Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 1

Section editorializing

I removed section editorializing on causes for casualties, this is simply a list.--Kadett 06:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Graphs

I'm not totally sure where to put these graphs... They look a bit awkward there right now. -- Booyabazooka 19:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I have uploaded updated graphs and re-positioned them. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Different figures

There is a list of casualties in the article World War I that has different figures than this. Pehaps someone might know the reason and maybe, like the WW II article, the casualty list could be a link to this article too. JillandJack

• I have fixed these issues. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources ? / Example: Central powers casualties

It would be better to give just a few sources, from which the casualty numbers are taken.

Example: investigations in germany had the result of at least

2.037.000 german military dead in WW I - including around 200.000 army missing (presumed dead), and some 30-40.000 navy dead !

...the ~200.000 soldiers who remained missing (= not officially declared dead until 1934) are usually ignored; as a result one can often find the (incomplete) number of ~1,8 Mill. german WW I dead in literature and media statements - like here in "wikipedia". At a smaller scale, the widely accepted number of german navy dead in WW I (~34.000) seems also incomplete as some 4-5.000 remaining missing (mostly drowned !) are ignored, too.

Further reading:

Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministerium: "Sanitaetsbericht ueber das deutsche Heer, deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer, im Weltkriege 1914-1918" (Volume 3), 1934.

Gerhard Hirschfeld (Ed.), "Enzyklopaedie Erster Weltkrieg", Paderborn, 2004; esp. article "Kriegsverluste" by Ruediger Overmans

Boris Urlanis, "Bilanz der Kriege", Berlin, 1965.

WernerE (german-wiki), Feb. 18, 2005

• I have added the references you mentioned to the article. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 11:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have also added a note to the table, on the disputed numbers. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pie Charts

Should th epie charst say from each country, not in, cause that would mean no gaermans were killed in france or othe allied countries and no alllies were killed in central countries.say1988 19:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

False info

I have just repaired some heavy false info. Sargeras 11:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

French casualties

It feels pretty strange that only 40,000 French civilians died, knowing that most of the battles on the western front happened in France. And there is no link to the data where this comes from, too. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

the World War I casualties article does not include casualties: no comment

What the h*** does that mean? I find it perfectly understandable that we have separate figures for the dead, but why o why don't we have the casualties on the casualties page?? We have them in the one source site that's here and we have the figures on the World War I page, but not here. That's silly!

Btw, the one source here looks kinda bloggish, so it would clearly be an improvement to have a couple of reference sites instead of just one. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've fixed the first issue you mention. Now, the table only exists in this article, with a link to here from the main article. And I added 1 link to the sources. That's all I had :). Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 10:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Arabian Casualties

Are the arabs who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire (ala Lawrence of Arabia) considered as casualties, on either side? It would be great if someone was knowledgeable enough to include this. DirectorStratton 01:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Casualty Charts

The casualty charts don't match the figures given. Example: Serbia lost 400.000 military personell and 950.000 civilian, USA lost 116.516 yet on the chart the percentage of US troops lost is larger than that of Serbia. The figures are correct but the chart isn't and it MUST be fixed. Also I propose that we put in a casualty chart that compares the percentage of the genereal population of each country that was killed in the war (so a bar graph). Reasons for this being that the smaller countries get highly overlooked in the sacrifices they made in this war. For example Serbia lost around a third of its general population, the most in the war, but it looks like they sacrificed less than the French.

User:69.194.57.22, 03:51, 4 October 2005

• The issue of the error in the piechart regarding Us/Serbia is fixed. The other idea you mentioned is good, but we need the population numbers for the countries to begin with, otherwise we can not make such a chart. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 10:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplication?

Are British Empire and United Kingdom duplications?--Berndd11222 17:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it seems the British Empire was a subtotal. I have removed it from the table, and now countries are listed separately. My regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Math error

The schedule does not foot. It needs to be corrected--Berndd11222 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dunno what you mean. Regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK now. Last night it did not foot.--Berndd11222 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Casualties as % of population

I was wondering if we shouldn't add a column for casualties as a percentage of population since there is one for WWII casualities? Bureaucromancer (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exact Canadian numbers

I was given the Canadian Virtual War Memorial's complete database of fallen Canadian soldiers (in all conflicts from the Nile Expedition to the Korean War). The exact number of Canadian fatalities is as follows:

1914 - 197, 1915 - 5,135, 1916 - 16,974, 1917 - 20,563, 1918 - 14,741, 1919 - 1,960, 1920 - 871, 1921 - 459, 1922 - 187, Newfoundlanders - 1,656, Merchant Navy - 579, Total - 63,322.

I'll double check the numbers this week and will make sure there were no problems on the data import that would lead to missing soldiers.

On Wikipedia all information we post must be verifiable, how can we verify those figures?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Woogie10w, I'm working on getting the database online so you can view the records. ErikH6 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Belgian Casualties

hello The Belgian number is almost certainly too low. They fielded a sizeable army and I expect the deaths to be between the high 20's to as much as 40,000. Other numbers for wounded etc. would increase as well. John Mosier lists two different numbers (thus creating a question on his sources) but both are much higher, ie. 35,000 and 24,729 dead. He also lists 63,000 missing, and no number for wounded.

12.june 2006: My history book says the total amount of belgian casualties (both military and civilian) is 115.000

Response by Woogie10w

Official Belgian government figures for military losses in Europe were 26,338 killed, died of wounds or accidents and 14,029 died of disease or missing. The total in Europe is 40,367. In Africa: 2,620 soldiers killed and 15,560 porter deaths, for a total in the African campaign of 18,270. The combined total for Europe and Africa is 58,637

Source: l'Annuaire statistique de la Belgique et du Congo Belge 1915-1919. Bruxelles. 1922.

What are the figures of John Mosier and what are his sources?

After 1914 the Belgians were given a quiet section of the front and were not engaged in the major offensives of the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the death figures contain Influenza deaths

I ask becasue the American figure of 100,000 + seems to include non-battle deaths. This conflicts with the note at the end of the civilian section:

• Note that there is some debate if indirect deaths, like those killed by the Spanish Flu should be counted. If so, 25 million to 40 million more civilians should be added to the WWI death toll.

See for example the breakdown of US deaths in various wars on this page : http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html. Which gives battle deaths of 53,000 and non-battle of 63,000. These figures are ultimately sourced from the US Department of Defence.

We need to be consistent between all the countries. Does anyone know where these figures orignally came from? Lisiate 05:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article says it includes Spanish flu deaths but there is no way that it includes all of them. That epidemic killed 50-100 million people. Even the lowest (impossibly low) estimate was 21 million dead. It is clear that some victims of this disease might be included, but certainly not all. MichaelSH 02:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Casualties

I don't think the Canadian casualties are accurate. 172,905 is the number of Army wounded (stat from the Canadian Army Official History, which would mean that there were no one was wounded in the Navy or Air Force. 08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Before I answer, please note: I am NOT an expert on this. I have just been working on the general layout, i.e. creating tables and piecharts, and double-checking some of the numbers. I have added a note for Canada which describes the issue you mention. Btw, thanks for noticing this. If you could research this issue yourself, it would be good. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

From Canadian Veterans Affairs:

"For a nation of eight million people Canada's war effort was remarkable. A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 66,655 gave their lives and another 172,950 were wounded. Nearly one of every ten Canadians who fought in the war did not return."

So it includes all services, except merchant marine.

• Ok, then I reckon it's proper to remove the footnote I added, so I do that. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Civilian casualties for canada should be listed as 2000+ because of the halifax explosion. Not to mention the 9000+ injured from the explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon6 (talk • contribs) 13:13, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the 2000 Canadian civilian dead listed refers to the casualties in the Halifax explosion, however the heading for that column clearly states "direct civilian deaths due to military action". The explosion was an accident, not the result of enemy action. For clarity' sake, is there a way to rework this to include this number without the apparent discrepancy? Mediatech492 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO an explosion isa military action--Woogie10w (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an over-simplification, and innately false. By definition military action requires some active participation on the part of the enemy, and as far as is know there were no enemy anywhere near Halifax when the accident happened. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the Halifax Explosion was the result of an accidental collision between two ships in friendly territory, it wasn't "military action" or "crimes against humanity". There were many accidents in munitions factories, or explosions on military ships due to mishandling, none of these others are listed, and rightly so. As such I'm removing this reference.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New values, tables, and piecharts

Hi! I've spent the entire night making new tables and piecharts (with percentage showing). There are no major changes in the values (except of some additional countries and an error corrected - Montenegro Deaths), but now the table has subtotals and totals, as well as footnotes. Hope you think it's better! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 08:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be interesting to include casualties as a percentage of population. This would show, for example, the devastating impact on France and explain its lack of appetite for more casualties, twenty years later, at the start of the second world war, although it still went to war to come to Poland's defence.--Cbriens 23:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The pie-charts are very attractive but do NOT reflect the numbers in the table. This is unhelpful. In addition, if the size of the two Miltary Death' pie-charts is to be different then this should reflect the total - therefore the Central version at 4.0M should be smaller than the Entente version at 5.7M [radius should be square-root ie 2 'units' v 2.4.]

The Central Military Deaths; Central Civilian Deaths; Entente Miltary and Entente Civilian figures are 4.0M. 3.7M (or 5.2M if Armenian Genocide of c1.5M is included), 5.7M & 3.7M. For the pie-chart the Armenian figures are evidently excluded. Salisbury-99 86.154.123.248 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

What are the sources of those civilian losses? Can you back up those numbers?--Berndd11222 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Barney. I didn't enter the numbers, and I personally can't back them up, but the numbers are apparently from WWI casualties - which in turn has used the source: Tucker, Spencer C. The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publishing, New York, 1996. My regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the civilian deaths were flu or famine related. That should be clear to the readers. --Berndd11222 14:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yes, that is true. I will add info on it now. Regards, Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 15:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking a course on History of War right now, and a lot of these numbers don't match with what my professor (good prof, world renouned,etc.) has given us. One of many factors contributing to +/- figures is that 25% of all World War 1 deaed were recorded as MIA. This means that those people were not counted as dead, as their bodies were either lost in the mud or blown to bits (70% of all deaths were from artillery bombardment). (Hey, some historians, anthropologists, etc. are still digging up some of the farms for bones... lol.) ~s.p.

Major update

Hi wikipedians! I have made a major update - the main thing is that the civilian numbers are now incorporated into the table. This makes it easier for overviewing, checking etc. (no new values, just some error-fixing - e.g. someone had changed Russias dead from 1,700,000 to 1,300,000 without sourcing it). Furthermore I have attempted to introduce better sourcing (see World War I casualties#Table sources). I have also added a section called World War I casualties#Debated numbers in order to shed light on why numbers differ.

I have also added this note in the intro:

Please do not change any casualty numbers until it has been suggested/discussed on the talk page. Sources should also be stated.

