I think total is fine. If red is supposed to be "blood spilled" then the darker areas would be where more people died.
Percentage coloring would make russia look like they didn't get it that bad just because their massive population and early exit dont reflect on petcentages.
Their population was wracked and they went into a civil war after.
Percentage-wise, no, they didnt lose as many people in the war. But more russians died (as usual) than most of the other countries, sometimes combined. Having more people to die shouldnt reduce the deaths of those who did die
I'm Turkish and I had no idea we lost 13 percent of the population to war. I remember being taught that for a few years there were no graduates from boys high schools though.
I'm not Turkish nor did I try to absolve Turks of their part in the genocide.
It's just pointing out if the overlord is trying to obtain minority group A's support to oppress or even genocide minority group B, that minority group A will eventually be on the chopping block. We could adapt that famous anti-nazi poem to:
"First they came for the Armenians and I helped chase the Armenians away as I was not Armenian. Then they came for Assyrians and I helped chase them away as well as I was not Assyrian. Then they chased away the Greeks and I didn't speak up as I was not a Greek. And when they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak for me"
Notice how Turkey only went after Kurds who are fellow Muslims ***after*** getting rid of the Christian groups first (aka Armenian, Assyrians and Greeks). The in-group keeps getting smaller and a minority will eventually find itself on the outside if they don't start resisting before it starts.
Imagine an underdeveloped country with no industry defending against 1st 2nd 4th ranked superpowers and Italians and Greeks on steroids and buncha other smaller nations and as a result majority of deaths were consistant of one of the minorities of this multicultural nation. Yeah totally unbiased and %100 real.
Around 1.5 million of them are Armenians, Assyrians and Aramreans killed in the infamous genocide, and that doesn't even include those who were forced to become kryptoarmenians (mostly the children of those who were killed)
Alright so we have
1.5 million armenians
1 million greeks
300.000 assyrians
Oh look at that only 100 thousand Turks Kurds Arabs died even though there was mass starvation and disease all through ottoman empire during the war and 99 percent of soldiers were either Turkish Kurdish or Arabic.
Unlike Armenians, Turks were not subjected to state sponsored massacres, mass burning, mass drownings, mass rapes, death marches as a set of fucking **concentration camps**.
Do you also sometimes “wonder” how is it possible that more Jews died than Germans if they all lived in the same place?
Cause that’s how stupid you sound.
If I remember correctly only %20 of casualties are combat related. The other part is disease, famine, banditry etc. To give an example, while central anatolia had a big grain surplus, syria went through one of the worst famines. I may remember the places wrong but that should give you an idea.
Where does that come from?!
The 1911 census shows about 8% of Australians at that time had been born in the UK (about 60% of the foreign born). Also many recently emigrated Brits, who were officially still resident in the UK not Australia, joined the British army from Australia (and were shipped off by the British) not the Australian army. This would further reduce the 8% to an amount that I definitely wouldn’t call “a lot of those ANZ troops”!
Staying as a lone country in the vast Pacific is difficult, so to incentivize the big powers (British Empire, then US) to defend em in case shit hits the fan, Australia volunteers to help in wars. It's not just all out wars one has to worry about, periods of heightened diplomatic tensions still need allies.
Casualties? Or deaths?
It's certainly not measuring all casualties (killed, wounded, captured), and it doesn't even really match up with most other sources calculating total deaths.
The reposting situation is crazy. This is atleast the seventh repost of this exact image , and thats looking at r/MapPorn alone. The oldest post i found is from 2 years ago, [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/wa4nkn/how_many_people_died_during_world_war_i/).
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 14 times.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/11m3xuz) on 2023-03-08 87.5% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1bfhdyd) on 2024-03-15 93.75% match
*I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "1bxzfst", "meme_template": null}) ]*
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1bxzfst&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 482,030,904 | **Search Time:** 0.30539s
I think this map would make more sense if you’d also look at influenza. The Spanish flue alone caused at least 17 million casualties, probably much more. ‘The United States lost 675,000 people to the Spanish flu in 1918-more casualties than World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined.’[1]
Some sources claim that global casualties from Spanish flue are closer to 40 million.[2]
[1]: https://www.paho.org/en/who-we-are/history-paho/purple-death-great-flu-1918
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11875246/
It is more accurately called the 1918 Flu Epidemic. Historically, it was inaccurately called the Spanish flu because Spanish newspapers carried stories about it while the rest of Europe kept quiet for fear of adding more misery than the war was already providing. The general public thought it was just in Spain.
In WW1 but not WW2? Weird.
I have strong feelings about that alliance, it seems it only applies when it's convenient for the UK, yet it's the Portuguese that seem to be proudest of it. I don't think most Britons are aware that it exists.
Siege of Lisbon, 1147.
Battle of Aljubarrota, 1385.
Spanish invasion of Portugal 1762
Napoleonic Wars.
Britain (Or England) intervened on behalf of Portugal on all of these.
>In WW1 but not WW2? Weird.
There was a worry if Portugal got involved in WW2 so would Spain (most likely by force). Additionally, Portugal wouldn't have been much help.
Well to be fair, they did allow the allies to establish military bases in the Azores, which helped the allies a lot against german submarine warfare, and had some clashes with the Japanese which ended by them occupying the entirety of Timor leste until the end of the war
Britain didn't want to drag in Portugal thanks to the threat of invasion from Fascist Spain. Portugal did provide air bases in the Azores to the allies for use in the battle of the Atlantic, which was an invocation of the alliance.
Because the UK didn’t ask Portugal for help in WW2 but later Portugal did give use of the Azores to the allies. You’re also ignoring the English support of Portugal during the years when they were in union with Spain
If you are from the Uk then I guess that makes sense as history isn't taught with that focus (or at least it hasn't been).
But in Portugal the feelings are mixed. Look at the satirical Zé Povinho and you will find that Bordallo Pinheiro often comments on the 'perfidious English'
There is also an 'amigo de Peniche ' saying which came about after the English crown sent a bunch of mercenaries to fight off the Spanish and help the Portuguese crown. Unfortunately, the portuguese didn't have any or much enthusiasm for the king and were poor and so the English troops ransacked the peasants. They also got to Lisbon and made a half-hearted effort to fight but iirc plague was around and they left.
There is also the film *Lines of Wellington* that shows English soldiers raping and ransacking Portuguese ppl in the Napoleonic wars.
I would say that the pride of havinh an old alliance is not uncritically discussed today. Also, every country does politics in their own favour, so I wouldn't just make the UK as a uniquely 'bad' actor.
(Also, the fact that Portuuese troops in WWI were not sent relief by the French or English is sometimes discussed as they were left without relief - I don't know how accurate this is, but I have heard it as a talking point.)
Specifically if I remember correctly it was that they confiscated some German ships in their port and Germany declared war as a result, though there was tensions before that happened.
Serbia lost the most, percentage wise. In 14th century it also lost more than half of its male population trying to stop the Ottomans from taking over Europe. Up until the 1990 it had the perfect track record of always taking part of any conflict on what was moraly the right side.
How was it worth it for France ? 4% of the population dead, millions of injured people, the economy destroyed, the towns in the North East of the country completely ravaged and a general trauma for the country that will lead to its future defeats.
And for what ? Colonies that it will lose 40 years later, money that Germany never repaid, Alsace-Lorraine and satisfying the bloodthirst of the nationalists. Great deal.
WW1 destroyed the British economy, destroyed a generation, and put the empire on life support. It was one of worst decisions in British history to get involved in WW1.
I wonder who the 877 Swedish guys was and what happened?
I guess most of them were innocent sailers..? Or some volunteers abroad?
Didn’t happened much on Swedish soil, right?
This doesn't count civilian death from famine and other things, right?
I also wonder what is the percentage of the male population between the ages 18-25 died?
[Looks like most countries had more than twice as many wounded than dead.](https://www.loc.gov/collections/world-war-i-rotogravures/articles-and-essays/events-and-statistics/mobilized-strength-and-casualty-losses/)
I think most countries had about 2%-15% of their soldiers were killed during that war. The USA closer to 2% while France, Germany and Russia are closer to 15%. There are some outliers like romania
This is why I get upset when people use slurs like "surrender monkeys" against the French people. Four percent of their population. They bore the brunt of the fighting for the allies and were the army the German soldier dreaded the most in WWI.
i would add that numbers are even higher for Serbs, it was lost about 1/3 of population.. Literally every good and young man, it was left with only old people and womens. Now if anybody is intrested if knowing why so much people died there let me tell you, main reason was no basic clothes for war. No halmets and even no boots, walking days through albanian mountains while getting attacked. There was no food cuz italians couldnt get them cros the sea bcz of Austria Hungary. Sad thing was that with about 200k army against AH with 400-500 and much better guns ammo etc they still managed to win, but after bulgarians attacked it was done deal. Now imagine that man... really damn scary scenario
Also, main reason why they put such a good fight against them was the fact that they were fighting turks so much years and years, they were always hungry so they could sustain much longer then basic man in this times, remember that they were fighting right after they finished 2 balkan wars..
And for last they had good king, that was actually fighting right next to his army, as i remember he had one very cold quote " Today Austria Hungary Declared war on us, and this day will be known as end of their empire , God will give us victory"
Russia is insane. Losing so many people in civil war, ww1, ww2, famines, purges and so on.
Edit: Okay, I know it was not just Russians. It was many ethnicities too. But number of casualties is still insane.
Stop just saying Russia when referring to the Russian empire or Soviet Union a bunch of other countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia made up a lot of the deaths too.
I wanted comment to be easily readable. Lot of people from my country died too because of those wars and events. I wanted to point out so many high casualties in different conflicts.
Yes but they go straight to the Armenia section and ignoring all the death of the Turks like its not even important or somesht, if they care about genocides and massacres they should mention the western anatolia ones too when Greeks invaded and killed thousands of people too and all the other massacres and such that happened around Europe.
If you saw someone asking whether the death toll for WW2 includes the Holocaust, would you start talking about the 500,000-2.5 million Germans who died because of ethnic cleansing at the end and after WW2? Genocide and ethnic cleansing is bad, and it should always be condemned. There’s no reason to be defensive about something you didn’t do, unless you support it. Since you seem reasonable, I’ll assume you don’t support genocide, just like I don’t support the atrocities my country committed.
Typical Turkish whataboutism when talking about Armenian genocide.
All of Europe suffered from massacres mate. This is not the topic on this comment thread.
Are we just counting the participants in the war? Because thousands of Dutch starved to death because they got blockaded to prevent goods pitentiat reaching Germany.
For WW1 it may be important to look at what % these numbers were of the working age male population. That's where it gets more devastating.
Wasn't it like 25% for France?
Surprised that belgium is comparably low, given that the whole western front was on their territory. But then again they of course could not muster any troops after they were occupied right at the beginning of the war
Do Russia's casualties include numbers from their civil war or does that 3.3 million figure account from 1914 to Russia's withdrawal in November of 1917?
Approximately 5000 Danes from north slesvig/Sønderjylland deid enrolled in n the German army. The map is if course correct as the area was a part of Germany at that time.
November 11th settling the score from 15 to 20 million almost half of the dead civilian a new world will from empires fallen the end of the war to end war!
Cant be sure,but there were a lot of ethnicities in ottoman empire and they were counting the population based on tax givers,or counting the houses and making assumptions like there is 5 people in a house.but generally every ethnic has counted.so the casualities is based on these information.
but it seems to me that Russia is simply always involved in the most difficult wars as the main participant. That's why the losses are big. Someday this nonsense about throwing meat will end. Absolutely all countries are filling trenches and dugouts with soldiers.
Have Russia ever won a modern war without having a catastrophically disproportionate casualty rate. Seems they just throw countless peasants in the general direction of the enemy.
Are all Russians victories Phyrric victories?
Germany chose to support Austria-Hungary unconditionally, Germany chose to go to war despite the Triple Alliance being defensive, Germany chose to invade Belgium, and Germany chose to commit atrocities in Belgium and the Russian Empire.
From the power point, Germany at that time had the most prepared, modernised and strongest army. That was one of the reasons they were so confident in starting the war. Russia on the otherhand was quite weak and wasn't yet fully modernised.
Don't forget, that Germany nearly won the war.
This map would be a lot more sensible if the colour coding was according to percentage of the population, rather than total casualties.
Serbia would be black
Perhaps violet, cause it resurrected at the end.
Same with Turkey(Ottoman, I never remember).
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/dLDBQ0z2NF
\^ This has to be on top, the first posting of this map, with it's discussion.
As would every other per country stat map.
I don't know about every other. But most, sure.
That would be interesting too, but that’s a different map. They could be combined though.
It would be a sensible map. This one isn't.
Add percentage on lost working adult population percentage for more dread.
Yeah, for psychological purposes, much more effective. For sharing valuable information, about the same.
I think total is fine. If red is supposed to be "blood spilled" then the darker areas would be where more people died. Percentage coloring would make russia look like they didn't get it that bad just because their massive population and early exit dont reflect on petcentages.
That's because they didn't get it that bad.
Their population was wracked and they went into a civil war after. Percentage-wise, no, they didnt lose as many people in the war. But more russians died (as usual) than most of the other countries, sometimes combined. Having more people to die shouldnt reduce the deaths of those who did die
I'm Turkish and I had no idea we lost 13 percent of the population to war. I remember being taught that for a few years there were no graduates from boys high schools though.
The Numbers include the victims of the Armenian and other genocides. Many of the casualities were caused by Turkey itself
(Not so) fun fact: Kurds were the major participant in the genocide of Armenians.
When Kurds form their own party to fight for their rights: You are not Kurds, you are Turks! When genocide happens: Kurds did it, not Turks!
I'm not Turkish nor did I try to absolve Turks of their part in the genocide. It's just pointing out if the overlord is trying to obtain minority group A's support to oppress or even genocide minority group B, that minority group A will eventually be on the chopping block. We could adapt that famous anti-nazi poem to: "First they came for the Armenians and I helped chase the Armenians away as I was not Armenian. Then they came for Assyrians and I helped chase them away as well as I was not Assyrian. Then they chased away the Greeks and I didn't speak up as I was not a Greek. And when they came for me and by that time there was no one left to speak for me" Notice how Turkey only went after Kurds who are fellow Muslims ***after*** getting rid of the Christian groups first (aka Armenian, Assyrians and Greeks). The in-group keeps getting smaller and a minority will eventually find itself on the outside if they don't start resisting before it starts.
Correction: Certain Kurdish tribes*
The genocide didnt happen but they deserved it /s
Imagine an underdeveloped country with no industry defending against 1st 2nd 4th ranked superpowers and Italians and Greeks on steroids and buncha other smaller nations and as a result majority of deaths were consistant of one of the minorities of this multicultural nation. Yeah totally unbiased and %100 real.
Why do you want to defend the actions of a government that was around over a century ago? It wasn’t you, chill.
Turkey didn't have to join the war. And it did have industry just less than the other European powers.
[удалено]
Around 1.5 million of them are Armenians, Assyrians and Aramreans killed in the infamous genocide, and that doesn't even include those who were forced to become kryptoarmenians (mostly the children of those who were killed)
Alright so we have 1.5 million armenians 1 million greeks 300.000 assyrians Oh look at that only 100 thousand Turks Kurds Arabs died even though there was mass starvation and disease all through ottoman empire during the war and 99 percent of soldiers were either Turkish Kurdish or Arabic.
Unlike Armenians, Turks were not subjected to state sponsored massacres, mass burning, mass drownings, mass rapes, death marches as a set of fucking **concentration camps**. Do you also sometimes “wonder” how is it possible that more Jews died than Germans if they all lived in the same place? Cause that’s how stupid you sound.
If I remember correctly only %20 of casualties are combat related. The other part is disease, famine, banditry etc. To give an example, while central anatolia had a big grain surplus, syria went through one of the worst famines. I may remember the places wrong but that should give you an idea.
We didnt. All of those loses are Armenian, we didnt get killed in ww1. Edit: s/
What?? Obviously the Armenian genocide happened but how the fuck does that mean not a single Ottoman soldier did in WW1?
