GREATWAR-L Archives

From: "Bernard Carroll" <>
Subject: Re: [WW1] Casualties
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:28:15 +1000

Hows this from the Official History of Australia In The War Of 1914/18.
Approx no of casualties 1914/20.
Total Died.
British Isles 702,410.
Indian Empire.
British 2393.
Indian 62056.
Canada 56639.
Australia 59330.
New Zealand 16711.
South Africa 7121.
Newfoundland 1204.
Other Colonies 507.

Recruitment in proportion to Population.
Enlistments / % of total Population / % male Population.
England 4,006,158 /11.57% / 24.02%.
Wales 272,924 / 10.96% / 21.52%.
Scotland 557,618 / 11.5% / 23.71%.
Ireland 134,202 / 3.07% / 6.14%.
Total 4,970,902 / 10.73% / 22.11%.

Canada 458,218 / NA / 13.48%.
Australia 331,814 / NA / 13.43%.
New Zealand 112,223 / NA / 19.35%.
South Africa 76,184 / NA / 11.12%.
Newfoundland 6,173.

Now then lets see what we can come up with.

Why is it that Australia can only come up with approximations and others can
come up with absolutes.

Bernard Carroll.



-----Original Message-----
From: Colleen Melville <>
To: <>
Date: Monday, 23 October 2000 9:43
Subject: Fw: [WW1] Casualties


>Soldiers of England, Australia, Russia, France, Germany, Scotland, Serbia,
>and Turkey are mentioned here but what would the statistics have been of
the
>casualties of Canada? I don't know what the relationship between Scotland
>and England was, as there is statistics mentioned here, but the Canadian
>soldiers seemed to be forgotten. Is there any information on this?
>
>Proud Canadian
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Malcolm G Fergusson <>
>To: <>
>Date: 19-October-2000 1:17 AM
>Subject: [WW1] Casualties
>
>
>Some confusion is apparent here.
>The HIGHEST TOTAL number of casualties for each country in WW1 was as
stated
>by
>Paul Bennett - Russia, France, Germany etc.
>What was apparently stated was the % who became casualties in action of
>those
>THAT ENLISTED.
>(emphasising, not shouting)
>Scotland had 557,000 enlisted men in Scottish Regiments of which 26.4% were
>killed. Australia had 15% of those that enlisted KIA. The British Army as a
>whole had 11.8%.
>The Serbian and Turkish Armies had higher rates than this but the vast
>majority
>were from disease not enemy action. Not that that made any difference to
the
>poor blighters at the sharp end. The first war was a barbaric affair on an
>industrial scale. I suppose if you broke the statistics down into smaller
>Battalion size units some,like Newfoundland, would be highest. There are
>statistics and statistics!! Depends on your base start line.
>In writing up the local War Memorial I become aware that the casualty lists
>for
>39-45 against 14-18 are very small in comparison (32 v 156) but only
knowing
>the
>number of First War enlisted men and women from an account in the 20s I
>can't
>compare the 39-45 casualties as a 'rate'.
>Malcolm
>with no axe to grind either.
>
>
>==== GREATWAR Mailing List ====
>MULTIPLE EMAIL ADDRESSES. Now that many of us have two or three email
>addresses, remember you can only send messages or unsubscribe from the
>address under which you originally subscribed.
>
>==============================
>Ancestry.com Genealogical Databases
>http://www.ancestry.com/search
>Search over 2500 databases with one easy query!
>
>
>
>==== GREATWAR Mailing List ====
>For enquiries about British and Commonwealth soldiers killed in WW1 your
first stop should always be http://www.cwgc.org which is a fabulous online
source of information
>
>==============================
>Search more than 150 million free record at RootsWeb
>http://search.rootsweb.com/
>
>

This thread:

• Re: [WW1] Casualties by "Bernard Carroll" <>