Hopefully this will yield better sourcing and discussions in the future.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• The Piecharts are updated as well. Clear cache, hit refresh. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbian Losses

The losses for Serbia may be for entire territory of postwar Yougoslavia. In 1914 the population of Serbia was 4.5 Million. After the war they picked up Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro and a few enclaves from Bulgaria that had a prewar population of about 8.4 million. Yugoslav historians claimed losses in WW1 of 1 million. Our "Serbian" numbers may include losses in Austria-Hungary. We need to check these numbers. --Berndd11222 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious nobody checked it out. I suggest putting numbers from the source mentioned below the table (Everett), which are as follows:

Nation Mobilized Dead Wounded Missing/POW

Serbia 707.343 45.000 133.148 152.958

For civilian casualities, estimations are from 450.000 - 650.000, depending on resource. As I don't have clue does it include ex. Austria-Hungary countries, I would leave it as it is for now.--€ro 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done!--€ro 10:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct figure is 1,300,000 deaths total, but note that this includes all volunteers (Serbs deserted from the Monarchy, there were many of those). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.91.1.41 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I am from Missouri show me--Woogie10w 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Serbian losses listed on the main page are based on the analysis of Serbia’s population during the war ,La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.
The data listed on pages 73 and74 summarizes Serbia’s losses 1914-20 based on the analysis of census data.

The total population deficit was 1,187,000 broken out as follows:

Loss in 1913 Balkan War- 150,000
Loss in World War One-701,000
Decrease in births-336,000

Serbian WW 1 losses were 463,000 man and 238,00 women. Estimated military losses were 300,000 of the 700,000 men mobilized. The World War One Casualties page does not include losses in the Balkan Wars or hypothetical losses due to a decrease in the number of births. The losses of Serbia do not include losses in Croatia , Slovenia and Bosnia already included with Austria-Hungary . This is why Serbia lost about 700,000 in the war not 1,300,000.--Woogie10w 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From various photos we can see that there were thousands of Serbs civilians executed by troops of Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, but there was no number reported on the list regarding those deaths, could anyone offer a help?

Done, see my recent edit--Woogie10w (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Entente Powers

The Entente Powers were Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. Do not refer to members of the allied powers as part of the Entente Powers.

• I've fixed it. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. There is a tradition in history books (at least, in italian history books) to refer to the alliance as the entente; probably some contributors are used to that tradition. Please sign your comments. gala.martin (what?) 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Formatting

I have no idea if we are consistent about including flu deaths, but I do know that the pie chart images overlapping the death table can't be a good thing! Someone needs to fix this! Help me, please! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, it isn't like that on my screen. What browser do you use? What if you maximize the window? --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just tried Firefox and Internet_Explorer, and they show a perfectly formatted page. If needed, tomorrow (actually, in a few hours :) ) I can use a real computer (instead of this box running Windows), and I can try a few other browsers. gala.martin (what?) 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It shows as overlapping in Firefox if the page isn't maximized and zoomed out(hit ctrl and - at the same time a couple of times to zoom out, ctrl and + to zoom in). However, if the page is maximized and zoomed out until the formatting isn't an issue, the print is fairly small and hard to see (at least on my screen). Jon

Missing soldiers

Beyond known casualties, many soldiers were missing after the war. The number of missing men exceeded the number of deaths. I thing we should cite this numbers on this page. For sure, the bulk of men missing, died during the battles. A negligible percentage came back years later or went to live in other countries (notably, the grandfather of a friend of mine came back to Italy from France about 50 years after the war :-)) ). gala.martin (what?) 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, by all means, be bold and contribute!. But remember, we need figures with a source that can be checked. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This link (already in the external links section) provides some references. I think that those numbers are quite reliable. I did not edit yet, since I could do a mess with the page format: there is not much room left on the page (horizzontally speaking). gala.martin (what?) 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I need some help with this. If I add a missing column, some conflicts occur. The number I add in the country list takes the place of the wounded number, the missing column still beeing empty. Thank you. gala.martin (what?) 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is a breakdown of casualties that lists missing
British Empire -Total Dead 913,000 including 158,000 missing. UK Official data
France Total Dead -1,397,800 including 258,000 mising. From Michel Huber's La Population de La France
Russia- Total Dead 1,811,000 which includes 1.2 million dead + missing. This is an estimate of the Russian author Boris Urlanis. Russian casualties are estimates
Germany Total war dead 2,036,897 including 100,000 missing according to the official 1934 report
Austria-Hungary- 905,000 dead plus`181,000 missing at the end of 1919 from data published by Austrian gov
I have data on the smaller nations if you guys need it--Woogie10w 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The US numbers don't add down-Please Correct

The numbers for US total war dead add down to 115,660 not 126,000. This needs to be fixed--Woogie10w 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Woogie seems to be referring to the numbers from the footnote and the fact that 35560+14720+57460+7920=115,660 and not 126,000. I was going to change it, but I'm not sure what the etiquette is for fixing someone else's work (and perhaps the footnote is that part that was wrong and not the 126,000 number). Jon

Ottoman Empire

How in the world did the Ottoman Empire lose so many civilians? According to the figures, the Empire lost more civilians than Russia. Is it because the civilian figures include civil turmoil, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities?--Secret Agent Man 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure but it does appear that this figure includes killings in the Armenian genocide. No doubt the general chaos that attended the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire also contributed to the high civilian casualties. Lisiate 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE FIX US CASUALTIES--THE MISTAKE MAKES THE WHOLE PAGE LOOK BAD

HERE IS THE LINK TO OFFICIAL US LOSSES IN WW1[1] , THE ERROR ON THIS PAGE HAS BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS AND NEEDS TO BE FIXEDWoogie10w 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh numbers don't add-

The numbers in the allied section do not foot. The whole schedule lacks credibility because of this mistake.Woogie10w 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wonderin'....

How come so many civilians for the Ottoman Empire died. Is the Armenien Genocide counted in that number or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptainP (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

The number undoubtedly includes Armenian genocide victims. The folks who prepared this page just copied numbers that they did not understand and cannot explain. The numbers here need to be backed up with a detailed explanation of their composition. --Woogie10w 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done on this page

What needs to be done on this page is to post the data only from official governmemt sources for casualties with a breakout of their components. For example the UK forces lost X number of men. In the footnote give a breakdown of killed in action, missing after the war and declared dead, died of wounds, POW deaths and died of disease. List the primary source used with a proper reference so that others can verify the data.--Woogie10w 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I made the changes

Recently I posted comments to this page pointing out that the data presented here should have official sources to back up the numbers . The military losses needed to be broken out listing killed or missing in action /died of wounds and deaths due to disease and accidents. The numbers on the page did not foot. In the case of the US the losses listed of 126,000 did not agree to the footnote. The page was neglected and in pathetic state. I did not get a single reply to my comments. The page was in dire need of attention
The data presented here is from official sources, there is a breakout listing combat and non-combat losses. The sources for the changes are listed.--Woogie10w 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian war dead- Official sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists Canadian 56,639 war dead
The Canadian War Museum Lists " over 60,000 war dead.[2]
The CWGC currently lists the names of 64,944 Canadian war dead on line[3]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That works for me, the current figures are probably more accurate. Carom 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IN this case I disagree by taking the CWGC numbers you are inadvertantly adding the casualties that were incurrred by the Dominion of Newfoundland which have been unceremoniously dumped into the CWGC caldron of Canadian Numbers. I have brought this up with CWGC in the past and they have brushed off the suggestions that the WW1 casualties for Newfoundland should be treated seperately, insulting every soldier that volunteered for WW1 for Newfoundland and contributing to the rivisionist history supported by Canadian Historians in regards to Newfoundland's pre-1949 history.

Therefore, if you are using the CWGC casualty numbers for Canada then they are incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.202.151 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Note Well all material posted to Wikipeia must be backed up by a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources All material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source can and will be deleted. You have not given a source for your posting [4]Please provide a reliable source that we can verify or I will delete what you have posted.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Australian War Dead- Official Sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists Australian 59,330 war dead
The Australian War Memorial Lists 61,720 war dead.[5]
The CWGC currently lists the names of 61,928 Australian war dead on line[6]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This works for me as well. Carom 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

South African War Dead- Official Sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists 7,121 South Africa war dead
The CWGC currently lists the names of 9,463 South Africa war dead on line[7]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian War Dead-Official Sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists 64,449 Indian war dead
The CWGC currently lists the names of 74,187 Indian war dead on line[8]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UK & Colonies- Official sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists 702,917 UK war dead plus an additionl 1,204 from Newfoundland
The CWGC currently lists the names of 886,342 war dead from UK and Colonies on line[9]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UK-Commonwealth Civilian Casualties

The CWGC lists the names of 15,632 Merchant Navy personnel and 460 civilians who were killed in WW I. This can be verified at the CWGC website ‘’Debt of Honour Register’’
[10]
The figure of 30,000 civilian deaths seems to me to be an estimate that cannot be supported by official documentary evidence. Can anyone provide support that 14,000 additional UK citizens were killed by U-Boats in 1914-18?--Woogie10w 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

UK Civilian Casualties due to U Boat attacks

An accurate and verifiable primary source is needed that lists the total UK civilian losses due to U Boat attacks--Woogie10w 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I

There's an AfD for that article, please express your opinion. NikoSilver 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe the article should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacresof Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate. What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up and eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; thank you. So you mean rename I guess. NikoSilver 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename and cleanup to eliminate the one sided POV dealing with losses by one ethnic group. --Woogie10w 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikos, the Muslims also suffered, and were subject to many migrations for reasons that didn't have to do with the migrations of others. Why are you insisting that they cannot have a seperate article? You are more than welcome to create another Ottoman casualties during World War I or restructure this article so that it focuses better on this particular Millet. But it is also not fair to say that the losses or casualties of the Turks/Kurds are not important enough to be mentioned in another article. I said this in the last AfD, the ethnic-strife touched upon every Millet, and no-one is perfectly clean - you cannot seriously say that Ottoman Muslims were never ever subject to massacres etc, nor that their losses didn't affect the region in the aftermath of the War.. There is no harm to discussing the losses of other millets. Just assume good faith and keep an eye for POV in that article and that will be good enough. Anyways... Baristarim 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a reliable source on the numbers of WW One dead in the Ottoman Empire broken down by ethnic group? I mean reliable, a source that can be verified.--Woogie10w 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One point to Woogie10w: The empire, even its last day of its existence did not get the idea of "ethnic group" as you are using. They had their own "world view" and responded/acted using their world view. PS: I do not support this: "but some people (including British intelligence of its time) used the word (Turk = Muslim millet). In a way this article is the casualties of Ottoman Empire if you look from their world view." Ottoman Armenian statistics originate not because they were looking for ethnic group but it was a "Armenian millet, patriarch statistics", as explained in the millet concept. Thanks for your considerations.--OttomanReference 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am from Missouri show me! Are there reliable statistics that we can verify?--Woogie10w 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woogie10w (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I do not understand what U are asking for, it is not clear. If you use the appropriate terminology, the clarity would improve drastically. If you want total western source on population statistics, which covers how the population is analyzed by the Ottoman Empire and not biased on war issues; check the article "A Note on Some Nineteenth-Century Population Statistics for Lebanon." It takes a lot of work on the individual to shift centuries and civilizations. It gets harder if ones world view originates from western civilization. --OttomanReference 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am from Missouri, show me a reliable source with verifiable statistics on population losses in the Ottoman Empire from 1914-1918.--Woogie10w 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Erik Jan ZÜRCHER, Between death and desertion. The experience of the ottoman soldier in World War I --OttomanReference 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The famine of 1915-1918 in greater Syria,” in John Spangnolo, ed., Problems of the Modern Middle East in Historical Perspectives (Reading, 1992) --OttomanReference 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Nur Bilge CRISS, "Istanbul under Allied Occupation 1918–1923", 1999 Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN 9004112596 --OttomanReference 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War By Huseyin (FRW) Kivrikoglu, Edward J. Erickson --OttomanReference 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will post some material from Erikson's book that I hope will satisfy everyone while I am chilling to the beat of XM 82--Woogie10w 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman empire civilian losts is under represented.

Where does the current number originate? It seems, it is under represented. OttomanReference 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What we need is an analysis that explains the loss, not just a statistic that we are forced to accept on blind faith.--Woogie10w 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

TURKEY POPULATION BALANCE 1914-18
Beginning Population Jan 1, 1914
Add:Births 1914-18
Add:Population transfers In(immigration)
Less:Natural(Normal-pre war level) Deaths 1914-18
Less:Population transfers out(emmigration)
Less:War Deaths/Military & civilian( including famine & flu)
Ending Population Dec 31, 1918

Does anyone know of a source with this data?--Woogie10w 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please share with us your source for Ottoman losses in WW1. The statistic of 2.1 million on the WW1 page has no supporting analysis. It is a statistic from a secondary source( Grey- Chronology of WW1 Vol 2, P 292) that lacks solid documentation. If you know of a Turkish demographic study of 1914-18 please let us know --Woogie10w 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the current data in the table? Why is it represented as a correct value? --OttomanReference 03:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was published by Facts on File, thats why. I have a Russian source Vadim Erlikman with civilian losses of over 3 million, it is an estimate. What about Turkish sources, what do they say? I want to see the correct figure that is supported by analysis--Woogie10w 04:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5 million from James L.Gelvin is more reliable; I can say it is recent.OttomanReference 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, greatly appreciated; Until a better reference is found, it seems there is no solution to this problem. OttomanReference 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Legions

Are figures for the Czechoslovak Legions included here, possibly under Russia and France? Just curious. Grant | Talk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Total personnel for Allied powers

I have borrowed information from the Allied Powers table for a table of personnel at Allies of World War I. We need accurate figures and citations for total personnel under each state there if anyone can help, thanks. Grant | Talk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me check the WW1 Databook by Ells when I get home tonite--Woogie10w 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an often quoted 8.9 million total personnel for the British Empire, I cannot find a source breaking out this statistic for each nation. --Woogie10w 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be hard to find figures/cites for the Dominions and Indian Empire. Like you, I'm inclined to include Crown colonies in UK figures. Grant | Talk 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to find the detail of the often quoted statistic of 8,904,467 total mobilized for the British Empire, it is not in the 1922 War office report. Do you know of a source that details this statistic? --Woogie10w 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<

No, I don't. worldwar1.com has that figure,[11] and cites The Two World Wars, Vol I - World War I by Susan Everett (1980), which may give a source I guess.

Our problem is we need the detail for the that ties out to 8.904.467 The 1922 war Office report has the detail but it is 318,000 less that figure of 8.904 million. My guess is that it is the RN. We could take the total of 8.9 million and back into the UK number since we have the numbers for the dominions & colonies but that borders on original research which is forbidden here. We need to find the source of the 8.904 million--Woogie10w 03:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

First American Death in Europe

Joseph Guyton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_William_Guyton ) was the first American casualty in Europe. Should this be mentioned somewhere on here do you think? (I'm only asking because that page says nothing links to it and didn't know where else this would work.) Thank you, Good Tidings - Navarro 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Try American Expeditionary Force. Grant | Talk 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Luxembourg

The article Gëlle Fra says:

Although Luxembourgers left under German occupation at home could do little to aid the Allies, those overseas, outside Germany's control, could volunteer to serve against Germany. In total, 3,200 Luxembourgian nationals served in the French army, of whom, 2,800 died.<ref name="Richard Doody">{{cite web | url =http://worldatwar.net/nations/luxembourg/narrative.html | title = ''The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg'' | accessdate = 2006-07-27 | last = Doody | first = Richard }}</ref> As Luxembourg's pre-war population was only 266,000,<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Europe/luxembgc.htm | title = Luxembourg: Country population | accessdate = 2006-07-27 | author = Jan Lahmeyer | last = Lahmeyer | first = Jan }}</ref> this death toll amounted to more than 1% of the entire national population, which is a relatively greater percentage for many combatant nations (see: World War I casualties).

However there is no mention of Luxembourg in this article. Grant | Talk 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Gëlle Fra article they list 2,800 dead with a Ref [3] that leads to no actual reference, the German article says 2,500 total dead in French forces. The official French data list 4,600 foreign war dead in the Foreign Legion. I would like to see an official source with the data --Woogie10w 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This French website lists The following data 948serving in Allied Armies(including France) and 201 dead in French Foreign Legion.[12]Vadim Erlikman in his Russian language handbook of of statistics cites Fremy Quid as listing 1,800 dead in the German Army. We have conflicting sources. The Wikpedia site in Lexbourgish is only partialy intelligble to me, I wish somebody from Luxembourg could help.--Woogie10w 09:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My hunch is that these men were residents in France when the war broke out and that they volunteered for the French forces.--Woogie10w 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I was thrown by the link to this article, but in hindsight I guess the author only intended it as a reference point. I have found an editor who is a Luxemburger and asked him to comment. Grant | Talk 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will check whether I can find anything. Offhand the 2800 casualties number seems high, but it could be correct. And yes, many of the Luxembourgers serving in the French Foreign Legion lived in France of Belgium, though some at least must have traveled via the Netherlands or Switzerland.--Caranorn 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that reference in the Gëlle Fra article, the 2800 casualties number seems to stem from the inscription on the monument (been a while since I read it) and is used in both the Luxembourgish article (directly listing the number from the monument) and that Richard Doody article. The numbers in the Anovi article (cited by Woogie) seem to be too low. Unfortunately the WWI Sourcebook I have doesn't give any numbers or even information on Luxembourgian volunteers. Considering how none of the other entries give ranges I'd opt for the 2800 value (the monument, while certainly a propaganda piece (to a certain degree), was after all erected by the government, so it would the the official source) and then possibly list the lower 201 estimate in the footnote (2800 seems very high, 201 terribly low and 1800 under German service improbable). Note if I understand things correctly, foreign volunteers could opt for the French nationality on enlistment in WWI, which could explain the low official French listings.--Caranorn 11:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the link ,now in the footnote, from the Luxembourg national military museum says over 2,000. The Wikipedia articale in Luxbourgish, which is only partially intelligble to me says 2,5000, the German article which is based on the Luxbourgish also says 2,500 dead in the French Army. The whole issue could get way out of had, let me explain. These men were more than likely residents in France who volunteered for French service. The US had many foriegn nationals in their Armed forces. Poles served in German, Austrian and Russian Armed forces. Military casualties should be listed under the flag that that they served, not by ethnic group.--Woogie10w 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the 2500 number in the Luxembourgish language article (I corrected my edit thinking I'd made a typo). And yes, considering how Polish or Czech troops are not listed individually it seems justified to exclude the Luxembourgers too.--Caranorn 12:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Democratic Republic of Armenia

The Armenians were part of the Allies of World War I. They supported the war with the military units under the French Empire {French Armenian Legion)and Russia (Armenian volunteer units). Later before the end of the war Democratic Republic of Armenia had won a major battle Battle of Sardarapat giving 30,000 Martyr. I do not understand why it is not listed in these tables.--Seemsclose 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian military losses are included with France and Russia. They did not have a seperate Army. Armenia was not an independant nation during the war.--Woogie10w 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenia was declared at 28 May, 1918 and was part of Paris Peace Conference, 1919 with an equal seat like other nations. I can see how your point can be valid to Centrocaspian Dictatorship, which Armenians were also part of it but ... Also the military force of Democratic Republic of Armenia was not part of any other army like French Armenian Legion. I do understand states like Czechoslovakia (1918) or Brazil (1917) that became part of the bigger Allied units, however Armenia had its own independent core. I think there has to be a way to include or at least present the Armenian efforts alongside the Allies, which they had their support in the victory. For the Democratic Republic of Armenia a generation of youth had been sacrificed. Don't you think it would be unfair not to represent these people? I feel that it is already unfair that has not been included. --Seemsclose 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish flu civilian deaths

I think we shouldn't include the spanish flu deaths in the casualty counts, since they are only included for a couple of the countries all it really does is throw off the accuracy. If we included those deaths for every country the number of deaths would probably be almost twice as much. Besides this issue, I think it really defies common sense to use completely different criteria for including deaths in different countries, for example the number of 5,000,000 total ottoman deaths vs. only about 2,500,000 german deaths is completely ludicrous.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Adaptation and distribution of technological and medical advances in the west (modern world of its time (Germany)) is not same as east (oriental world of its time (Ottoman=Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc) such as the hospitals-doctors. Assuming the death rate would be same all over the world is a naive conception and older reports which assume numbers through this misconception is/has unreliable. If The death rate drastically (negative relationship) changes with the Socioeconomics of the states. Thanks. --OttomanReference 14:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The data listing Flu deaths is from Metron-The Internatioanl Journal of Statistics, this can be verified. Let the readers choose to exclude Flu deaths if the don't want to use the information , the footnoes list the details of the data in the Metron article for readers to decide, just as you did. We should present the data from the sources "as is", without any original research to modify the numbers. The Metron article did not breakout flu deaths for Serbia, Greece and Romania, the author listed "excess deaths" above the prewar levels. In the UK, France and Italy public health records did list flu deaths separately.

As for total Ottoman deaths the source is a history of the Mid-East published by Cambridge Univ press.

German military losses are from the official German history, German civilian casualties are from official German records cited in a study published by Yale in 1940.--Woogie10w 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for data:
German military war dead:
Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanitaetsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec 1. Berlin 1934.
German civilian losses:
Grebler, Leo- The Cost of the World War to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Yale University Press, 1940
Ottoman Losses:
James L.Gelvin The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521852890
Total civilian deaths due to war
L. Hersch, La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.--Woogie10w 11:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all the flu deaths are only included for some of the countries listed. Second of all, the countries that do include those deaths do not differentiate between deaths caused by the flu and more direct deaths.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Metron article analyzed the population in the UK, France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Serbia, Greece and Romania to determine the number of civilian deaths above the pre war level. Because of the U-Boat war food imports were cut back and the death rate increased. Only for the UK, France, Portugal and Italy were there separate government statistics for flu deaths. In the case of Rumania, Serbia and the Ottoman Empire there is only a demographic loss that can be computed since there are no actual death records. The demographic loss was computed by taking the beginning population in 1914, adding births, subtracting estimated deaths the prewar level, subtracting military dead, then comparing the result to the actual population in 1919. This is the demographic loss due to the war. More infants starved in Eastern Europe than soldiers killed in Verdun. There is a Russian handbook on Human Losses in the 20th century by Vadim Erlikman that has statistics on war and flu deaths in WW1, it is real grim reading. My great grandmother went to Russian Poland in 1914 for a brief visit to see the old country again and never returned home, to the USA, we never heard a word of her fate. She was one of those statistics.--Woogie10w 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct deaths due to air raids in France, the UK., Italy and Germany are listed in official records. The French never compiled a list of direct civilian deaths due to the war, the reason given was that many French were displaced and the local records listed only total deaths. The book by Huber on French population in the war lists total civilian deaths by Departement but not by cause of death, he does list data on air raid victims.--Woogie10w 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My family is also Eastern European and most did not leave Hungary until the 20s, my grandfather was actually a colonel in the Austro-Hungarian army, so my position has nothing to do with ignorance of what went on there (although since much of the family were communist jews, we lost more members in the post-war chaos than we did in the war), I just think that we should be as consistent as possible and use a source that uses the same criteria for every country.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The numbers now have no known Flu deaths. In the case of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Serbia and Romania there is no data listed for flu deaths in the sources.--Woogie10w 10:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The data for Russia from Urlanis is up until the end of 1917, it does not include Flu deaths--Woogie10w 12:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Make table more like WW2 Casualties page?

Any thoughts to formatting the page similar to the WW2 casualties page. ? It would make camparisons much easier and I find the  % of population killed a powerful measurement of impact.-—Graymc 13:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just copy it on an Excel spreadsheet and edit to yours hearts content.--Woogie10w 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

numbers for ottoman empire are missing

yet the grand total for the central powers are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.221.34 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN LOSSES

I was looking up the ratio of men mobilised to men killed in WWI and was shocked to read on another WW1 site that of all soldiers from Austria Hungary mobilised, 90% were killed. This seems unusually high! Can anyone confirm this? Anna wilder (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Anna_wilder

Where did you read this? What is the source?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

>>> http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/FWWcasualties.htm Anna wilder (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Anna wilder

The web page you are refering to does not list the source for its post of 1.2 million Austro-Hungarian war dead. The footnotes on the Wikipedia page give readers the sources for all the data. Austro-Hungarian war dead of 1.1 million is from a source that can be verified. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-European deaths

I note that the page is a little Eurocentric - understandable but also a bit anachronistic. Does anyone have any sources for African and Asian deaths due to the war; famine, disease, military action, overwork etc, particularly during the colonial campaigns in Africa?Keith-264 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal and the UK had colonial troops. Note well these soldiers served under European flags and are included with the casualties of the mother country. I do have sources that give data for France, Germany, Portugal and Belgium. The UK is real tricky because the official figures from 1922 include some but not all of the colonial deaths, the contemporary CWGC figures include the colonial deaths, however they are not broken out for each colony. Please be patient and give me a few days to post the data. I work ten hours a day crunching numbers in the real world--Woogie10w (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply! I wasn't implying criticism of individuals [;-), I am more interested in the effect on African populations. I understand that the majority of African deaths were non-combatant - in the 'Carrier Corps' for example and through famine and disease caused by pressing men and removing them from farming while food requisitions and tax extraction increased. Clearly records for these things are less detailed than the rigorous record keeping in the metropoles but there must be some writing on the subject. I'm hoping that a page contributor or two might have suggestions. I will be looking at Strachan's book tomorrow so I might have something to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Official Belgian data lists the deaths of 2,620 Colonial troops and 15,650 porters--Woogie10w (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK government report on war casualties from 1922 says that Africans are included in the official Portuguese figures--Woogie10w (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See the footnotes. The official German figures published in 1934 probably do not include 14,000 African war dead. I photcopied the offical German report from 1934 and need to reread it to check if the Africans got included in the final tally. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the footnotes, the French figures include 71,000 colonial war dead--Woogie10w (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK figues do include colonial troops, however there is no breakdown for the UK and the individual colonies. The official UK report from 1922 lists 44,956 colonial war dead in East Africa. The deaths of Chinese labourers in France were not repoted in the 1922 report, however the CWGC does list Chinese deaths in UK service, they are included in the total figures with no breakdown by colony--Woogie10w (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote I understand that the majority of African deaths were non-combatant - in the 'Carrier Corps, I disagree, Africans were considered to be fine soldiers in German service.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This does not change our numbers, the bottom line remains the same. We need to elaborate in the footnotes the contributions of the colonial forces--Woogie10w (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The official 1992 UK tally of the war dead was 702,410. Today the CWGC is reporting 885,000. The additional 183,000 deaths include many colonial troops as well as men who died of wounds in the UK. I cannot engage in original research here on Wikipedia. I can only suggest that readers obtain a copy of the official 1922 UK report and do their own audit of the figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again I asked because I am looking for data on civilian deaths due to the war, military deaths are recorded to an extent. All I've found is this

'At least one historian of East Africa estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 Africans died directly or indirectly because of the military campaigns in East Africa as their crops and herds were requisitioned and as their male kinsmen were forcibly recruited. Knowing what was in store for them, it is not surprising that as European military recruiters approached their villages, Africans raced off to the bush to hide.'sadly without a reference.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a Russian language source on casualties published in Moscow in 2004. Poteri Narodanaselie XX Veke by Vadim Erlikman, an independant journalist. Independant because he does not just copy figures, he offers his own analysis in the footnotes. He cites Soviet era data on civilian losses in Africa in WW 1, including flu deaths. The figures are not backed up by any source outside of Russia, that I am aware of. The fact that his estimates are derived from the Soviet era sources will invite critism.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found a discussion of labour conscription in Africa in Strachan 'To Arms' which goes into some detail about the effects on local populations. I'll add details when I can. I wouldn't necessarily rubbish a Soviet source except on the grounds I'd rubbish any source. After all, some of the detail in Strachan invite comparison with nazi treatment of slaves, something that post 1945 Russians would be empathic about.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Strachan's book is on line at Google books. Check page 100. You are right. Unfortunately he does not give us a number to post on the schedule for total civilian deaths, we can drop in a line for Africa and give the details of Strachan's analysis in the footnotes. Also we should make mention that Africans are included in the UK, France, Germany, Portugal and Belgian military figures. The old school people from my generation will no doubt sneer, but we are right and we have a decent source.

I might get bold and drop in the Soviet/Russian numbers just to raise some eyebrows. Woogie10w (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Strachan has 'In all, somewhere over 2 million Africans served in the First World War...and upwards of 200,000 of them died or were killed in action.' p.497 ref: M.E, Page 'Black men in a white mans' war' in Page (ed.) Africa and the First World War,14; M. Crowder, 'First World War and its consequences',283, 293 'It is only with the inclusion of porters...that....British losses...over 100,000 dead.' p.642 ref:Hodges, Journal of African History, XIX (1978), 115. 'Old School'? Will they choke on their chota-pegs?[;-) When Strachan finishes his history we can hope that he will have included some data about the demographic consequences of the war. Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Strachn's estimate of 200,000 Africans included in the military dead makes sense. The UK 1922 official total of 702,410 included 45,000 African "followers", the CWGC revised UK total is 885,000, they do not provide a breakdown of the UK figure for colonial forces and Chinese porters. I checked the details of the CWGC figures, many of the Chinese porters are listed without a name.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If British African war dead are included in the official figure then it makes a nice change that the African contingent aren't also rans. I can't find anything about the wider demographic effect of the war in Africa though.Keith-264 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What we need is to get the CWGC to give the public the details of the UK casualties broken out for the UK proper and the colonies. They do not answer my E mails requesting this information. Are you in the UK or a Commonwealth nation? If so, perhaps you can prey the data from them--Woogie10w (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To recap the data. The 1922 official figures for the Empire were 908,000 military and 14,000 Merchant Navy dead Total 922,000, of which 786,000 died as a result of combat and 136,000 of non combat causes. Today the CWGC is reporting 1,114,000 WW1 dead, an increase of 192,000. They need to explain this increase.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm English so I've sent a query to the CWGC; 'I have been trying to find details of British colonial war dead in the First World War (deaths in action, wounds, illness) and also find information about the demographic consequences of the war to Africa i.e. the effect of the war on civilians as well as combatants. Do you have information on losses for each of the British colonies involved? If not are there any sources that do?' You never know they might answer.Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your MP or the BBC might get them to answer. In any case the additional 192,000 war dead from 1914-18 need an adequate explanation. The official UK reports on casualties listed in the sources on casualties have been reprinted, you may find them of interest. The data is extensive and could be used on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I listen to BBC World Service news twice a day for my news, the debates in your Parliament are amusing at times.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's the best man in Parliament?...........Guy Fawkes! The CGWC's opening gambit is a possible six week delay so I won't hold my breath.Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see the Russian source.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If I posted only Russian stats to the WW 1 casualty page, you would not recognize it.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

UK casualty figures

UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility. An analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties and current CWGC figures revealed the following
1- The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The authors of the report did not provide any backup for the often quoted figure of 908,371 war dead. The figures on supporting schedules are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of the figure for missing in action
2- The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included.
3- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371.
4- The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized
5- The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign.
6- The CWWC figures for 1914-18 war dead are 1,114,914. This is an increase of 206,543 compared to the 1922 figures. The CWGC does not give us an explanation for the increase.
7- The names of the dead posted to the CWGC website add down to 1,057,648 not 1,114,914.
8- The number of civilian deaths on the CWGC website is given as 459, however the 1922 War Office report on casualties lists 1,260 UK civilians killed in air raids. Perhaps the newspapers from that era will give us the identity of the victims.
--Woogie10w (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The CWGC has informed me that the C.W.G.C. is charged by Royal Charter to compile and maintain a ROLL OF HONOUR of those civilians under Crown Protection who died as a result of enemy actions, in the Second World War only--Woogie10w (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ::Where does this leave us? The article currently says 885,138 British military deaths plus 61,928 Australian, 18,050 New Zealand, 74,187 Indian, 1,204 Newfoundland, 9,463 South African. This makes 1,049,970, or some 7,678. This British figure does not agree with any of the figures Woogie10w has stated above. I also cannot derive either 88,138 or 1,049,970 from the comments in the footnotes. So generally I am confused about what figure should be in the article. The Land (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I miscalculated. So as the article stands, the figures used are the CWGC figures, and the UK total is the Empire total less the other contributions. The discrepancy between the CWGC figures and the 1922 figures and the 1931 figures is unexplained, but is noted in the article. Is there any good reason for us not to use the CWGC figures? The Land (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that readers obtain a copy of the official 1922 UK report(it has been reprinted) and do their own audit of the figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the CWWGC figures should be used because they reflect the current official research to identify World War dead. They include those who may have been missed back in 1922, for example men killed in training accidents in the UK, those who died of war related wounds and colonial troops who were disregarded by the War Office in the 1922 report.
The 1922 and 1931 reports have been reprinted and are easy to obtain. I found both to be flawed. Here are some discrepancies that I found
1-The figure of 908,371 war dead refers only to 'soldiers' from the 'Regular and Territorial Forces and the RN Division'
2-The detailed schedules in the report do not support the figure of 908,371. They do not add down to that totalof 908,371
3-The figures for the RN(dead & missing of 32,287) and Merchant Navy (14,661) are given in a separate section on Page 339. The RN figures are for the period ending 10/31/1918
4-The figures for the RFC and RAF do not cover the entire war and are for France only
5-The 1931 report is better organized, the figures for the Army only, include dead and missing less released POW in combat theaters. However the losses of Dominion forces in the Dardanells campaign are not listed because the records were incomplete.
6-I noticed a very interesting coincidence, the 1931 for total Army dead & missing less released POW was given as 876,084. The 1922 report lists RN dead & missing as 32,287. Add the two numbers and you have 908,371.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Referencing markup

