Forum Post 6 - Casualties of the "Great War" - Mr. Tredinnick's Class Site

Forum Post 6 - Casualties of the "Great War"

3/10/2014

Choose one of the countries below (must be a European country and can NOT do the same country as somebody else) and explain the following things:
- What things factored in to the number of Soldiers killed, wounded, or captured for your country
+ Take into consideration did they win or lose the war
+ How might the geographical area they were fighting in have contributed to their casualty country.
+ Who were they fighting (ex. an industrialized nation or highly nationalistic nation) and how might that have caused more of less casualties.
- What does their "Casualties as % of Forces" tell us about this countries fighting capabilities, training, and technological development of that country's armed forces?
- Compare your country to the most modern (most Industrialized and Liberalized) country in the world (The United States) and come up with a possible explanation for why your country's statistics (especially Casualties as % of Forces) are higher or lower.

12 Comments

Tim Goetz link

3/6/2014 05:39:15 am

As a losing Allied Power, it is unsurprising that the Empire of Austria-Hungary has the highest rate of casualties in World War I. In fighting the Russians, Austria-Hungary lost ninety percent of their fighting forces. Part of the reason for this may lie in the fact that Austria-Hungary proved itself to be an embarrassment (it was known as the "Sick Old Man" to the rest of Europe) because the country was not very industrialized, and therefore did not manufacture the type of machinery that was necessary to win a war. Russia, meanwhile, was also sub-par in terms of industrialization, but the huge difference in sheer numbers (Russia's fighting forces dwarfed that of Austria-Hungary's) and the fact that Russia was slightly more efficient in pumping out guns and other artillery likely played a role in Austria-Hungary's embarrassing loss.

Compared to the United States, Austria-Hungary's mobilized forces would likely be crushed in the event of a war. Because of the Empire's massive loss of life one can assume that Austria-Hungary's army was ill-equipped and ill-trained, and overall ill-prepared to fight a war. The United States had (and still has) greater production power to manufacture the machines necessary for war, and American soldiers were likely better-trained because of their late entry into the war (meaning that our soldiers were young and 'fresh,' not a second-rate batch of men like the rest of Europe was forcing into battle). These opinions are supported by the "Casualties as % of Forces" column, which shows that while 90% of Austria-Hungary's forces in World War I were killed or wounded, less than eight percent of the United States' soldiers were lost in their one year of involvement (again, likely because of their late entry into the conflict).

Daniel Michelsen

3/9/2014 05:15:20 am

Romania was a winning power, but only on paper. Romania has a bad location in this case World War 1, because they are located between bugaria and Hungary. most of the war between Russia, Romania against Bulgaria and Hungary-Austria happend in Romania. this was bad for their population because after a lot of russian setbacks Romania had to fight on their own, and they were not a big power. the result was that a lot of their people got taken in prisons, or staright up killed. They where on the winning side of the war, but lost to Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. 71.4% casulties shows us that they where not well prepared, not enought training, to dependent on Russia and bad technology. Romania was liberal during WW1.

Romaina had a lot more casulties. 74.4% VS United States 7.1% but it is some really important factors to bring in. Romania was located in the war zone, and fought from the beginning, USA got in later, and they where from a whole different continent. the united states could set their troops in peaceful zones, and than bring them to war, but romanias troops didnt have a choise. USA had better technology, but they where in a better position too.

Darice

3/9/2014 06:12:33 am

While some countries (The British Empire) have an "exact" number of people killed, Serbia simply says 45,000 as the number of people killed, even though they have an "exact" number of people wounded as well as an "exact" number of casualties. This was either a very strange coincidence, or they didn't count, or if they did, they've just decided to not release the information for whatever reason.
While the WWI Serbian borders differ from today's Serbian borders, the size of the country has not significantly changed. I was a little surprised at the numbers because they were actually lower than I thought they'd be. It makes sense when you see how many troops they mobilized, but I thought that number would've been higher, because they were a major part of the conflicts that started the war.
Serbia had just slightly more casualties than the US, but percentage-wise, Serbia lost a lot more, but this is also partially because not only did the US come in later than Serbia, who were part of it from the very beginning, but they also sent in a lot more troops with better training and weapons.

