Victims of the First World War by country. The strength and losses of the Russian armed forces in the First World War. Casualties of Atlanta and allies

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Some general data and estimates of the consequences of the war

Austria-Hungary

Great Britain

During 1915, German submarines sank 227 British ships (885,721 gross tons). The belt of British cemeteries, running from the North Sea to the Somme and beyond, represents an idealized memorial to all those whose deaths on the battlefields of the Great War were unmarked. The bodies of over 500,000 British soldiers were never found, or if they were found, they could not be identified. The English economy suffered the largest losses in the First World War - $24.1 billion, or more than 34% of the nation's wealth.

Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of those mobilized in Great Britain to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 50%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 122 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years, Great Britain lost 61 people, and the losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Great Britain amounted to 16 people.

Germany

From 1870 to 1899, 16,000,000 boys were born in Germany; almost all of them served in the army and about 13% were killed. The greatest losses were suffered by German youth born in 1892-1895. Many thousands of Germans came home disabled: 44,657 Germans lost a leg during the war, 20,877 lost an arm, 1,264 lost both legs, 136 lost both arms. 2,547 Germans lost their sight in the war. By the end of 1916, over a million soldiers had already died - 241,000 in 1914, 434,000 in 1915, 340,000 in 1916. Belgium, northern France, Russian Poland, Serbia and Romania were occupied, but in November 1916 the Central Powers approached the Entente with a peace proposal, which was rejected. Female mortality, for example, in 1916 increased by 11.5%, and in 1917 by 30.4% compared to pre-war figures, and the main reason for this was diseases caused by malnutrition. The German economy suffered more than 20% losses.

Historian Volkov cited data that the share of those mobilized in Germany to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 81%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 154 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Germany lost 125 people , and losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Germany amounted to 31 people.

Romania

Romania lost almost 7% of its entire population. Since the beginning of the World War, the Romanian government has taken a position of “armed wait-and-see.” In the political and military circles of the warring countries, the prevailing opinion was that the entry of small states into the war could significantly change the course of events. Therefore, the Entente tried for a long time to win Romania over to its side. Romania’s entry into the war in August 1916 on the side of Russia and the Entente did not strengthen, but, on the contrary, weakened the anti-German coalition. Although the size of the Romanian army reached 650 thousand, this figure hardly reflected the real combat capability. The state of the infrastructure was extremely poor, and a third of the army was forced to serve in the rear in order to ensure at least some supply for the combat units. Thus, Romania was able to send only 23 divisions to the front. The Romanian army proved itself to be an extremely weak ally, which forced Russia to send significant forces to its aid. Despite this, by the end of 1916, Austro-German troops managed to occupy most of the Romanian territory and capture the capital of Romania, Bucharest. In the face of disaster, General Alekseev sent reinforcements to thwart Mackensen's advance into southwestern Russia. And by the summer of 1917, the Romanian army was already much better trained and equipped than in 1916, to which was added the determination of the troops not to miss the “last chance” to preserve Romanian statehood. The advance of the Austro-German troops under the command of Mackensen was stopped at the Battle of Marasesti. It is believed that the heroism of the Romanian soldiers shown there actually saved Romania from withdrawal from the war, especially since the Russian units in these military operations were rather passive due to the increasing decomposition of the Russian army. By September 8, the front had finally stabilized, and these were the last active hostilities on the Eastern Front in 1917.

After the October Revolution, Russia withdrew from the war on April 24 (May 7), 1918, and Romania found itself surrounded on all sides by the troops of the Central Powers. Therefore, at the end of the year, the Romanian government agreed to conclude a truce (signed in Focsani on November 26/December 9, 1917). And after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the situation for Romania became so complicated that it was forced to begin negotiations on a separate peace, which was concluded on April 24/May 7, 1918 (Bucharest Peace Treaty).

At the very end of 1918, Romania, with the collapse of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, again entered the war, thus securing greater territorial benefits for itself in the Treaty of Versailles. However, the military actions themselves were catastrophic for Romania.

Russia

Below are data on the losses of the Russian Army in the First World War according to various sources (data from the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army dated October 3, 1917; data from the Central Statistical Office of the USSR in 1925; calculations by N. N. Golovin, published in 1939).

According to Western sources, by the time it exited the war, the total losses of the Russian Imperial Army amounted to 1.7 million killed and died from wounds; 4.95 million wounded and 2.5 million prisoners of war

Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of those mobilized in Russia to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 39%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 115 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Russia lost 45 people, and losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Russia amounted to 11 people.

Although the relative losses and the economic and internal problems of other warring countries were worse than in Russia, Russia after 1917 suffered huge losses that were not compensated at the end of the war (although the human losses, in any case, could not be compensated), because Russia, although it fought for three years on the side of the Entente that eventually won the war, at the beginning of 1918 the Bolshevik government signed a separate peace on the terms of the Central Powers. In particular, according to the peace treaty, Russia had to pay reparations to Germany. After Germany's defeat in the war, independent states were formed in the territories separated from Russia with the support of the Entente.