The Footnote 4 {{mn}} method is obsolete. So I propose changing completely to standard ref markup. To this end, the use of ref markup for the table notes needs to move to a different system. The Footnote 3 method ref/notelabel is still accepted by wikipedia and works relatively easily. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I look forward to the finished product.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman casualties

Ottoman casualties of 5 million are wrong. The Ottoman Empire lost 5 million true, but you forgot that one million Greeks were expelled and there was fighting there from 1919-22. Get your act together WW1 dead were 3 million tops. Wikipedia needs to check it facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.205.34 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The person has a valid point, read this Wikipedia article on Population exchange between Greece and Turkey there was a net loss for Turkey of 1 million due to post war transfers. not taking into account the fighting in 1919-22 and the Pontic Greek genocide The Chronicle of WW1 published by Facts on File gives Ottoman civilian losses as 2,150,000 for WW1 only. Should we make an update?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian casualties and population -

The article states that Bulgarian military casualties (KIA, MIA, died from wounds) is 87,500 and civillian deaths (due to starvation and deseases) are 100 000. I'm not familiar with the source of these numbers (Urlanis, Boris, Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971) , but every Bulgarian research and records I've seen (for example Colonel Yotov, Petko, The Bulgarian Army in World War One 1915-1918, MoD "St.Georgi Pobedonosets" Publishing, Sofia, 1995) show more than 105 000 dead in combat, over 150 000 wounded (60 000 of them crippled). I'm still searching for reliable source on civillian casualties, though from memory I believe they were more than 100 000. It seems that the current number of military deaths is mixed up with those of the First Balkan War , and not World War I. The number of wounded seems to be correct, though. Would anyone be able to check the older, russian source and confirm that the given number is correct? Otherwise, I think we should base this on official Bulgarian records and accept 105 000 + military deaths as the correct number.

The number of Bulgaria's population is also incorrect. According to census from 1910 the country had a population of 4 337 513. Even with the addition of more territories with large Bulgarian population and mass exodus of Bulgarian from Serbia and Macedonia after the Balkan wars, this is offset by the huge casualties of the Balkan Wars, which are more than 100 000 military deaths alone and in 1915 was just over 4.3 million.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.255.223 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to post the information please give us further details.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give an ISBN reference on the book. I took a peek at Bulgarian Wikipedia(Bulgarian and Russian are similar languages), it seems that Colonel Yotov, Petko Петко Йотов is the director of the national military museum--Woogie10w (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The book doesn't have an ISBN code, and I guess it was a limited print, because I found in an used-books store. I'll also check out "България в Световната война (1915 - 1918)" by gen.Nikola Nedev (ISBN 9549070034) and "Войната в Македония (1915-1918)" by Ivan Petrov (ISBN 9789548021920). I'll add the number 105 000 military deaths to article with a reference to Petko Yotov's book and later on I'll try to add other references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.255.223 (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia all information must be verifiable and reliable. Statistics without a reliable and verifiable source will be deleted. I snoop around Wikipedia a lot and find statistical data without sources and data attributed to a source that cannot be verified. Unfortunately statistics posted by an editor can be changed and the source cited remains the same. Editors should keep a close watch on the information that they post.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Deaths by ethnic group

Since the conflict invloved multi-ethnic empires such as Russia or Germany and they are scholary studies and information on ethnic groups who perished they should be included in the article. --Molobo (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This could be done, in the footnotes only, not the main table. The deaths in WW1 have been broken out for each nation of Europe within the borders 1946-1991 by a Russian source that I have. The losses for Poland within 1919-45 borders also are given in a source published by the US census. The losses are for countries, not by ethnic group. The only problem that I have with this approach is that the sources are not easily verifiable, it could be confusing to readers, and such a presentation is not given by any other source in the English speaking world. In my opinion this is mere trivia. Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies. The Irish celebrate the 1916 uprising. The "Romanians" serving in the Austrian army invaded the country in 1916. The Ottoman Empire included the mid East, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq--Woogie10w (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If we plug Poland, we should also give credit to all the African nations that contributed to the French and UK armies. Our Russian source has data for 67 nations in WW1, using Soviet era statistics. Even Vietnam will get a line, we can't forget Ho Chi Min over there in France during the war. We would open Pandora's Box --Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well since Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge and such information is seen as valid by scholary resources then this shouldn't be a problem. A seperate chapter or information in footnotes is in order. As for losses for countries-you will have a an issue with the losses for military and civilian deaths if A:they were losses for example for joint Austro-Russian Polish military who rebelled against both sides and joined together to fight them, B:They were civilian deaths outside of power authority(see Destruction of Kalisz), but this is for later. Right now a general information would be ok. Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies

I wouldn't be so sure about that. In German no, but I could search for Polish formation from France, Russia and Austro-Hungary. There is certainly a street named after Pulawski Legion that fought for Russian Empire after promise of autonomous Polish state in Russian Empire. And here we have a monument to them[13]--Molobo . You also have specific memorials to Polish formations fighting in France[14], the soil from beneath that memorial was used in construction by IIPR in Lviv Eaglets Cemetary so they definetely reckognised them.--Molobo (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Note well they were NOT Polish military losses they belong with Russian and French casualties --Woogie10w (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not treated so by scholars, but as seperate Polish losses. Likewise the French clearly distinguish them from solely French formations. And what about Polish formations who rebelled and fought against Austro-Hungary/Russia ?. Anyway the point is scholars do point out Polish losses in WW1 seperately in several works. So it is verifable. --Molobo (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the casualties listed on the main table are listed for the nations that fought in the war. The ethnic losses deserve a mention only in the footnotes. Otherwise the article will turn into a confusing mess. The numbers add down to a total, we cannot under any circumstances crete a foolish duplication by adding Poland. If you add Poland, we need to add the other nations created in Europe after 1919, including Asia and Africa. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies. Incorrect. I have seen at least memorials for WWI Austrian and WWII Russian soldiers in modern Poland, and would not be surprised fing WWI Russian as well (German, after WWII, I wouldn't be so sure, but I wouldn't be surprised, neither).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They were not Polish losses, the losses of WW1 are listed under the flag the men served under. Otherwise the article would become a confusing mess with every other country created since 1918--Woogie10w (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple logic dictates that the numbers add down to a total. We cannot duplicate losses. Sources in the English speaking world list WW1 casualties within 1914 borders, not 2008 borders--Woogie10w (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote Likewise the French clearly distinguish them from solely French formations. This is not true. The official French figures list only 4,600 foriegn deaths with their forces without giving a breakdown--Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read this Wikipedia:Handling trivia. The losses of Poland and other nations created after 1918 in WW1 are borderline trivia in my opinion.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish or Czech nation were not created after the war, do not confuse nations with countries/states. The national/ethnic issue was one of the causes of the war so I certainly wouldn't call it a trivia in this context. Nearly 1,5 million Czechs fought in the A-H uniforms for the Czech king aka Austrian emperor (cca 150,000 KIA) and over 100,000 in the Czech legions on the Allied side (cca 5,000 KIA). Trivia? Don't think so. Qertis (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrzej Chwalba notes that Polish ethnic losses in military are within 387.000-450.000. This certainly is not trivial number(as well as the 155,000 Czechs who died-a significant number). And neither Poles or Czechs were 'created' after First World War.--Molobo (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Poland and Czechoslovlkia did not exist as nation states during the war. They did not have armed forces. The casualties of the waring powers are reported for the nations that existed in 1914, not by ethnic group. An attempt to allocate casualties by ethnic group is a gross effort in trivial pursuit. Historians in the English speaking world do not allocate WW 1 casualties by ethic group.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is Czechoslovakia not Czechoslovlkia.

• They did not have armed forces

Please see Czech Legion, Polish Legions, Blue Army that acted on their own in several phases of the war.

• The casualties of the waring powers are reported for the nations that existed in 1914, not by ethnic group

The article's title is about general casualties of WWI not of waring powers only. Additionally Armenians are already liste despite being a warring power.

• An attempt to allocate casualties by ethnic group is a gross effort in trivial pursuit

This is your opinion and original research. Several scholars pursue this research as it is important to history.

• Historians in the English speaking world do not allocate WW 1 casualties by ethic group.

Can we have a source for that statement or is this a personal view ? Anyway that wouldn't be important-Wikipedia is sum of all human knowledge and does not restrict itself to Western histography-several topics on Wiki are concerning subjects Western histography neglects or does not write about.Correction:Norman Davies writes about population losses in Poland during First World War.Correction #2:US Congress report notes that Polish losses in First World War were were three and a half times less than those suffered in the Second World War.--Molobo (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The fallacy of your argument is that there were other ethnic groups besides Poles that served in the war. Using your logic we would need to add lines for the other nations created since 1918 and delete the figures of the borders of 1914, that is why your argument makes no sense whatsoever, Poles were not the only ethnic group in Europe, we would need to add a line for each not just Poles. The end result would be original research. Historians of WW1 never ever breakout casualties by ethnic group. Poland’s losses belong in the footnotes or on a page of Polish history, --Woogie10w (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't rebuild Rome, WW1 casualties are reported within 1914 boundries.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we add a new subhead to the table: ethnic groups. The current note on Poland seems out of place and style (and why does it talk about Russian casualties?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the subhead as requested.

--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Current edit by Woogie is ok by me mostly.