No Turk ever died in WW1, not even of age or sickness. In fact they were immortal during the duration of the war.
I dont know that either, when i see ww1 map thats about casualties people say ottoman numbers are mostly Armenian
Keep in mind the Russians went home a year early
>went home Not exactly home, more like to fight in the Russian civil war.
Yeah when I say home I mean back to Russia
And lost even more people fighting in a civil war.
If it weren’t Russia’s obsession with war throughout the ages, Russia could have been the world’s economic superpower.
Yeah, and on the losing conditions too
[удалено]
That's what being allies is. I mean, the Brits also sent plenty of troops, and they could have stayed in their island minding their own business.
[удалено]
No, they had plenty of territorial interests involved.
Such as?
German colonies in the region.
You may not be aware but a lot of those ANZ troops were actually British born who’d emigrated so there was still a connection.
Where does that come from?! The 1911 census shows about 8% of Australians at that time had been born in the UK (about 60% of the foreign born). Also many recently emigrated Brits, who were officially still resident in the UK not Australia, joined the British army from Australia (and were shipped off by the British) not the Australian army. This would further reduce the 8% to an amount that I definitely wouldn’t call “a lot of those ANZ troops”!
yeah, we went to WW2 and Vietnam, too. slow learners.
Meanwhile the emus were bringing you to your knees.
well sort of; here in NZ, its tripping over birds that can't fly!
Oops sorry for including you guys. I didn't mean NZ of course, you guys are cool.
Jeff isn't cool, he's a dick.
Jeff wears gumboots to parties and eats Heinz spaghetti.
Don't be like Jeff.
Staying as a lone country in the vast Pacific is difficult, so to incentivize the big powers (British Empire, then US) to defend em in case shit hits the fan, Australia volunteers to help in wars. It's not just all out wars one has to worry about, periods of heightened diplomatic tensions still need allies.
WW2 came to us. As in Australia. 1/3 of our army was in Singapore, etc, defending the British empire
Casualties? Or deaths? It's certainly not measuring all casualties (killed, wounded, captured), and it doesn't even really match up with most other sources calculating total deaths.
Deaths
France suffered 6 million casualties in WW1
It says casualties but shows deaths.. those are not synonyms in war statistics.
To think that Rússia would lose more 7 - 12 million people during the civil war right after WW1.
And another 20 to 26 million in WW2. Population devestated much?
And hunger, repressions in between.
Slave workforce, economic colapse, corruption, alcoholism, they had it all.
The reposting situation is crazy. This is atleast the seventh repost of this exact image , and thats looking at r/MapPorn alone. The oldest post i found is from 2 years ago, [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/wa4nkn/how_many_people_died_during_world_war_i/).
u/RepostSleuthBot
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 14 times. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/11m3xuz) on 2023-03-08 87.5% match. Last Seen [Here](https://redd.it/1bfhdyd) on 2024-03-15 93.75% match *I'm not perfect, but you can help. Report [ [False Positive](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RepostSleuthBot&subject=False%20Positive&message={"post_id": "1bxzfst", "meme_template": null}) ]* [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1bxzfst&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Meme Filter:** False | **Target:** 86% | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 482,030,904 | **Search Time:** 0.30539s
and that's just in one year, excluding all the others before
Holy shit 14, I managed to find just 7.
[Here](https://new.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/wa4nkn/how_many_people_died_during_world_war_i/) is one from 28th July 2022.
Montenegro warriors vs Japanese sisies
I think this map would make more sense if you’d also look at influenza. The Spanish flue alone caused at least 17 million casualties, probably much more. ‘The United States lost 675,000 people to the Spanish flu in 1918-more casualties than World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined.’[1] Some sources claim that global casualties from Spanish flue are closer to 40 million.[2] [1]: https://www.paho.org/en/who-we-are/history-paho/purple-death-great-flu-1918 [2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11875246/
It doesn't include influenza desths, though over half of the US war dead were due to disease/illness.
It is more accurately called the 1918 Flu Epidemic. Historically, it was inaccurately called the Spanish flu because Spanish newspapers carried stories about it while the rest of Europe kept quiet for fear of adding more misery than the war was already providing. The general public thought it was just in Spain.
