Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Zealand suffered the highest casualties, per capita, during WWI - Yale professor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Zealand suffered the highest casualties, per capita, during WWI - Yale professor

    "Renowned historian Jay Winter has told Newshub he believes New Zealand suffered far more proportionally than any other country in the British Empire during World War I. Mr Winter is a leading history professor at the prestigious Yale University and a specialist on World War I and its impact on the 20th century.
    He says New Zealand's high casualty rate marks it out from other former British Dominions such as Australia, Canada, South Africa and India.
    During the war, New Zealand had a young population of just over 1 million people. Of those, 100,000 saw active service overseas with 18,500 dying and 41,000 being wounded.
    So almost 10 percent of New Zealand's total population fought in the war, and 60 percent of those Kiwi soldiers became casualties (killed or wounded). Professor Winter said."


    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-ze...professor.html

  • Mordoror
    replied
    Originally posted by Johanness View Post


    The difference to all wars before, for "what" reason?
    Led by idiots who killed hundredthousends own soldiers to gain 10 miles?
    To let the other side bleed white?
    What was the purpose?

    Sorry for answering your phrases with phrases.
    How is it much different from the Continental Great Game Wars (tm) of the 30 year war, the 7 year war, the Spanish succession war, the Crimea war, the Napoleon war etc
    Except the scale (total war level) and weapons/industrialization of war technics
    WWI was a war for control of the balance of power on the European continent
    WWII was different. Here there was also ideologies at stake

    Leave a comment:


  • primer
    replied
    You'd think with knowing what they went through no one would have to create an army again.

    Then some politician thinks he can play the last popular card and win it all. Falklands, Kuwait.


    Leave a comment:


  • Johanness
    replied
    Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

    What for ?
    You can ask the same question for all the casualties of all the wars on the european continent after the treaty of Verdun and the split of Charlemagne's Empire
    It's how our modern days nations were built : on blood and bones
    The difference is that WWI was done at industrial scale and that if Versailles treaty was not half arsed by lack of political foresight, there wouldn't have been a WWII that was even worse

    The difference to all wars before, for "what" reason?
    Led by idiots who killed hundredthousends own soldiers to gain 10 miles?
    To let the other side bleed white?
    What was the purpose?

    Sorry for answering your phrases with phrases.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordoror
    replied
    Originally posted by Johanness View Post


    I saw them in France and Belgium.
    I saw the memorials in every city and village in Germany, France, UK and other countries.
    Nearly all young men of that generation were lost.

    What for?
    What for ?
    You can ask the same question for all the casualties of all the wars on the european continent after the treaty of Verdun and the split of Charlemagne's Empire
    It's how our modern days nations were built : on blood and bones
    The difference is that WWI was done at industrial scale and that if Versailles treaty was not half arsed by lack of political foresight, there wouldn't have been a WWII that was even worse

    Leave a comment:


  • breki
    replied
    RIP dead Kiwis

    Leave a comment:


  • commanding
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan10k View Post

    It may have seemed like their deaths were pointless at the time, but since we have the benefit of hindsight we can say that those lives were lost in the pursuit of the future we currently enjoy. Where we are today is a direct consequence of the world war (intentionally lumping both together here).

    Whether we can keep it or not is a different question entirely....
    in one of the letters Major General George Smith Patton IV (1923-2004) wrote me years ago, that is almost identical to what he told me....."if we can keep it" . May he rest in peace.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartan10k
    replied
    Originally posted by Johanness View Post


    I saw them in France and Belgium.
    I saw the memorials in every city and village in Germany, France, UK and other countries.
    Nearly all young men of that generation were lost.

    What for?
    It may have seemed like their deaths were pointless at the time, but since we have the benefit of hindsight we can say that those lives were lost in the pursuit of the future we currently enjoy. Where we are today is a direct consequence of the world war (intentionally lumping both together here).

    Whether we can keep it or not is a different question entirely....

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonecutter
    replied
    Originally posted by Johanness View Post
    What for?
    To quote Hendrix, absolutely nothing. Especially considering the end was a cock-up which caused the second world war to start just 20 years later. I was going to go visit Verdun this spring, but I don't think I could bear the sadness of it, knowing the futility of the enormous sacrifices that were made there. It was hard enough reading Alistair Horne's book "The Price of Glory" without getting depressed, I think being on location would be tough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johanness
    replied
    Originally posted by Moose_Hates_You View Post
    I get what the Prof was trying to say, but after visiting so many of the WW1 CWG Cemeteries, seeing row upon row of white stones, it’s just bloody sad. For every country involved.