The current edit by Woogie is ok mostly by me. There is room for improvement but it is a good start of description. Of course we still need Czechs in seperate section-as it seems this has also been studied per above comment.--Molobo (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please put a redirect to the main note, I dont know how to do it.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

According to this source (an article by the Czech historian Ivan Šedivý), the estimated number of deaths form the ethnically Czech districts of Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) is around 138,000, this one gives the number of cca 175,000. Considering the fact that ethnic Germans formed about 1/3 of the population of Bohemia back then, the total number of deaths from the territory of present-day Czech Republic only could be well over 200,000. Qertis (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have three suggestions:

1-Do not delete what is posted there now. Let readers compare the different sources and make up their own minds.
2-Your sources from the internet can be taken off the internet at any time, a dead link will be deleted. A source in print is always prefered.
3-Your figure of 200,000 is original research, do not post it.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My Hunch:

I can't post this original research but the 26% of the Austo-Hungarian population went to Czechoslovakia in 1919. 1,100,000 military dead times .26 = 286,000. But we need a verifiable source.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic identification can be tricky, some of the ethnic Germans in the Waffen SS could also speak Czech or Slovak. I used to drink with these folks forty years ago, real cool guys--Woogie10w (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of WWI re-direct needed

Casualties of WWI needs to redirect here.--189.102.200.171 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

german wounded

whats the source for german wounded ? the western front article listed an higher number for german wounded on this front than this article about overall german wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.167.134 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tucker, Spencer C. ed. The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia This is the source for military wounded, unless stated otherwise--Woogie10w (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, Sanitätsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (Deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918, Volume 3, Sec. 1, Berlin 1934.<ref>{{cite book |title=Sanitaetsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege 1914-1918 |last=Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1934 |publisher= |location=Berlin |volume=Volume 3, Sec 1 |isbn= |language=German |page= |pages= |url= }}</ref> The official German Army medical war history on page 12 listed German wounded at 4,215,662.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

is there an estimate for wounded on the western front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is yes and no. German official data is broken out between eastern and western fronts from Aug 1914 until July 1918 for each month of the war. The data for the period Aug - Nov 1918 is incomplete, however the German military historians in the post war era did compile the total number wounded during the entire war.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

can u tell me the numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Was wollen Sie? Welcher Nummer? --Woogie10w (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

the figures for german wounded and KIA/MIA at the western front 1914-18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Military deaths - Central powers

The figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorldWarI-MilitaryDeaths-CentralPowers-Piechart.svg does not match the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.131.129.98 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking of military deaths, it should be : Germany 51%, Austria-Hungary 27%, Ottoman Empire 19% and Bulgaria 2%. Can anyone edit the image ? Bela59 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OUTDATED GRAPHICS

The section of Allied Dead military personal Pie chart is outdated it was creted from the data in the page from 2007.It should be Updated with the actual information of 2011. Acording to the actual data the new(should be) data is far diferent from the actual data. I recomend to someone with experience in pie-charts to update the chart for allied and Entente dead personel with updated information from the charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian causalities?

where--Karesu12340 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Famine deaths a result of more than just "trade disruption"?

I have a problem with the description of civilian deaths to starvation as a result of the war's simply "disrupting trade routes"...as I understand it the British Royal Navy as a matter of policy tried to starve the European Continental Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) despite such practices being in violation of international law, in fact they were even continued AFTER the surrender in order to "encourage" the defeated countries to sign heavily punitive peace treaties (Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon, Sevres). Thus many of these deaths were the result of deliberate policy decisions, not simply an unfortunate byproduct of the war as the article seems to imply. Historian932 (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

he Allies prevented neutral countries from shipping food or anything else to Germany/Austria. It was the decision of the Germans & Austrians to pull millions of farm men off the farms that caused the sharp drop in food supplies. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How did the Allies prevent neutral Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland from trading with Germany and Austria ? The couldn't and they didn't.

Portugal civilian deaths

The civilian death total for Portugal seems extravagant, as Portugal was effectively remote from any of the war zones. Did someone just make that number up ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Source is

Hersch, Liebmann, La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. No 1. This study published in an academic journal detailed the demographic impact of the war on France, the UK, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Serbia, Romania and Greece. The total estimated increase in the number of civilian deaths during the war was 2,171,000, not including an additional 984,000 Spanish Flu deaths. These indirect war losses were due to the severe shortages caused by the disruption of trade. The article is available from Metron, the publisher--Woogie10w (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Portugal was effectively in the war zone- They depended on US and UK shipping that was being attacked by German U-Boats. The shortages caused by the disruption of trade make sense when one looks at the spike in civilian deaths in France, the UK, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Serbia, Romania and Greece--Woogie10w (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not have called Portugal too remote from war zones. In addition to the contingent serving on the Western Front after it entered the war on the Entente Allied side, Portugal also had to defend two major African colonies, Mozambique and Angola, which bordered the then German South West Africa and German East Africa respectively.Cloptonson (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

German resistance in German Southwest Africa had ended prior to Portugal's entry into the war. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Brazil

Brazil contributed both soldiers and ships to the allies, but I have not been able to find any details on their total casualties. Anyone know where such information can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Total number of deaths

I read in the DK eyewitness book World War 1 that the total number of deaths was 22 million. It said 8 million were killed in action, 2 million died of diseases, 6 million civilians perished and 6 million went missing, presumed dead. Wiki answers also shows 22 million.

1- DK eyewitness book World War I is a childrens book and not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia.

2- I suspect the figure of 22 million includes Spanish Flu deaths not caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Monaco

Here's a reference that suggests Monaco lost 8 Carabinier during the war.1 - B-watchmework (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I known Monaco remained officially neutral during the war, though it allowed its citizens to volunteer in the French army. As such these men fought and died as French soldiers, not Monaco troops. The casualty listings are by nation of service, not nation of origin.

Siam

The Siamese Expeditionary Force lost 19 soldiers in Western Europe during WWI. Their names are listed on the Monument to the Expeditionary Force in Bangkok. The number of dead is also supported by the Wikipedia pages on Siam in WWI and the Royal Thai Army.

They served under their own flag.

69.126.206.152 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that can be verified supporting this statement.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the link used to cite the number on the Royal Thai Armed Forces entry page. http://thaimilitary.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/90th-anniversary-of-world-war-i-this-is-the-history-of-siamese-volunteer-crop/

69.126.206.152 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

looks OK--Woogie10w (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

India

The description used in this article for India - India(British Colony) doesn't make sense. First India wasn't a colony; colony is a term with specific meaning. India was an imperial political structure comprising (a) Presidencies and Provinces, directly governed by the British Crown through the Viceroy & Governor-General of India, and (b) Princely States, governed by Indian rulers, under the suzerainty of the British Crown exercised through the Viceroy & Governor-General of India. Second, British India included territories not within the modern borders of India, obviously Pakistan & Bangladesh, but also Burma, Yemen etc. It excluded territories whivh are part of modern India but which were then under French or Portuguese control.

It would be better to use either British India or Indian Empire - both of which were in use at the time and accurately reflect the political entity that the figures relate to. Dorset100 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How about India(British)?--Woogie10w (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That would definitely be an improvement :), thanks Dorset100 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am changing this to British India-British IndiaOvsek (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

I propose that we update the figures for military dead to reflect the ranges that are listed in the footnotes. A range is given for losses on the World War II casualties page. I believe that this should also be the case here on the World War I casualties page. Overall the page needs to be reviewed because the 100th anniversary is just around the corner. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Table headings

Why are some column headings right-aligned while others are not? This does not match guidelines in MOS:TABLE. Also, why do the sections for Allies of World War I and Central Powers contain headings for each individual column, but Neutral nations does not? Also, the Neutral nations sections does not span the entire width of the table, and underscores ("_") are used in the Military wounded column instead of horizontal bars ("—"). These issues were corrected in my edit, but were then undone by User:Nikhilmn2002. AldezD (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There are also missing spaces before the parenthesis in the column headers for "Military deaths(from all causes)". AldezD (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at what you did, the middle column was way too wide. IMO it looked goffey--Woogie10w (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than the width of the column in my revision, is there a reason why the other issues are present? AldezD (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest all I noticed was that goffey middle column, I don't have a clue about Wiki formatting, I rely on folks like you to clean things up. I just crunch numbers on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

UK civilian deaths - higher in WWI than in WWII?

Please see my post at Talk:World_War_II_casualties#UK_civilian_deaths_-_higher_in_WWI_than_in_WWII.3F for the discussion of a possible error in the table here. PS. The ref for the number here is Hersch, L., La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 47–61 - seems a bit dubious; both due to age and due to needing 20 pages range for a single number. Can anyone verify it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The civilian death toll in the UK of 107,000 was caused by the U-boat blockade that disrupted trade in the war. The statistic was computed by comparing the total annual civilian deaths in 1912-13 to the period 1914-19. Total civilian deaths in 1914-19 were roughly 4.1 million, this was 292,000 greater than the prewar level including 183,000 influenza deaths, the excess deaths due to the war (excluding influenza deaths) was 107,000 civilians. This is about 2.5% higher than the prewar level. The source for this statistic is a demographic study published in an academic journal. Contact me by Email and I will be glad to provide a PDF of the section in the article in Metron- The International Review of Statistics. When one considers the fact that Europe depended on imports of food in 1914 this statistic makes sense. The poor in Europe suffered disproportionately because food prices were inflated because of the disruption of trade during the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is another study Losses of Life Caused by War by Dumas published by OUP in 1923. The author put excess deaths in England & Wales from 1915-18 at 281,000 of which 100,000 were due to influenza epidemic. This study is available online at the internet archive[15]. (see pages 150-53) It is is cited in the article. See World War I casualties#Sources--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Casaulties of Serbia in WW1

Hello,I'm Miloskula. This is official information about casaulties of Serbia in WW1.Source is Rebuplic of Serbia Ministry of Defence. I propose a change abouth military (402,435) , civilian (845,000) and total deaths (1,247,435) of Serbia in WW1 (28% of Serbia polulation). Follow next link for confirm that information. If page open in Serbian language, turn on English option language. Cheers. http://www.mod.gov.rs/sadrzaj.php?id_sadrzaja=7222

The source of this information is not the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defense but a doctor who made the claim at a conference that of Serbia lost 1,247,435 in WW1 (28% of Serbia polulation). In any case this Wikipedia page presents all the published figures for WW 1 casualties that are supported by reliable sources. The statement by this doctor could be included in the article but it cannot be the only figure for WW 1 casualties of Serbia.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The figure of 1.247 million includes about 500,000 children not born and losses in the Balkan Wars, the census figures in 1921 indicate that losses were closer to 800,000 see Demographic history of Serbia#1921 census (excluding Vojvodina, including Kosovo and Macedonia) , See also A demographic study put total the war dead for Serbia and Montenegro at 750,000 (300,000 military and 450,000 civilians). The overall population deficit from 1912–1920, based on the prewar level, was 1,187,000 less 150,000 killed in the Balkan Wars and a decline in the number of births of 336,000, in addition there were 47,000 deaths from 1914–1920 related to the war that were included with deaths by natural causes Hersch, Liebmann, La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. No 1.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there must be multiple sources.I appreciate your opinion. Wikipedia on French language shows those informations:

military deaths - 450,000

civilian deaths - 800,000

and total deaths of Serbia in WW1 -1,250,000

Source is Frédéric Le Moal, La Serbie du martyre à la Victoire 1914-1918, 2008, éditions 14-18 (2013) (ISBN 9782916385181), page 231.