Serbia

The most catastrophic losses of the First World War were for Serbia. For a year, the Serbian army, despite an acute shortage of uniforms and ammunition, held back the superior Austrian troops, preventing them from occupying the country's territory. After Bulgaria entered the war, the fate of Serbia was decided - its territory was occupied, and the remnants of the Serbian army retreated to Greece. As a result of mass famine, epidemics and repression by the occupation authorities, more than 467 thousand Serbs (10% of the total population) died. The Serbian army lost almost a quarter of all those mobilized and was reduced during the four years of war from 400 to 100 thousand people. In total, Serbia lost a sixth of its population in four years; the war left more than 100 thousand disabled people and 500 thousand orphans in the country. The consequences of that demographic catastrophe are still felt today.

France

French losses were 306,000 killed in 1914, 334,000 in 1915, 217,000 in 1916, 121,000 in 1917, for a total of almost 1 million dead among the 19 million male population of France. The French infantry lost 22% of its combat strength. The greatest losses - about 30% - were suffered by the youngest age group of soldiers, 18-25 years old. Many of the dead did not manage to get married, and a considerable number of young French women lost the chance to get married. The 630,000 widows were not in a better situation. In 1921 in France, for every 9 men aged 20-39 there were 11 women. 2,800,000 French were wounded, 800,000 of them seriously. Many of those injured, returning from the front, chose to live in nursing homes or in specially built settlements. The French economy suffered serious losses of $11.2 billion (more than 19% of the national wealth). Historian Volkov cited data that the share of those mobilized in France to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 79%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 168 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years France lost 133 people , and the losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of France amounted to 34 people.

Population, conscription and casualty data

Warring countries	Population (1914)	Soldier mobilized	Soldier killed (all causes)	Wounded soldier	Captured soldiers	Civilian casualties
Russian empire	175 137 800	15 378 000	1 670 000	3 749 000	3 342 900	1 070 000
France	39 601 509	6 800 000	1 293 464	2 800 000	506 000	160 000
Great Britain	46 037 900	4 970 902	702 410	1 662 625	170 389	3 000
Italy	35 597 800	5 903 140	462 391	953 886	569 000	80 000
Greece	5 463 000	353 000	26 620	21 000	16 000	15 000
USA	99 111 000	4 734 991	116 708	204 002	4 500	757
Belgium	7 638 800	500 000	58 637	78 624	46 686	10 000
Romania	7 560 000	1 234 000	219 800	200 000	240 000	270 000
Serbia	4 428 600	707 343	127 535	133 148	152 958	340 000
Portugal	6 069 900	53 000	7 222	13 751	12 318	923
British India	321 800 000	1 440 437	64 449	128 000	11 264	6 000 000
Japan	52 312 100	30 000	415	907	3
Canada	7 692 800	628 964	56 639	149 732	3 729	3 830
Australia	4 921 800	412 953	59 330	152 171	4 084	6 300
New Zealand	1 149 200	128 525	16 711	41 317	498
Newfoundland	250 000	11 922	1 204	2 314	150
Union of South Africa	6 465 000	136 070	7 121	12 029	1 538
Republic of China	441 958 000	175 000	10 000			500
Montenegro	440 000	60 000	13 325	10 000	8 000	20 000
African colonies of France	52 700 000	1 394 500	115 000	266 000	51 000
Caribs		21 000	1 000	3 000
TOTAL ENTANTE	1 315 140 409	45 073 747	5 614 350	10 581 506	5 141 017	7 980 310
German Empire	67 790 000	13 251 000	2 036 897	4 216 058	993 109	135 000
Austria-Hungary	52 749 900	9 000 000	1 496 200	2 600 000	2 220 000	420 000
Bulgaria	4 535 000	685 000	88 224	155 023	24 619	105 000
Ottoman Empire	21 373 900	2 998 321	804 000	763 753	145 104	2 800 000
African colonies of Germany	12 300 000		14 000	31 085
TOTAL TRIPLE ALLIANCE	158 748 800	25 934 321	4 452 321	7 765 919	3 428 832	3 460 000
Total	1 473 889 209	71 008 068	10 066 671	18 347 425	8 569 849	11 440 310

It is difficult to determine the exact number of military casualties, since during the war the sides often used collective burials (in the form of mass graves), including mass ones; some of the burials were destroyed during the fighting.