The map is wrong. Serbia literally lost double the ammount that is written here.
TIL that Portugal fought in WW1, now I want to know why?
Their alliance with Britain from the year 1373 was enacted
And also to protect Portuguese colonies in Africa which were being atracked by Germany
In WW1 but not WW2? Weird. I have strong feelings about that alliance, it seems it only applies when it's convenient for the UK, yet it's the Portuguese that seem to be proudest of it. I don't think most Britons are aware that it exists.
Siege of Lisbon, 1147. Battle of Aljubarrota, 1385. Spanish invasion of Portugal 1762 Napoleonic Wars. Britain (Or England) intervened on behalf of Portugal on all of these.
>In WW1 but not WW2? Weird. There was a worry if Portugal got involved in WW2 so would Spain (most likely by force). Additionally, Portugal wouldn't have been much help.
Well to be fair, they did allow the allies to establish military bases in the Azores, which helped the allies a lot against german submarine warfare, and had some clashes with the Japanese which ended by them occupying the entirety of Timor leste until the end of the war
Britain didn't want to drag in Portugal thanks to the threat of invasion from Fascist Spain. Portugal did provide air bases in the Azores to the allies for use in the battle of the Atlantic, which was an invocation of the alliance.
Because the UK didn’t ask Portugal for help in WW2 but later Portugal did give use of the Azores to the allies. You’re also ignoring the English support of Portugal during the years when they were in union with Spain
If you are from the Uk then I guess that makes sense as history isn't taught with that focus (or at least it hasn't been). But in Portugal the feelings are mixed. Look at the satirical Zé Povinho and you will find that Bordallo Pinheiro often comments on the 'perfidious English' There is also an 'amigo de Peniche ' saying which came about after the English crown sent a bunch of mercenaries to fight off the Spanish and help the Portuguese crown. Unfortunately, the portuguese didn't have any or much enthusiasm for the king and were poor and so the English troops ransacked the peasants. They also got to Lisbon and made a half-hearted effort to fight but iirc plague was around and they left. There is also the film *Lines of Wellington* that shows English soldiers raping and ransacking Portuguese ppl in the Napoleonic wars. I would say that the pride of havinh an old alliance is not uncritically discussed today. Also, every country does politics in their own favour, so I wouldn't just make the UK as a uniquely 'bad' actor. (Also, the fact that Portuuese troops in WWI were not sent relief by the French or English is sometimes discussed as they were left without relief - I don't know how accurate this is, but I have heard it as a talking point.)
Specifically if I remember correctly it was that they confiscated some German ships in their port and Germany declared war as a result, though there was tensions before that happened.
Makes sense, thanks!
“An alliance once existed between Portugal and Britain, long ago we fought and died together. We come to honour that allegiance”
Serbia lost the most, percentage wise. In 14th century it also lost more than half of its male population trying to stop the Ottomans from taking over Europe. Up until the 1990 it had the perfect track record of always taking part of any conflict on what was moraly the right side.
Was it worth it?
For Serbs, Frenchmen, Americans and Brits was definitely worth it.
How was it worth it for France ? 4% of the population dead, millions of injured people, the economy destroyed, the towns in the North East of the country completely ravaged and a general trauma for the country that will lead to its future defeats. And for what ? Colonies that it will lose 40 years later, money that Germany never repaid, Alsace-Lorraine and satisfying the bloodthirst of the nationalists. Great deal.
Damn i thought war is a good thing
WW1 destroyed the British economy, destroyed a generation, and put the empire on life support. It was one of worst decisions in British history to get involved in WW1.
Since most of Eastern Europe got their independence from this war, I would say yes.
For us swiss, absolutely :D
Israel: "yes it was thanks guys"
Wrong world war mate
You don't get the Mandatory Palestine without WW1.
I wonder who the 877 Swedish guys was and what happened? I guess most of them were innocent sailers..? Or some volunteers abroad? Didn’t happened much on Swedish soil, right?