Bridget

3/9/2014 06:52:49 am

Russia had 1.7 million soldiers killed, 4.95 million wounded, and 2.5 million missing or captured. Russia kind of lost the war because they gave up in 1917, and went and became socialist. Contributing to the move to leave the war was the fact that they were not doing very well, leading the Russian people to be more upset with the state of their country. Unlike on the western front, the eastern front where the Russians were fighting had less soldiers relative to the area they were covering. In the east the soldiers were moving around more, not just staying a a trench for a long time, but this also lead to more Russian deaths. The Russians were fighting the Germans, who were industrialized, and probably could have won the war if the United States had not gotten involved in the conflict.
Russia's "Casualties as % of Forces" was 76.3, the second highest only after Austria-Hungary. This statistic indicates that Russia was probably not very militarily advanced, especially considering that they had been beaten by the Japanese only 10 years earlier. Also, due to the magnitude of the war and the rapid loss of soldiers, the training of soldiers was not the best. Russia's "casualties as % of forces" was more than 10 times that of the United States. This has to do with that the United States went in at the end of the war, about the same time that Russia left. If Russia was no longer fighting, the war in Europe was more concentrated on the western front, had less casualties. The United States also had better training and technology than did Russia.

Florian Badidi

3/9/2014 10:16:05 am

Belgium was a country in the winning side but they blew up very fast by their neighbor and also the biggest enemy, Germany. The War World I really started in Europe when Germany invaded the Belgian territory in 1914 but the Belgian army fought against their enemy but were not enough strong against the biggest industrialized country in Europe. The resistance was mostly in the north part of the country because it was a strategical area for both side. These areas included an access to the sea and so Britain and France had to protect Belgium. They mostly fought against Germany who was the most industrialized country in Europe and also the main enemy of the other side and the Belgian casualties were around 35% of their total mobilized force during all the war. Their low casualties showed us that Belgium was a good industrialized country because they did not really lose a lot of soldiers during the war even against a big enemy showing that they were a small but persistent fighter. In comparaison with the most industrialized country in the country who was the United States, their casualties as % of forces was high but not that much because Belgium was a good industrialized country with a lot of technologies but in comparaison with the USA they had less people and also less time to prepare their forces for the war as the USA did.

Barud Tesfaye

3/9/2014 11:22:09 am

During the war Germany had to hold up both fronts from the west and east. In doing so required much of Germany's military to split and reinforce those fronts against the allies. Germany was very Industrialized at this time and was able to easily push back Russia, but had many difficulties fighting France, England, and then the United States. Germany suffered approximately seven-million casualties, Most where on the western front where it was nothing but constant battle. Many soldiers where killed and wounded during the battle due to the horrid conditions that where present.

Germany suffered far more casualties then that the United States due to the inability to fight an oversea battle with another industrialized nation such as the United States.

Valentin Laasch

3/9/2014 04:16:19 pm

France was a winning power, although they only survived becasue of the help of Britain. France got a high percentage of casulties of their Forces, becasue they got overrun by Germany until Britain helped them right in front of Paris. If Britain hadn't been so close, France would be lost. Only together they were able to stop the more industrialized army. But with the immlotation of many men the stoped and hold the Germany army for the whole four years.
Compared to the United States, France percentage of casulties is much higher because America was more idustrialized, because France was so close to Germany and the first target from Germany. The war was in directly in France in front of Paris, not like America which is Over the ocean. Also America jioned the war later, France was after Belgium the second country that got attacked by Germany.

Sir Robert Chuck Swaggedy III

3/10/2014 04:26:39 am

Initially having no part of the war, Portugal was dragged in by German U-boat attacks on British ships off Portuguese coast lines. Being far from both major fronts the Portuguese army was stationed in Africa to fight against the Germans for British and Portuguese interests. 100,000 Portuguese troops were deployed by the end of the war, almost all in Africa. After the fighting was over the Portuguese army lost 1/3 of its total troops; this is understandable going up against an industrialized power such as Germany; Portugal was barely industrialized, if at all. Other factors were the alien environment and lack of military expertise.