Write a review of the article "Losses in the First World War"

Notes

1. Volkov S.V.(Russian) . Article. Website of historian S.V. Volkov (2004). Retrieved April 16, 2012. .
2. published: “Proceedings of the commission to survey the sanitary consequences of the war of 1914–1920.” (Published by the People's Commissariat of Health.) Vol. I. Page 158, 159.
3. Russia in the World War 1914–1918. (in numbers). M.: Central Statistical Office of the USSR, military statistical department, 1925
4. Golovin N. N.
5. of which 348,508 were seriously wounded and dismissed from service
6. 643,614 including those who died from wounds (17,174)
7. along with those shell-shocked and poisoned during gas attacks
8. When calculating the dead, N. N. Golovin proceeded from the maximum possible number of wounded he calculated (4,200,000), assuming that the ratio of the number of killed to the number of wounded in the Russian army was the same as in France and Germany (approximately 1: 3.23) , and that in the Russian army the number of deaths from wounds was greater than in France or Germany - although on this score he himself gives the opposite statistics
9. 4,200,000 wounded, of which 350,000 died - those who died from wounds are included in the death toll (1,300,000) by N. Golovin. It should be noted that N. N. Golovin has 4,200,000 wounded - this is also the estimated number
10. Armed forces mobilized and casualties in World War I // The New Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th edition. Macropaedia. Vol.29. Chicago, 1994. p. 987
11. World History (Edition in 24 volumes. Vol. 19. First World War) / A. N. Badak, I. E. Voynich, N. M. Volchek and others. M.: Ast, Minsk: Harvest, Literature 1997-2001
12. TSB M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 (article “Irish Rebellion of 1916”).
13. It is also worth remembering that the Spanish flu pandemic broke out in the city, which killed tens of millions of people. The article does not indicate the number of deaths from the Spanish flu (for statistics, see the article Spanish Flu).
14. In total in Russia in 1914 there were 40,080,000 men of military age
15. G. Krivosheev in his book () is based, as he himself writes, on the data of B.Ts. Urlanis (Urlanis B.Ts. Wars and the population of Europe. - M.: 1960). However, Urlanis calculated the basic losses of the Russian army (killed in battles and died during the stages of sanitary evacuation - 1,200,000) purely theoretically - by “simple” recalculation from the known military losses of enemy armies on the Eastern Front, based on the controversial assumption that on the Russian front the Russian The army lost as many times more killed than the enemy as on the Western Front the Allied armies lost more than the German army, i.e. 1.5 times. However, G. Krivoshein provides other data in his book, in particular, data from the Central Statistical Office of the USSR in 1925 (Russia in the World War 1914-1918 (in numbers). Central Statistical Office, M., 1925) - killed in battles and died at the stages of sanitary evacuation 626,440 people. (not 1,200,000). The data of Gen. were even smaller. headquarters of the Russian army in the summer of 1917. B. Urlanis writes in his book (): " Unlike some other countries that participated in the First World War, in Russia the General Staff of the Army had a regular record of losses by individual types. These data were compiled by the reference department of the General Staff and published in the “Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the Sanitary Consequences of the War.” According to these data, the number of killed soldiers and officers of the Russian army was 511,068 people. Later, the materials of the General Staff were processed by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and published for the first time in 1924 in the short reference book “National Economy of the USSR in Figures.” Then these same results were presented in the collection “Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers)”, published by the Central Statistical Office in 1925. According to these final data, the number of killed Russian soldiers and officers amounted to 626,440 people. This number was grouped by time of loss, by rank and by type of military service, but all tables show the same total: 626,440."Thus, it is very likely that the total loss figures are actually less by about 574,000 people (1,200,000 - 626,440), and the total military losses of the Russian army are not 2,254,369 people. (), and 1,670,000 people.
16. Of these, 340,000 died from hostilities, 730,000 from hunger and disease. Vadim Erlikhman Population losses in the 20th century. Directory. - Moscow., 2004., p. 132
17. In total, in France in 1914 there were 9,981,000 men of military age
18. Of these, 619,600 were killed in battle, 242,900 went missing and were subsequently not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 220,000 died from wounds, 170,000 died from disease, 18,964 died in captivity, accidents and suicides 14,000 .
19. Of these, 130,000 died from hostilities, 30,000 from hunger and disease.
20. Of these, English 4,006,158, Welsh 272,924, Scots 557,618, Irish 134,202
21. In total there were 11,539,000 men of military age in Great Britain in 1914
22. Of these, 327,000 were killed in battle, 158,000 went missing and were subsequently not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 131,000 died from wounds, 67,000 died from disease.
23. All died as a result of hostilities
24. In total in Italy in 1914 there were 7,767,000 men of military age
25. Of these, 373,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found (this number includes 4,627 who died from gas attacks, 47,000 who died from wounds, 79,000 who died from disease and 6,000 who died as a result of accidents), died in captivity (according to official statistics) 90,000.
