1. That is how our association with Britain began. For good or bad.
 
.
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.

The Bulgarians love to overrate their role in WW1
 
.
May Allah-u Azimushshan have mercy upon all the souls lost in that terrible War. Satanic ambitions, conspiracies and back stabbing of some scoundrels, coupled with foolishness of few other gullible, led to the unprecedented and indescribable havoc on the hundreds of millions....

An entire generation of young folks got lost!!! Many a high school in the warring countries couldn't produce a single graduate in those years for the entire classes got perished in the killing fields...
 
.
Dude, that is my point, you cannot count a single factor as a contribution on any war. Be that casualty, % of involvement or whatever.

Contribution on winning a war is a complicated matrix, a war is won because of several factor put together. How many campaign involved, how big of the involvement for each campaign, the duration of conflict all play a parts on the contribution.

Again, just because I send 40,000 soldier and you send 700,000, that does not mean your contribution is more than mine. If my 40,000 were used in more dimensional and engage in more battle than your 700,000, then my 40,000 soldier would have contribute more to the war effort than yours 700,000. Because my 40,000 leave more mark and fought more battle and fought longer than yours.

Just because you have 700,000 and lost 50% of those does not make you "contribute" more than me, did you get this?
Not even a single poo since july and we are going into November :omghaha:

O6tT2Z6.png


NagYhAU.png


Stop trolling and derailing each and every thread that brings positive news on China pathetic indians pretending to be white :omghaha

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/nvid...st-single-computer-humanity-has-built.561198/
 
.
Not even a single poo since july and we are going into November :omghaha:

O6tT2Z6.png


NagYhAU.png


Stop trolling and derailing each and every thread that brings positive news on China pathetic indians pretending to be white :omghaha

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/nvid...st-single-computer-humanity-has-built.561198/


I am not the one that said "Stop Derailing the Thread" when I responded to your question.

Read this

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/huaw...hy-system-and-4000-mah-battery.550629/page-12

To this day, I still have not hear the response from that. So….

Well, No Response? Chicken go Chook :) LOL.
 
. .
WW1 was the war that broke the back of four major world Empires, wiped out almost an entire generation of young men, and the grievances that resulted from the end of the war carried over and lead directly to the start of WW2, so much so that some consider both wars a single event, at the least WW2 was the continuation of WW1. Even the victors of that war, bar the Americans, were left unsatisfied with the end result.

In any case, the industrial scale slaughter of men on the battlefields of Europe using modern weapons which made their first appearance was unprecedented in history and since then warfare has become more mechanized, less personal and more dehumanized in terms of the increasing use of machines. The warrior tradition has been in decline ever since. In that sense it was indeed the last chivalrous war, but definitely not in the sense that that term is most commonly used, ie pertaining to deliberate warfare against civilian populations which did take place in the form of blockades used by both Central Powers and Allies, most notably the British bloackade of German ports which continued well after the armistice in 1918 and into 1919 leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

WW1 was also the triumph of Liberal Democracy over the "old" order represented by the central powers (and Czarist Russia, which was in the allied camp however)


Also, as some members pointed out, the participation of British colonial troops, particularly from the Indian subcontinent, is underrated.

Reminds me of the passage within Ernst Jungers book Storm of Steel, one of two well known memoirs on the Great War from the German perspective (the other being the overblown All Quite On The Western Front) wherein Jungers unit encounters Indian troops in France:

"In the tall grass we discovered a line of dead and three wounded who threw themselves at our feet and begged us for mercy. They seemed to be convinced that we would massacre them. In answer to my question 'Quelle nation?' one replied: 'Pauvre Rajput!'"

"... Their outfit was the First Hariana Lancers, a good regiment, I'm told."


@Psychic @Nilgiri @Gomig-21 @LeGenD @Metanoia
 
Last edited:
. .
how ignorant were the muslims of sub continent were who fought under british flag? the brits were mainly responsible for end of ottoman empire and further bringing of jews to palestine. shame on those muslims from sub continent.
 
. .
how ignorant were the muslims of sub continent were who fought under british flag? the brits were mainly responsible for end of ottoman empire and further bringing of jews to palestine. shame on those muslims from sub continent.
Many Muslim soldiers from Sub-continent who were sent to Mesopotamia refused to fight.
Including my own great grandfather. Said they wouldn't fight the Ottomans for the British.
@Desert Fox
During World War I, scores of Indian Army soldiers mutinied against or deserted from the British military. Some did so out of a sense of nationalism and others out of disgust as being used as cannon fodder for a European war. For many South Asian Muslims the thought of going to war against the Ottoman Caliph was repulsive and lead some to defect to the Ottomans.
 
.
Many Muslim soldiers from Sub-continent who were sent to Mesopotamia refused to fight.
Including my own great grandfather. Said they wouldn't fight the Ottomans for the British.
@Desert Fox
they made the right decision:tup:

Many Muslim soldiers from Sub-continent who were sent to Mesopotamia refused to fight.
Including my own great grandfather. Said they wouldn't fight the Ottomans for the British.
@Desert Fox
they made the right decision:tup:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom