vostok
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 10,291
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
- Location
Actually it is you are the delusional here.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
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!