26. Of these, in only one battle of Caporetto, German-Austrian troops captured 335,000 Italians.
27. Of these, 10,000 died from hostilities, 70,000 from hunger and disease.
28. In total in Greece in 1914 there were 1,235,000 men of military age
29. Of these, 6,365 were killed in battle, 3,255 went missing and were subsequently not found, 2,000 died from wounds, 15,000 died from disease.
30. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 10,000 from hunger and disease.
31. Of these, 2,056,000 soldiers were transported to Europe
32. In total, in the United States in 1914 there were 25,541,000 men of military age
33. Of these, killed in battle, missing and subsequently not found, 37,000, died from wounds 14,000, died from gas attacks 1,462, died from disease 58,000, accidents 4,421, suicides 272, murders 154, died in captivity 400
34. Of these, 128 people died during the sinking of the liner Lusitania.
35. In total in Belgium in 1914 there were 1,924,000 men of military age
36. Of these, 28,958 were killed in battle or died from wounds, 28,587 died from disease, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,002 died in captivity
37. In total, in Romania in 1914 there were 1,900,000 men of military age
38. Of these, killed in battle, missing and subsequently not found, 116,300 died from wounds, 30,000 died from disease, 70,500 died in captivity, 3,000 accidents.
39. Of these, 120,000 died from hostilities, 150,000 from hunger and disease.
40. In total, in Serbia in 1914 there were 1,115,000 men of military age
41. Of these, 45,000 were killed in battle, died of wounds, went missing and were subsequently not found, and 72,553 died in captivity (according to official statistics).
42. Of these, 110,000 died from hostilities, 230,000 from hunger and disease.
43. In total there were 1,315,000 men of military age in Portugal in 1914
44. Of these, 5,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,000 died from wounds, and 1,000 died from disease.
45. In total there were 82,600,000 men of military age in British India in 1914
46. Of these, 24,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 3,000 died from wounds, 3,500 died in captivity
47. Everyone died from hunger and disease
48. In total there were 2,320,000 men of military age in Canada in 1914
49. Of these, 39,739 were killed in battle, 801 went missing and were subsequently not found, 325 died from gas attacks, 13,340 died from wounds, 3,919 died from illnesses, 397 died in captivity, accidents and suicides 809.
50. In total there were 1,370,000 men of military age in Australia in 1914
51. Of these, 41,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 12,000 died from wounds, 1,029 were accidents.
52. There were a total of 320,000 men of military age in New Zealand in 1914
53. Of these, 10,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 4,000 died from wounds, 60 died in captivity
54. In total there were 1,700,000 men of military age in the Union of South Africa in 1914
55. Of these, 4,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,000 died from wounds, 100 died in captivity
56. In total, there were about 114,025,000 men of military age in China
57. Mostly these were not soldiers, but volunteer workers.
58. Mostly those who died from disease.
59. Chinese civilians sunk by German submarines.
60. In total, in Montenegro in 1914 there were 110,000 men of military age
61. 2,000 died in captivity
62. Of these, 10,000 died from hostilities, 10,000 from hunger and disease.
63. In total, in the African colonies of France in 1914 there were 13,200,000 men of military age
64. In total, in the German Empire in 1914 there were 16,316,000 men of military age
65. Of these, 1,373,000 were killed in battle, 100,000 went missing and were subsequently not found, 3,000 died from gas attacks, 320,000 died from wounds, 166,000 died from disease, 55,899 died in captivity, 13,410 accidents, suicides 5,106, murders 294.
66. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 130,000 from hunger and disease.
67. Of these, Austrians - 2,250,000, Hungarians - 2,070,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 1,530,000, Yugoslavs - 990,000, Poles - 720,000, Ukrainians - 720,000, Romanians - 630,000, Italians - 90,000
68. In total, in Austria-Hungary in 1914 there were 12,176,000 men of military age
69. Of these, 478,000 died in captivity (according to official statistics), 300,000 died from diseases and wounds (according to official statistics).
70. Of these, Austrians - 410,000, Hungarians - 810,000, Romanians - 450,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 380,000, Yugoslavs - 400,000
71. Of these, Austrians - 280,000, Hungarians - 670,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 350,000, Yugoslavs - 170,000, other peoples - 20,000
72. Of these, 120,000 died from hostilities, 300,000 from hunger and disease.
73. In total in Bulgaria in 1914 there were 1,100,000 men of military age
74. Of these, 48,917 were killed in battle, 13,198 died of wounds, 24,497 died of disease, 888 accidents, 8,000 died in captivity
75. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 100,000 from hunger and disease.
76. In total, there were 5,425,000 men of military age in the Ottoman Empire
77. Of these, 236,707 were killed in battle, 68,378 died from wounds, 466,759 died from disease, and 16,000 died in captivity.
78. Of these, 100,000 died from hostilities, 500,000 from hunger and disease. Also, during the Armenian genocide, 1,000,000 died, the genocide of the Aisors (Assyrians) - 500,000, Kurds - 500,000, Greeks - 100,000, other peoples - 100,000