    I saw them in France and Belgium.
    I saw the memorials in every city and village in Germany, France, UK and other countries.
    Nearly all young men of that generation were lost.

    What for?

    Leave a comment:


  • Morlach
    replied
    Your numbers are way off, Serbia had less than 3 million citizens in 1910 census, and the wars in 1912 and 1913 most certainly didn't add 1.5 million people to it. Especially not Serbs, that is, because the areas added were Kosovo (Metohija was added to Montenegro) and Strymon Macedonia - present-day FYROM. And something tells me that Albanians and VMRO-sympathetic population weren't exactly prime recruits for Serbian Royal Army.

    Moreover, out of ~845 000 soldiers mobilised, 402 435 died in combat (Cer, Kolubara, Srijem, Salonica front), due to wounds or diseases. Civilians suffered due to epidemics and reprisals by Austro-Hungarians and Bulgarians (due to 1884 war, Strymon dispute and 1913 war), in addition to the trek through northern Albania (exposed to attacks by Albanian tribes who were eager to avenge the First Balkan war and Serb occupation of Skadar and Durazzo regions afterward) during retreat to reach the Adriatic coast ports (Russians put pressure to have the Serbs evacuated, the British were very reluctant to do so, which is in accordance with their Berlin and London congress positions), with wartime civilian deaths totalling 800 000+, but these numbers include deaths due to peacetime mortality rates.


    In a way, the Kingdom od Serbia didn't survive. The demographic damage was too large to be made up, so it might have been the driving reason for the notorious and ill-fated Kingdom of Yugoslavia creation.
    Serbs from previously Austro-Hungarian lands and Montenegro replaced the dead, but they were not the same people culturally and ideologically, and especially politically. Something that became evident in WW2 and Commieslavia, and the disasters which transpired for Serbs from then on.
    Last edited by Morlach; 28-11-2017, 02:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordoror
    replied
    Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

    That was my first thought it. Then I ran the numbers. Serbia suffered about 4.5% casualties to her population directly from the war while NZ's was closer to 6%.

    Either number is too damn high.
    Not the numbers i have. Military losses for Serbia were around 300 to 450 K dead on a population of 4.5 millions. Sure "few" (maybe half) were due to direct fight, the rest of disease, lack of food and terrible conditions including as POWs. But we are already at 6.5 to 10% of the overall population. Ad on that around 150 000 wounded and civilian losses and percentage skyrockets

    Number are indeed disputable (between missing's, POWs, POWs who died of bad treatment, WIA, WIA dying in their beds of typhus)
    I'll just leave a quote :
    In spite of different approximations, comparison of the censuses from 1911 and 1921 for Serbia proper clearly demonstrates a decline in male population from county to county from 17.43 percent to 29.5 percent. The greatest declines were in the Drina and Toplica counties. The census of 1921 shows a surplus of female population: 23 percent at the ages of eighteen to fifty-two.
    Same with Turkey BTW, specifically in the NE and Caucasus theatres of operation where the logistic and landscape conditions were disastrous with a conservative number of 700 000 deaths and (half to fighting, half to environmental conditions) and 500 000 wounded. We are around 6% just with military losses and that's the lower estimate.

    In any case, indeed way too much
    Last edited by Mordoror; 28-11-2017, 01:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moose_Hates_You
    replied
    I get what the Prof was trying to say, but after visiting so many of the WW1 CWG Cemeteries, seeing row upon row of white stones, it’s just bloody sad. For every country involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • commanding
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartan10k View Post

    I’m a student of history. Even a century is relatively short when you’re talking millennia.
    this is true.....I made a graphic scale of time of human history in north America for my thesis, so my profs could grasp the scale of time (it was in essence a line scale chart). It was impressive. Compare 14,000 years BP to the time since 1492 to present.

    Leave a comment:


  • riderboy
    replied
    Originally posted by commanding View Post

    ....now that you are 30, the 20 year time period starts to look kind of short eh? Wait until you are 50 or 60. It will look like a nanosecond.
    Ain't that the truth.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X