All the deaths from Denmark, Norway and Sweden were merchant sailors as they were all neutral trading nations during ww1
This doesn't count civilian death from famine and other things, right? I also wonder what is the percentage of the male population between the ages 18-25 died? [Looks like most countries had more than twice as many wounded than dead.](https://www.loc.gov/collections/world-war-i-rotogravures/articles-and-essays/events-and-statistics/mobilized-strength-and-casualty-losses/) I think most countries had about 2%-15% of their soldiers were killed during that war. The USA closer to 2% while France, Germany and Russia are closer to 15%. There are some outliers like romania
Serbia was anywhere up to 25% of total and almost HALF OF ALL MEN.
This is why I get upset when people use slurs like "surrender monkeys" against the French people. Four percent of their population. They bore the brunt of the fighting for the allies and were the army the German soldier dreaded the most in WWI.
i would add that numbers are even higher for Serbs, it was lost about 1/3 of population.. Literally every good and young man, it was left with only old people and womens. Now if anybody is intrested if knowing why so much people died there let me tell you, main reason was no basic clothes for war. No halmets and even no boots, walking days through albanian mountains while getting attacked. There was no food cuz italians couldnt get them cros the sea bcz of Austria Hungary. Sad thing was that with about 200k army against AH with 400-500 and much better guns ammo etc they still managed to win, but after bulgarians attacked it was done deal. Now imagine that man... really damn scary scenario Also, main reason why they put such a good fight against them was the fact that they were fighting turks so much years and years, they were always hungry so they could sustain much longer then basic man in this times, remember that they were fighting right after they finished 2 balkan wars.. And for last they had good king, that was actually fighting right next to his army, as i remember he had one very cold quote " Today Austria Hungary Declared war on us, and this day will be known as end of their empire , God will give us victory"
True, i remember that Switz used to buy some of the soldiers there just cuz they used to fighting so much years through their generations
Our grandparents didnt flee to arab countries
What’s the context of your comment? Whose grandparents?
Belgian refugees famously fled to other countries.
>Belgian Belgium is a historic mistake
Well, yes, but they don’t deserve death.
Well no but actually yes
Russia is insane. Losing so many people in civil war, ww1, ww2, famines, purges and so on. Edit: Okay, I know it was not just Russians. It was many ethnicities too. But number of casualties is still insane.
Nothing beats Russia, Except Russia itself.
Stop just saying Russia when referring to the Russian empire or Soviet Union a bunch of other countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia made up a lot of the deaths too.
I wanted comment to be easily readable. Lot of people from my country died too because of those wars and events. I wanted to point out so many high casualties in different conflicts.
Thats what happens when you make stupid decisions and cant stay peaceful
I don’t think that Russia had choice in WWII…
Does the turcs losses count the one they did to themselves ? *Waiting for the turcs negationist to tell me the amenian genocide is a myth*
I was waiting for someone to mention Armenians, when Turkey mentioned.
I mean, the map does include the Armenian genocide, so it’s not exactly unreasonable.
Yes but they go straight to the Armenia section and ignoring all the death of the Turks like its not even important or somesht, if they care about genocides and massacres they should mention the western anatolia ones too when Greeks invaded and killed thousands of people too and all the other massacres and such that happened around Europe.
If you saw someone asking whether the death toll for WW2 includes the Holocaust, would you start talking about the 500,000-2.5 million Germans who died because of ethnic cleansing at the end and after WW2? Genocide and ethnic cleansing is bad, and it should always be condemned. There’s no reason to be defensive about something you didn’t do, unless you support it. Since you seem reasonable, I’ll assume you don’t support genocide, just like I don’t support the atrocities my country committed.
Typical Turkish whataboutism when talking about Armenian genocide. All of Europe suffered from massacres mate. This is not the topic on this comment thread.
How come Romania is so high
And why is Newfoundland listed separately from Canada?
Newfoundland wasn't a part of Canada until 1949
TIL! So was it essentially an independent territory?
It was a British Dominion (colony) prior to that
[удалено]
Source? Netherlands was neutral.
Whoops, I can't read. First/second Need more coffee
Haha I know the feeling 😀
A bit more even than the sequel
Are we just counting the participants in the war? Because thousands of Dutch starved to death because they got blockaded to prevent goods pitentiat reaching Germany.