Literature

• Golovin N.N.. Paris, 1939.
• Keegan D. First World War Moscow, 576 pp. 2004 ISBN 5-17-012437-6
• Mernikov A. G., Spektor A. A. World history of wars. - Minsk, 2005.
• Urlanis B. Ts. Wars and population of Europe. - Moscow., 1960.
• Erlikhman V.V. Population losses in the 20th century. - M.: Russian Panorama, 2004. - 176 p. - (The whole world). - 1500 copies. - ISBN 5-93165-107-1.
• World War in numbers. - M.: Voengiz, 1934. - P. 22.
• Utkin A.I. A forgotten tragedy. Russia in the First World War. - Smolensk, 2000. - page 27
• Thomas Mitchell. Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. - London. - Battery Press, 1997. - 382 p. - ISBN 0-898-39263-2.

Links

• (English)
• Scott Manning
• Robert Wilde (English)
• (English)
• (English)

Prerequisites Consequences

An excerpt characterizing Losses in the First World War

A tall, beautiful lady with a huge braid and very bare, white, full shoulders and neck, on which there was a double string of large pearls, entered the adjacent benoir, and sat down for a long time, rustling with her thick silk dress.
Natasha involuntarily looked at this neck, shoulders, pearls, hairstyle and admired the beauty of the shoulders and pearls. While Natasha was peering at her for the second time, the lady looked back and, meeting her eyes with Count Ilya Andreich, nodded her head and smiled at him. It was Countess Bezukhova, Pierre's wife. Ilya Andreich, who knew everyone in the world, leaned over and spoke to her.
- How long have you been here, Countess? - he spoke. “I’ll come, I’ll come, I’ll kiss your hand.” But I came here on business and brought my girls with me. They say Semenova’s performance is incomparable,” said Ilya Andreich. – Count Pyotr Kirillovich never forgot us. He is here?
“Yes, he wanted to come in,” Helen said and looked at Natasha carefully.
Count Ilya Andreich again sat down in his place.
- She’s good, isn’t she? – he said in a whisper to Natasha.
- Miracle! - said Natasha, - you can fall in love! At this time, the last chords of the overture sounded and the conductor’s baton began to tap. In the stalls, belated men filed into their seats and the curtain rose.
As soon as the curtain rose, everything in the boxes and stalls fell silent, and all the men, old and young, in uniforms and tails, all the women wearing precious stones on their naked bodies, turned all their attention to the stage with greedy curiosity. Natasha also began to look.