Thank you I have requested this book at the New York Public Library so that I can verify this. Bear in mind we cannot use French Wikipedia as a source. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was in the city today to verify the figures in the book , La Serbie du martyre à la Victoire 1914-1918. I updated the footnotes to reflect what the source is telling us. I made a photocopy of the relevant page and can make a PDF or Word file if necessary. Frédéric Le Moal in his book cited an article in Revue d'histoire diplomatique. as the source of his figures. I will check this source next week when the New York Public Library pulls it from storage. Stay tuned.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WWI European percentage map

Hello, today I added a map of European deaths by percentage I made yesterday. The map I used is from 1914, so it is a map of countries going into WWI not out of it. The map for example includes the Austria-Hungary empire, which was disbanded in 1918. The map is used to show how the nation's populations were affected by WWI.

I personally think this map fits this page well (I made it so I am very biased). If anyone feels the map is not relevant/needed you can take it down.

Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Explaining contradictory UK figures

This is purely OR on my part, but I want to explain why the UK figures appear contradictory.

The figure of 887,000 includes not only UK and non-dominion colonies but also some 50,000 civilian African porters.

The figure 758,000 for the UK Army per the CWGC is inflated by the inclusion of non-dominion colonies and post-1918 deaths. I believe that the post-1918 deaths are from all causes and not merely war related.

The figure of 702,000 for the UK army given by the War Office must be Army dead from all causes, contrary to their assertion that it only includes battle deaths. It is similar to the 704,000 given in the Ancestry database and for that reason I also do not believe it actually include the Royal Naval Division.

The figure of 673,000 UK army deaths in a 1921 report appears on closer examination to be from the preliminary report given in p. 243 of the War Office publication which also lists some 573,000 deaths exclusive of the 100,000 still missing. This report does not include UK soldiers who died in the UK itself from various causes, which is why it is lower than the War Office and Ancestry figures.

Royal Navy deaths in the CWGC database includes the Royal Naval Division while the War Office Report does not.

I hope this clears up some confusion.

CJK (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:

We cannot post material to Wikipedia without a reliable source. -

on page 303 of the war office report the African porters are listed in a separate schedule, a more than likely explanation for the difference in CWGC figures is the inclusion of deaths of forces in the U.K. due to training accidents and disease ie. the flu pandemic also the inclusion of porters in France from China. We cannot as editors second guess the CWGC. We can only put down the description given by CWGC and let readers know that some deaths occurred after the war ended. For example the family of a soldier who died of wounds in 1920 or died in a training accident has the right to petition the CWGC for the inclusion of the casualty. As editors of Wikipedia we cannot say the CWGC is wrong to include a soldier who died of wounds in 1920 or died in a training accident, we simply are not allowed to post this to Wikipedia. Readers can make that judgement based on the fact that deaths occurred after 11/18 You use the word "inflated" for CWGC figures however we cannot breakout losses from the British Isles, it cannot be done.

I have posted a summary of the figures by theatre in the War Office Report pages 249-332 that add down to 673,000. Note well the footnote on page 237 mentions that figures include RND. The RND is included in the figures for France and the Dardanelles. From an accountants POV the War Office report is a mess, I would have been fired if I handed in this report to management. The figures on page 237 do not agree with the details on pages 249-332. Also note well the figures for the Dominions in the detailed reports are not in agreement with the summary given on page 237. The figures add down to 158,148 in the detailed reports, on page 237 of the War Dept report the total is 205,961. Your guess is as good as mine as to why this is the case.

Also note well that the Army total for the entire British Empire forces in Casualties and Medical Statistics published in 1931 is as follows 876,084, which included 418,361 killed, 167,172 died of wounds, 113,173 died of disease or injury, 352,458 MIA/POW of whom 161,046 missing and presumed dead and 16,332 dead as prisoners(see page 12)[16]. Add the Royal Navy Dead and missing of 32,287 and the figure is 908,371. What a coincidence that it agrees exactly to the figure on page 237 of the war office report. IMO either the War office or the 1931 Medical report forced the number. In any case we do not have the details for the 908,371, the discrepancy is unexplained in the sources.

Readers can easily surmise that the official figures are divergent and contradictory, it is not our job as editors to offer our guess as to why they are not in agreement--Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

--Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Addressing this in order:

1. The 887,000 figure is from the CWGC, not the war office report. Clearly CWGC uses a different methodology.

2. I'm not sure where you get the idea that post-1918 losses must be war related in the CWGC database. My point is that CWGC is a shaky source for establishing purely UK casualties

3. The 673,000 listed on the subsequent pages of the War Office report exclude deaths in the UK itself, while imo the 702,000 figure probably includes them. Since this is in accordance with the Ancestry figure, I believe RND is not included despite what the footnote says.

4. An Ancentry search gives around 32,000 deaths at "home" also so either the War Office report excludes home deaths but includes naval deaths or vice versa. Either way what it says is wrong.

CJK (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Re 887,000 figure from the CWGC, the figure includes the colonies as well as losses in the UK. They do not use the figure of 50,000 African porters, that is your guess. I made the entry The CWGC figures include all war related deaths including those outside of combat theaters caused by training accidents and disease and conscripted workers from Asia and Africa in British military service.

You wrote CWGC is a shaky source for establishing purely UK casualties, the article is clear that the colonies and conscripted workers are included. In any case they were in UK service fighting for the UK. Take US casualties for example , there were men in US service who were not American citizens, if they were killed they are listed with US war dead. The Chinese laborer in France who gave his life for the UK is a UK casualty. The CWGC does not breakout the origin of the UK casualties.

You wrote 702,000 figure probably includes losses in the UK. We need a reliable source that says this, we cannot guess on Wikipedia

We cannot tell readers that the 702,000 figure is wrong based an inquiry on Ancestry.com. That is OR and cannot go on Wikipedia. In the first place readers cannot verify the claim unless they pay the fee to use Ancestry.com. Our guesswork has no place on Wikipedia. On the talk page OK, in an article definitely not.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO this Wikipedia page should include all the reliable sources as they are. We need to faithfully post the details provided by these sources without including our opinions. We should never exclude a reliable source because we do not agree with its conclusions or embellish the source with our OR and opinions.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not my "guess", as I have researched it and there is an actual CWGC memorial commemorating 50,000 African porter deaths. A simple search for "United Kingdom Forces" in WWI yields only around 830,000 records.

There is still no evidence that only "war related" deaths are reported in CWGC as you claim. They appear to be from all causes.

Including colonial deaths with British Isles deaths is extremely confusing to the reader. "United Kingdom" should obviously be restricted to the United Kingdom. As it is in the War Office and Ancestry figures

You yourself have already written extensively about the flaws of the 702,000 figure. Pointing out that it is similar to the Ancestry figure and might include Home deaths should not be an issue.

The Ancestry search functions do not require any payment, you only pay to read individual records. Personally I haven't paid a dime to Ancestry.

CJK (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the CWGC The statistics tabulated by The Commonwealth War Graves Commission are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former UK Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Their published report lists 887,000 UK and Colonies war dead. Readers can see in black and white that they put UK war dead at 887,000 not 830,000.

At this point all the sources are posted in the footnotes with detailed descriptions, readers know the facts. In fact the Ancestry page puts the figure at 703,000. Readers can see that --Woogie10w (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did an inquiry on Ancestry.com. They require membership to use the service. They put the UK war dead at 703,000 on the header page--Woogie10w (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact I have posted to the footnotes the War Office figure of 702,410 dead does not agree to the figures by theatre detailed in the report. The authors do not explain this discrepancy, their figure of 702,410 dead might also include Army casualties outside of combat theaters and or porters in the African campaign. At this point I don't believe there is an issue. Readers can see that the figures are not in agreement and will draw their own conclusions--Woogie10w (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why does it only show 830,985 when you put it in a search? [17] In any case you can find the memorial I'm talking about here [18] it explains that the figures are civilians and only included within the commemoration figures.

Ancestry does not require a fee for membership, so this really isn't an issue.

Look I tried to do an inquiry and they did ask me to join , this is an issue. I cannot verify your figures at my IP address in the US

The idea that the 702,000 figure includes African porter deaths seems rather unfounded, as we know the CWGC database includes African casualties and it puts it closer to 800,000 (758,000 plus 50,000 porters). The only two alternatives is that it includes Royal Navy deaths or Home deaths.

CJK (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In any case their published figure is 887,000 not 830,000. We cannot change the CWGC figures based on your search, My hunch is that some dead cannot be identified by name or data.

Look I tried to do an Ancestry.com inquiry and they did ask me to join , this is an issue. I cannot verify your figures at my IP address in the US

The War Dept report does have a schedule of African porters and they do not explain why there is a difference.

--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You can find the memorial I'm talking about here [19] it explains that the figures are civilians and only included within the commemoration figures. CJK (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The African combatant troops raised for the East African campaign numbered 34,000. The non-combatant porters, stevedores and followers of the Military Labour Corps 600,000. Almost 50,000 of these men were lost, killed in action died of sickness or wounds, but as no complete record of their names exists, no names appear on the memorials. We cannot exclude these war dead because they were not from the British Isles, they are clearly part of the CWGC total.-Woogie10w (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My point is that these deaths are civilians and should be listed separate from military deaths. Also, your theory about porters being included in the 702,000 figure does not really add up as the War Office report lists over 40,000 while the discrepancy is closer to 30,000. Moreover the figures on p. 237 do not include African deaths anywhere so it would be bizarre to include civilian porters but not Army deaths.

CJK (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

CJK (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line of 702,410 has no support in the War Dept report, we have let readers know this. However we have no reliable source to explain this difference. Our opinions as editors cannot be the final word on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point we cannot provide a reliable published source that gives the figure of military dead in combat theaters of men from the British Isles. We can only list those sources that are available and their details. Our guesswork cannot be the posted on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You already have inserted speculation that the 702,000 includes porter deaths. That speculation is simply unfounded for the reasons explained. The Ancestry figure is the closest to being accurate for total deaths as it lists world-wide deaths of the UK army exclusively from all causes. While the CWGC lumps in a bunch of colonial deaths and the other lists are limited to combat theaters.

CJK (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The main table does in fact list both the 703,000 figure on Ancestry and also points out that the 2014 CWGC figure includes 50,000 African porters. The readers can go to the footnotes for the details and decide for themselves what to accept as the closest to being accurate for total deaths--Woogie10w (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be clearly explained in the first paragraph that 673,000 is total deaths in combat theaters while Ancestry's 703,000 is total deaths including in the UK.

CJK (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wounded in France would have been transferred to the U.K., if they died in hospital they more than likely would have been included with the war dead. The War Dept figures also include men who died of wounds after 11/18 up until 12/31/20. Also families of men killed in UK training accidents have petitioned the CWGC to include their ancestors with the war dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that addresses my point. 673,000 is the total dead in combat zones. 703,000 is the total dead including the U.K.. This should be noted in the first paragraph. I don't know if 673,000 includes DOW in the UK but either way non-combat dead in the UK is not in 673,000 while it is in 703,000.

CJK (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The RAF was formed in April 1918 and they do not appear on the Army report of 1921 for the years 1918/19, prior to that the Royal Flying Corps was included in the Army figures. Where is the RAF 1918/19 on page 237? It may have been plugged in with the Army in the War Dept report.