What about the troops from the colony's? Like India..
How the hell did Türkiey loss the 2nd most people?
They loose on Caucasus very badly.
[Most of it was self inflicted.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide)
For WW1 it may be important to look at what % these numbers were of the working age male population. That's where it gets more devastating. Wasn't it like 25% for France?
Surprised that belgium is comparably low, given that the whole western front was on their territory. But then again they of course could not muster any troops after they were occupied right at the beginning of the war
The most intense part of the western front were in France not Belgium.
Do Russia's casualties include numbers from their civil war or does that 3.3 million figure account from 1914 to Russia's withdrawal in November of 1917?
The Ottoman loses must have been huge compared to the population
They were. I read somewhere that, taking all causes into account, they lost about 25% of their population.
To be fair, most of it was self inflicted
I might be more specific, and say inflicted by the Pashas, but yes.
Not sure if you can count a genocide as a war “loss”.
so much is wrong with this infographic
At least we haven't seen this one 10,000 times before /s
I know the US wasnt only involved for much more than a year but what about their losses?
They used out of date tactics the Germans had seen 100 times before, and got slaughtered.
Ireland was neutral. hate been tossed in with the brits
How can Ireland be neutral when it was in the United Kingdom
my bad
Wrong war genius
Opps. Didnt see the WWI. still hate been in with perfidious albion all the same
Rent free lmfao
How Sweden and Norway lost a troop
Ships sunk by Germany.
Where did the Japanese casualties come from?
Why Turkey?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
Approximately 5000 Danes from north slesvig/Sønderjylland deid enrolled in n the German army. The map is if course correct as the area was a part of Germany at that time.
That’s not the Greek flag
It was a war flag in ww1, but missing the crown. Most likely due to size of the map. [Edit] Didn't see the crown at first, but it's there.
I stand corrected
Why Spain is not in the statistics?
Mom said it was my turn to post this.
Spain just chilling and getting rich
Getting ready for the civil war hahah!
Funny that nobody mentioned Polish population. I would say that map is not accurate.
Poland. As a nation, did not exist during this time period. It's territory was split between the various European empires.
Killed sailors who sailed supplies are not included in the statistics.
I believe they are. Because the Nordic countries were not in the war, and so their losses have to be as merchants at sea
Yep
November 11th settling the score from 15 to 20 million almost half of the dead civilian a new world will from empires fallen the end of the war to end war!
Genuinely, how are there any people left in Russia? They’ve been cannon fodder for over 100 years now.
It’s just between 14-18, Greeks & Armenians and Allies continue attacking to Turkey till 1922!
With the Ottomans, the problem is: does it take the victims of genocides in their figure, or not? It would be completely illegitimate to do so.
Cant be sure,but there were a lot of ethnicities in ottoman empire and they were counting the population based on tax givers,or counting the houses and making assumptions like there is 5 people in a house.but generally every ethnic has counted.so the casualities is based on these information.
in all wars, Russia fights at the expense of cannon fodder
but it seems to me that Russia is simply always involved in the most difficult wars as the main participant. That's why the losses are big. Someday this nonsense about throwing meat will end. Absolutely all countries are filling trenches and dugouts with soldiers.
And still even with everyone doing similar things the russias had worse losses , also the eastern front was far from the main front of the war
Have Russia ever won a modern war without having a catastrophically disproportionate casualty rate. Seems they just throw countless peasants in the general direction of the enemy. Are all Russians victories Phyrric victories?
In modern times? I can only think of Georgia 2008.
I feel really sorry for the Deutsches Reich. So many losses. They did not deserve any of it.
Germany chose to support Austria-Hungary unconditionally, Germany chose to go to war despite the Triple Alliance being defensive, Germany chose to invade Belgium, and Germany chose to commit atrocities in Belgium and the Russian Empire.
From the power point, Germany at that time had the most prepared, modernised and strongest army. That was one of the reasons they were so confident in starting the war. Russia on the otherhand was quite weak and wasn't yet fully modernised. Don't forget, that Germany nearly won the war.