On the stage there were even boards in the middle, painted paintings depicting trees stood on the sides, and a canvas on boards was stretched behind. In the middle of the stage sat girls in red bodices and white skirts. One, very fat, in a white silk dress, sat separately on a low bench, to which green cardboard was glued to the back. They were all singing something. When they finished their song, the girl in white approached the prompter's booth, and a man in tight-fitting silk trousers on thick legs, with a feather and a dagger, approached her and began to sing and spread his arms.
The man in tight trousers sang alone, then she sang. Then both fell silent, the music began to play, and the man began to finger the hand of the girl in a white dress, apparently again waiting for the beat to begin his part with her. They sang together, and everyone in the theater began to clap and shout, and the man and woman on stage, who were portraying lovers, began to bow, smiling and spreading their arms.
After the village and in the serious mood in which Natasha was, all this was wild and surprising to her. She could not follow the progress of the opera, could not even hear the music: she saw only painted cardboard and strangely dressed men and women, moving, speaking and singing strangely in the bright light; she knew what all this was supposed to represent, but it was all so pretentiously false and unnatural that she felt either ashamed of the actors or funny at them. She looked around her, at the faces of the spectators, looking for in them the same feeling of ridicule and bewilderment that was in her; but all the faces were attentive to what was happening on the stage and expressed feigned, as it seemed to Natasha, admiration. “This must be so necessary!” thought Natasha. She alternately looked back at those rows of pomaded heads in the stalls, then at the naked women in the boxes, especially at her neighbor Helen, who, completely undressed, with a quiet and calm smile, without taking her eyes off, looked at the stage, feeling the bright light poured throughout the hall and warm, crowd-warmed air. Natasha little by little began to reach a state of intoxication that she had not experienced for a long time. She didn’t remember what she was, where she was, or what was happening in front of her. She looked and thought, and the strangest thoughts suddenly, without connection, flashed through her head. Either the thought came to her to jump onto the ramp and sing the aria that the actress sang, then she wanted to hook the old man sitting not far from her with her fan, then she wanted to lean over to Helen and tickle her.
One minute, when everything was quiet on the stage, waiting for the start of the aria, the entrance door of the stalls creaked, on the side where the Rostovs’ box was, and the steps of a belated man sounded. “Here he is Kuragin!” Shinshin whispered. Countess Bezukhova turned to the newcomer, smiling. Natasha looked in the direction of Countess Bezukhova’s eyes and saw an unusually handsome adjutant, with a self-confident and at the same time courteous appearance approaching their bed. It was Anatol Kuragin, whom she had seen for a long time and noticed at the St. Petersburg ball. He was now in an adjutant uniform with one epaulette and a bracelet. He walked with a restrained, dashing gait, which would have been funny if he had not been so handsome and if there had not been such an expression of good-natured contentment and joy on his beautiful face. Despite the fact that the action was going on, he, slowly and slightly rattling his spurs and saber, smoothly and high holding his perfumed beautiful head, walked along the carpet of the corridor. Looking at Natasha, he walked up to his sister, put his gloved hand on the edge of her box, shook her head and leaned over and asked something, pointing at Natasha.
- Mais charmante! [Very sweet!] - he said, obviously about Natasha, as she not so much heard as understood from the movement of his lips. Then he walked to the front row and sat down next to Dolokhov, giving a friendly and casual elbow to Dolokhov, whom the others were treating so ingratiatingly. He smiled at him with a cheerful wink and rested his foot on the ramp.
– How similar brother and sister are! - said the count. - And how good they are both!
Shinshin began to tell the count in a low voice some story of Kuragin's intrigue in Moscow, to which Natasha listened precisely because he said charmante about it.
The first act ended, everyone in the stalls stood up, got confused and began to walk in and out.
Boris came to the Rostovs' box, very simply accepted congratulations and, raising his eyebrows, with an absent-minded smile, conveyed to Natasha and Sonya his bride's request that they be at her wedding, and left. Natasha talked to him with a cheerful and flirtatious smile and congratulated the same Boris with whom she had been in love before on his marriage. In the state of intoxication in which she was, everything seemed simple and natural.
Naked Helen sat next to her and smiled equally at everyone; and Natasha smiled at Boris in the same way.
Helen's box was filled and surrounded from the stalls by the most distinguished and intelligent men, who seemed to be vying to show everyone that they knew her.
Throughout this intermission, Kuragin stood with Dolokhov in front of the ramp, looking at the Rostovs’ box. Natasha knew that he was talking about her, and it gave her pleasure. She even turned around so that he could see her profile, in her opinion, in the most advantageous position. Before the start of the second act, the figure of Pierre appeared in the stalls, whom the Rostovs had not seen since their arrival. His face was sad, and he had gained weight since Natasha last saw him. Without noticing anyone, he walked into the front rows. Anatole approached him and began to say something to him, looking and pointing at the Rostovs’ box. Pierre, seeing Natasha, perked up and hurriedly, along the rows, went to their bed. Approaching them, he leaned on his elbow and, smiling, spoke to Natasha for a long time. During her conversation with Pierre, Natasha heard a man’s voice in Countess Bezukhova’s box and for some reason learned that it was Kuragin. She looked back and met his eyes. Almost smiling, he looked straight into her eyes with such an admiring, affectionate look that it seemed strange to be so close to him, to look at him like that, to be so sure that he liked you, and not be familiar with him.
In the second act there were paintings depicting monuments and there was a hole in the canvas depicting the moon, and the lampshades on the ramp were raised, and trumpets and double basses began to play, and many people in black robes came out to the right and left. People began to wave their arms, and in their hands they had something like daggers; then some other people came running and began to drag away that girl who had previously been in a white, and now in a blue dress. They didn’t drag her away right away, but sang with her for a long time, and then they dragged her away, and behind the scenes they hit something metal three times, and everyone knelt down and sang a prayer. Several times all these actions were interrupted by enthusiastic screams from the audience.
During this act, every time Natasha glanced at the stalls, she saw Anatoly Kuragin, throwing his arm over the back of the chair and looking at her. She was pleased to see that he was so captivated by her, and it did not occur to her that there was anything bad in this.
When the second act ended, Countess Bezukhova stood up, turned to the Rostovs' box (her chest was completely bare), beckoned the old count to her with a gloved finger, and, not paying attention to those who entered her box, began to speak kindly to him, smiling.
“Well, introduce me to your lovely daughters,” she said, “the whole city is shouting about them, but I don’t know them.”
Natasha stood up and sat down to the magnificent countess. Natasha was so pleased by the praise of this brilliant beauty that she blushed with pleasure.
“Now I also want to become a Muscovite,” said Helen. - And aren’t you ashamed to bury such pearls in the village!
Countess Bezukhaya, rightly, had a reputation as a charming woman. She could say what she did not think, and especially flatter, completely simply and naturally.
- No, dear Count, let me take care of your daughters. At least I won't be here for long now. And you too. I will try to amuse yours. “I heard a lot about you back in St. Petersburg, and I wanted to get to know you,” she told Natasha with her uniformly beautiful smile. “I heard about you from my page, Drubetsky. Did you hear he's getting married? And from my husband’s friend Bolkonsky, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky,” she said with special emphasis, thereby hinting that she knew his relationship to Natasha. “She asked, in order to get to know each other better, to allow one of the young ladies to sit in her box for the rest of the performance, and Natasha went over to her.
In the third act, a palace was presented on stage, in which many candles were burning and paintings depicting knights with beards were hung. In the middle stood probably the king and queen. The king waved his right hand, and, apparently timid, sang something badly and sat down on the crimson throne. The girl, who was first in white, then in blue, was now wearing only a shirt with her hair down and stood near the throne. She sang sadly about something, turning to the queen; but the king sternly waved his hand, and men with bare legs and women with bare legs came out from the sides and began to dance all together. Then the violins began to play very subtly and cheerfully, one of the girls with bare thick legs and thin arms, separated from the others, went backstage, straightened her bodice, went out to the middle and began to jump and quickly beat one leg against the other. Everyone on the ground clapped their hands and shouted “Bravo”. Then one man stood in the corner. The orchestra started playing cymbals and trumpets louder, and this one man with bare legs began to jump very high and mince his feet. (This man was Duport, who received 60 thousand a year for this art.) Everyone in the stalls, in the boxes and in the rai began to clap and shout with all their might, and the man stopped and began to smile and bow in all directions. Then others danced, with bare legs, men and women, then again one of the kings shouted something to the music, and everyone began to sing. But suddenly there was a storm, chromatic scales and diminished seventh chords were heard in the orchestra, and everyone ran and again dragged one of those present backstage, and the curtain fell. Again a terrible noise and crackling arose between the spectators, and everyone with delighted faces began to shout: Dupora! Dupora! Dupora! Natasha no longer found this strange. She looked around her with pleasure, smiling joyfully.
- N"est ce pas qu"il est admirable - Duport? [Isn’t Duport amazing?] said Helene, turning to her.
“Oh, oui, [Oh, yes,”] Natasha answered.