The total POW on p. 331 for the RA/TA is 167,555 and the RND 3,073 Total 170,628. The POW total on page 237 is 170,389--Woogie10w (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RND

The divisional history by Douglas Jerrold (1923) gives 445 officers 7,102 OR killed, subdivided as Antwerp, MEF and BEF. 19 O and 647 OR "Died", 1,364 O "Wounded" and 29,528 OR. p. 338.Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

UK POW confusion

It says 6,700 POWs died, but on p. 331 it is more like 10,000. Are these figures overlapping or separate?

CJK (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

On page 331 they list a total of 167,555 RA/TA pows of whom 13,389 died in captivity, the balance of 154,166 surviving @ 5 April 1919. The March1921 Army report puts surviving POW at 154,308.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So where did the 6,700 figure come from (you appear to have deleted it)? CJK (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I replaced those preliminary figures with the March 1921 Army report data for each theatre of the war, it makes sense because the figures tie out to the official total--Woogie10w (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Conscription of Ethnic Groups

The war involved multi-ethnic empires such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Turkey. The diverse ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic empires were conscripted for military service.

I have changed the definite article boldened in the above passage to Many, because there was no conscription throughout the war in the British Indian Empire (aka Undivided India pre-Pakistan).Cloptonson (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Republic of San Marino

Anyone looked into San Marino's losses? The People's Almanac The Book of Lists 2, (authors David Wallechinsky, Irving, Amy and Sylvia Wallace) (first published 1980) under the "The 6 Smallest Countries on Earth", mentions: "During WWI San Marino sided with the Allies and lost two soldiers". It is unclear if the two were serving in San Marino's own tiny army or in the Italian forces.Cloptonson (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the History of San Marino article; San Marino remained officially neutral throughout the war, which caused considerable tension between them and Italy. Some Sammarinese did volunteer to serve in the Italian army; but these volunteers did not have the official sanction of the San Marino government and therefore were not San Marino soldiers. The article does not state casualties, but considering the Italian casualty figures it is quite likely some were killed. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting but it seems trivial IMO.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The publication referred to is US and compiled by Americans, whose state was neutral, then Entente Allied. Correction I owe - it was the "Book of Lists 3", Sylvia Wallace was not one of the joint authors, and it was published 1983. (I had Book 2 out to consult as well.)Cloptonson (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disproportional range of losses.

I know that because of the way of counting losses and the different array of sources some casualties could have a diff range of some thousands, but the Case of Belgium & Greece its a Scandal, the lower and higher numbers of military killed have a difference of 3 to 4 times. Especially in the Case of Belgium. This in the end gives a 1.5 million difference between the lower and higher Allied Overall Killed. Witch is in my Point of View too disproportional.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That is what our sources tell us, you can verify the figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian population

Australia's mean population 1914-1918 was 4,984,432. See Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3105.0.65.001 - Australian Historical Population Statistics, 2014. The figures are in the "Population Size and Growth" spreadsheet, which you will find under Downloads. 86.187.52.18 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

General caveat

This interesting report on some recent Australian research highlights the general difficulties in interpreting WWI casualty figures.

For example, a casualty tally based on hospital admissions will tend to be high because the same soldier was often admitted to hospital more than once. A wounded soldier who went on to die is likely to be counted under both dead and wounded. And so on.

It is not WP's job to correct the figures in its sources, but it might be worth adding a general caveat in the "Classification of casualty statistics" section about the limitations of the data and the ways in which it can be flawed. 86.187.52.18 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the study mentioned in the article "it is now estimated that 62,300 died (+/- 400)" this is in agreement with the figure of the CWGC of 62,081. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP didn't mention the Australian death toll. The point being made was more general than that. 94.119.127.254 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

CE

Blammed a few typos and added missing bibliographic details. The Sources section overlaps with Further Reading, could they be merged? Just a thoughtKeith-264 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that it may screw up the refrences routine, I am not sure--Woogie10w (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

On reflection I think you're right, the references aren't uniform, some are <> short version, some long and there are a few ones too. It might need a comprehensive revamp which will need consensus to attempt.Keith-264 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've put the Further reading section into alphabetical order and had another look at the references, which I do think would benefit from a uniform short form of notation, because much of the detail in the footnotes is duplicated in Further reading and because many of the sources referred to are used several times. See Battle of Sidi Barrani, which has the short footnote inside squiggles form, to link lots of footnotes to the same source and Western Desert Campaign which uses <> references. Both avoid duplication and overlaps (the long form <> system is also available but I'm useless at it). Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Italian military casualties

The estimate of 462,000 to 650,000 Italian military casualties in World War I should be corrected to 650,000: each and every Italian source give the latter number. 462,000 is completely inaccurate.--93.65.1.215 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The table lists the range of published official sources, these sources are cited. It is not our job as editors to determine if a source is inaccurate or not. Both figures are accurate depending on the classification of deaths the figure of 460,000 are killed in action & died of wounds, the 650,000 includes 186,000 died of disease. Some sources omit died of disease ie. flu.

See the footnote for Italy.

The Italian government put military war deaths at 651,000 (killed in action or died of wounds 378,000; died of disease 186,000 plus an additional 87,000 deaths of invalids from 12 Nov. 1918 until 30 April 1920, due to war related injuries.) These official figures were published in an Italian study of war losses by G. Mortara, however he estimated actual losses until the wars end in Nov. 1918, at 600,000 (400,000 killed or died of wounds and 200,000 deaths due to disease).[47] A brief summary of data from this study can be found online

The report of the U.K. War Office listed 1,937,000 casualties up until Nov. 11, 1918 (460,000 dead; 947,000 wounded and 530,000 prisoners)

I hope this helps.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Belgian Congo casualties

Currently the article cites a figure of 155,000 deaths in the Belgian Congo during WWI. This sounds absurd to me (considering the tiny participation of the Congo in the war) and the dubious claim that this is "based on sources published in the Soviet Union and Russia". One of the classic problems in Congolese historiography is that there were no censuses in the country until the mid-1920s anyway, so I'm really sceptical of this. Unless another source can be provided, or the academic reputation of Mr. Erlikman confirmed, I'm proposing to delete this section as a fringe theory.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We need to keep this, why? Erlikman is a professional historian with a Phd. 2- There are sources from the west to back this up The conflict in East Africa caused enormous civilian casualties. The Oxford History of World War One notes that "In east and central Africa the harshness of the war resulted in acute shortages of food with famine in some areas, a weakening of populations, and epidemic diseases which killed hundreds of thousands of people and also cattle."--Woogie10w (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Having a doctorate does not necessarily make you an reliable source, especially on something that is clearly not his primary research area. How are 20,000 soldiers and porters supposed to eat so much that 155,000 people die of famine? There obviously were casualties, but that figure is still absurd. I've searched Google books in English, French and Dutch (the primary languages for the study of the Congo, unlike Russian) and can find not the faintest evidence to support it. Again, do you have any additional evidence? Can you clarify how Erlikman explains his methodology? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your remarks. The Oxford History of World War One supports the argument that there was a population loss due to famine in central Africa. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia (which is a WP:RS and academic source) which describes figures for the Congo as "unrealiable" and which does not even attempt to provide an estimate-by-colony. With all respect, the Oxford History you cite just says lots of people died in Africa during the war - something I do not dispute. Also note that the encyclopedia provides an estimate of 50,000 casualties for the whole of North Africa, a region which (like the Congo) was also not a warzone. It cites 18,200 Congolese porters and soldiers killed (about 8% of your estimate!) which sounds considerably more reasonable.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"sounds considerably more reasonable" is you OR without a source, just your opinion. The figure of 150,000 is 2% of the total population of 6 million in the Congo, in Italy there were 589,000 excess deaths due to shortages 2% of the population. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Piron: to rubbish a source because it is Soviet is as absurd as rubbishing it for being American. Unless you apply the same criteria to all of the sources in the article, you risk riding a hobby-horse and proposing a fringe theory of your own. Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The source is not Soviet, it is Russian published in 2004. The author has academic credentials as an historian. Erlikman in fact disputes the Soviet era figures for the victims of Stalin.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I assumed it was a Soviet-era source because of Piron's comment. As for our opinion of such figures as exist, it's irrelevant but for me, if 20,000 fit young men were removed from the farm labour pool in Congo, wouldn't their labour productivity have been supporting quite a large population of children and old folk? Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

On these issues a result far from ordinary requires a reliable source to carefully explain how he got his results--what primary sources he used, what assumptions he made. History professors in Russia have limited resources to work with (I know because I used to be a history professor in Moscow) so the issue of sources is critical. Even more important is the approval or critique of Erlikman'a findings by other experts as in journal reviews. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia "[20]" cited the estimates by Erlikman. We do in fact have academic sources outside of Russia that support the inclusion of his figures. Rather than delete Erlikman, we need to provide background on his methodology --Woogie10w (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

the souce used is Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik [. Population Losses in the twentieth century: a handbook] Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 see https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=https://books.google.com/books%3Fid%3D5E3mAAAAIAAJ%26q%3Disbn:5931651071%26dq%3Disbn:5931651071&prev=search It is a compilation of other sources--Erlikman himself is not an expert on Africa. The issue then is what RS on Congo did he use? Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

See The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia "[21]". Erlikman based his figures on the work of the demographer Urlanis. I have a hard copy of the Erlikman book and will provide jpgs if requested. In any case we have a reliable academic source that cites his figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Erlikman figures got posted here because Wikipedia editors from Poland demanded to see the Polish war dead back in 2008. Since Poland was not a separate nation in 1914-18, I put the Erlikman figures here. The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia also cites Erlikman. What do propose? Deleting Erlikman. I propose keeping him but alerting readers that the figures are rough estimates. We are not saying Erlikman has definitive figures on civilian losses. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the provisional nature of the numbers of war dead and the causes in the bureaucratic states of northern Europe, it's not surprising that the fate of quasi-slaves in the colonies can only be sketched in general terms, which I think the article makes clear. If you want to make it more pointed I don't suppose it will do any harm but I hope we don't underestimate the general reader.Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sortable table doesn't sort correctly

In the table of casualties I believe you need something like

  data-sort-type="number"

added to each column's descriptor. As is, "100,000" is treated as SMALLER than "40,000" (since "1" is smaller than "4"  :-) Look at the similar table for WW II casualties to see what I mean. Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Typo on Grand Total upper bound

There seems to be an error on the grand total upper bound for military wounded, “23,6665,873”. I’m assuming the editors intended value is “23,665,873”. However, I’m struggling to figure out the method of calculation for the upper bound: 12,812,271 + 8,751,805 = 21,564,076 ? If this is something obvious, excuse my ignorance. Soulred205 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

fixed--Woogie10w (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

New column needed: "Military deaths as % of the enlisted soldiers"

Hi! What do you think about that? Because there are only percentage about the total death per population ratio. --Blemse (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Give us a break there are 9 columns there now, just compute value with your calculator using the data in the footnotes--Woogie10w (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Deaths as a % of the Pop" in the Subtotal for the British Empire is larger than in any of the individual countries.

This is mathematically impossible. Something is wrong somewhere. (I'm referring to the Casualties by 1914–18 borders table.) EJR~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)