Compared to the United States Portugal lost a significant percentage of its military. Both came into the war much later, the only plausible explanation for the loss of troops is environment and lack of military training on the Portuguese side.

dopplegang

3/10/2014 05:01:43 am

Bulgaria was on the losing side of the war, and they relative to the other associated powers their casualty percentage was the lowest. This is most likely because they were the least frightening of tthe sociated powers. Another factor is the only major allied power they were close too was Russia. Russia was too busy with Germany to mount a full attack on Bulgaria. Mist of their fighting was done between the Balkan countries .
Bulgaria cannot compare to the most modern nation the united states. The united states casualty percentage was much lower because they were more trained and organized then the Bulgarian forces. Also they were surrounded by enemies where the united states were able to choose their entry points and battles.

Phoebe Wahlberg

3/10/2014 05:23:03 pm

Italy was a unique force in the Great War, as the nation was observant and watched the progression of the war and changed sides accordingly. Even after following the stronger powers, Italy lost 600,000 men and over a million were wounded. Although this death-toll was minor compared to the other nations involved in the great war, Italy faced extreme economic deficits as the war cost more than the last 50 years of government spending combined.
The Italian army was relatively disorganized and the country itself was still fighting to be unified. The weakness of the army was demonstrated when Italy attempted to invade the close by country of Austria, as Italy made it only 10 miles in. The geographical shape and positioning of the peninsula, having Slovenia as a buffer between both Germany and Hungary left Italy relatively isolated and this in part explains the lower death and injury counts (in relation to the other major powers in the war.) Further, this geographical isolation also explains the low "casualties as % of force" statistic, which has less to do with the power or numbers of Italy's military and more to do with the minimal military action taken due to convenient placement. Some more powerful countries during the Great War came out with even less military casualties, the most obvious reason being they industrialized quicker and on a larger scale. Nations such as the United States having only 7% military casualties, proved to be more successful both because of better military technology and supply due to the fast and universal industrialization that Italy lacked.

Henry Schaller

3/13/2014 01:37:58 pm

Turkey or the Ottoman Empire lost the war but their casualties are relatively low compared to the other Central Powers. The area where they fought was a factor because the tactics used was guerrilla warfare almost the complete opposite of the trench warfare used on the western front. Turkey fought against the Russians and British. The Russians were not very industrialized and more focused on holding the Germans in the west. The British were highly industrialized but were also more focused on the Germans. The British relied on people like T.E Lawrence to start revolutions within the Ottomans borders. The Ottoman's casualties were about 34% this is pretty low compared to the other major countries. This is because the Ottoman Army was well supplied with German weapons. Compared to the United States's casualties the Ottomans are much higher, this is because they fought through the whole war whereas the United States was only a part for two years. The Ottomans also were often fighting in their own borders and the United States was not.

Hector Gonzalez

5/30/2014 06:21:37 am

England with their record in high industralize index is not a coincidence that their casualties % of forces is 36 compare with France a country with less preparation in their armies with a casualty % of force been 74. A country as England had very good ability for manufacturing weapons and because they were fighting in a foreign territory that helped them if they wanted to retreat.
The fact that the territory of England is really easy to defend, because in a war where you have to focus in different fronts for battle,as an enemy if you want to attack a country which you can only get through by water, they have a good advantage.
If we compare England with America we can see that America is more industralize and because of that of course it wil be easier for them to produce the weapons they need in a war better that Ingland.
The small amount of casualties % of forces (8%) of America is also because of the fact that America had a lot of more time to train troops and they had better weapons.

Forum Post 6 - Casualties of the "Great War"

Leave a Reply.

AP EURO FORUM

Archives

Categories

Home

Geography for Geographers

Contact