During the intermission, there was a smell of cold in Helen's box, the door opened and, bending down and trying not to catch anyone, Anatole entered.
“Let me introduce you to my brother,” Helen said, nervously flicking her eyes from Natasha to Anatole. Natasha turned her pretty head over her bare shoulder to the handsome man and smiled. Anatole, who was as good-looking up close as he was from afar, sat down next to her and said that he had long wanted to have this pleasure, ever since the Naryshkin Ball, at which he had the pleasure, which he had not forgotten, of seeing her. Kuragin was much smarter and simpler with women than in male society. He spoke boldly and simply, and Natasha was strangely and pleasantly struck by the fact that not only was there nothing so terrible about this man about whom they talked so much, but that on the contrary, he had the most naive, cheerful and good-natured smile.
Kuragin asked about the impression of the performance and told her about how Semenova fell while playing in the last performance.
“You know, Countess,” he said, suddenly addressing her as if he were an old acquaintance, “we are organizing a carousel in costumes; you should take part in it: it will be a lot of fun. Everyone gathers at the Karagins'. Please come, right? - he said.
As he said this, he did not take his smiling eyes off Natasha’s face, neck, and bare arms. Natasha undoubtedly knew that he admired her. She was pleased with this, but for some reason his presence made her feel cramped and heavy. When she was not looking at him, she felt that he was looking at her shoulders, and she involuntarily intercepted his gaze so that he would look better at her eyes. But, looking into his eyes, she felt with fear that between him and her there was absolutely no barrier of modesty that she had always felt between herself and other men. She, without knowing how, after five minutes felt terribly close to this man. When she turned away, she was afraid that he would take her bare hand from behind and kiss her neck. They talked about the simplest things and she felt that they were close, like she had never been with a man. Natasha looked back at Helen and her father, as if asking them what this meant; but Helen was busy talking with some general and did not respond to her glance, and her father’s gaze did not tell her anything other than what he always said: “It’s fun, well, I’m glad.”
In one of the moments of awkward silence, during which Anatole calmly and stubbornly looked at her with his bulging eyes, Natasha, in order to break this silence, asked him how he liked Moscow. Natasha asked and blushed. It constantly seemed to her that she was doing something indecent when talking to him. Anatole smiled, as if encouraging her.
– At first I didn’t like it much, because what makes a city pleasant, ce sont les jolies femmes, [pretty women,] isn’t it? Well, now I really like it,” he said, looking at her significantly. – Will you go to the carousel, Countess? “Go,” he said, and, stretching out his hand to her bouquet and lowering his voice, he said: “Vous serez la plus jolie.” Venez, chere comtesse, et comme gage donnez moi cette fleur. [You will be the prettiest. Go, dear Countess, and give me this flower as a pledge.]
Natasha did not understand what he said, just like he himself, but she felt that there was indecent intent in his incomprehensible words. She didn't know what to say and turned away as if she hadn't heard what he said. But as soon as she turned away, she thought that he was there behind her, so close to her.
“What is he now? Is he confused? Angry? Should I fix this? she asked herself. She couldn't help but look back. She looked straight into his eyes, and his closeness and confidence, and the good-natured tenderness of his smile defeated her. She smiled just like him, looking straight into his eyes. And again she felt with horror that there was no barrier between him and her.
The curtain rose again. Anatole left the box, calm and cheerful. Natasha returned to her father’s box, completely subjugated to the world in which she found herself. Everything that happened in front of her already seemed completely natural to her; but for that, all her previous thoughts about the groom, about Princess Marya, about village life never once entered her head, as if all that was a long, long time ago.
In the fourth act there was some kind of devil who sang, waving his hand until the boards were pulled out under him and he sat down there. Natasha saw only this from the fourth act: something worried and tormented her, and the cause of this excitement was Kuragin, whom she involuntarily followed with her eyes. As they were leaving the theater, Anatole approached them, called their carriage and picked them up. As he sat Natasha down, he shook her hand above the elbow. Natasha, excited and red, looked back at him. He looked at her, his eyes sparkling and smiling tenderly.

Only after arriving home, Natasha could clearly think through everything that had happened to her, and suddenly remembering Prince Andrei, she was horrified, and in front of everyone over tea, which everyone sat down to after the theater, she gasped loudly and ran out of the room, flushed. - "My God! I'm dead! she said to herself. How could I let this happen?” she thought. She sat for a long time, covering her flushed face with her hands, trying to give herself a clear account of what had happened to her, and could neither understand what had happened to her, nor what she felt. Everything seemed dark, unclear and scary to her. There, in this huge, illuminated hall, where Duport jumped on the wet boards to the music with bare legs in a jacket with sequins, and girls, and old men, and Helen, naked with a calm and proud smile, shouted “bravo” in delight - there, under the shadow of this Helen , there it was all clear and simple; but now alone, with herself, it was incomprehensible. - "What it is? What was this fear that I felt for him? What is this remorse that I feel now? she thought.
Natasha would be able to tell the old countess alone in bed at night everything that she thought. Sonya, she knew, with her stern and integral gaze, either would not have understood anything, or would have been horrified by her confession. Natasha, alone with herself, tried to resolve what was tormenting her.
“Did I die for the love of Prince Andrei or not? she asked herself and with a reassuring smile answered herself: What kind of fool am I that I ask this? What happened to me? Nothing. I didn't do anything, I didn't do anything to cause this. No one will know, and I will never see him again, she told herself. It became clear that nothing had happened, that there was nothing to repent of, that Prince Andrei could love me just like that. But what kind? Oh God, my God! Why isn’t he here?” Natasha calmed down for a moment, but then again some instinct told her that although all this was true and although nothing had happened, instinct told her that all the former purity of her love for Prince Andrey had perished. And again in her imagination she repeated her entire conversation with Kuragin and imagined the face, gestures and gentle smile of this handsome and brave man, while he shook her hand.

Anatol Kuragin lived in Moscow because his father sent him away from St. Petersburg, where he lived more than twenty thousand a year in money and the same amount in debts that creditors demanded from his father.
The father announced to his son that he was paying half of his debts for the last time; but only so that he would go to Moscow to the post of adjutant to the commander-in-chief, which he procured for him, and would finally try to make a good match there. He pointed him to Princess Marya and Julie Karagina.
Anatole agreed and went to Moscow, where he stayed with Pierre. Pierre accepted Anatole reluctantly at first, but then got used to him, sometimes went with him on his carousings and, under the pretext of a loan, gave him money.
Anatole, as Shinshin rightly said about him, since he arrived in Moscow, drove all the Moscow ladies crazy, especially because he neglected them and obviously preferred gypsies and French actresses to them, with the head of which, Mademoiselle Georges, as they said, he was in intimate relations. He did not miss a single revelry with Danilov and other merry fellows of Moscow, drank all night long, outdrinking everyone, and attended all the evenings and balls of high society. They talked about several of his intrigues with Moscow ladies, and at balls he courted some. But he did not get close to girls, especially rich brides, who for the most part were all bad, especially since Anatole, which no one knew except his closest friends, had been married two years ago. Two years ago, while his regiment was stationed in Poland, a poor Polish landowner forced Anatole to marry his daughter.
Anatole very soon abandoned his wife and, for the money that he agreed to send to his father-in-law, he negotiated for himself the right to be considered a single man.
Anatole was always pleased with his position, himself and others. He was instinctively convinced with his whole being that he could not live differently than the way he lived, and that he had never done anything bad in his life. He was unable to think about how his actions might affect others, nor what might come of such or such an action. He was convinced that just as a duck was created in such a way that it should always live in water, so he was created by God in such a way that he should live with an income of thirty thousand and always occupy the highest position in society. He believed in this so firmly that, looking at him, others were convinced of this and did not deny him either a higher position in the world or money, which he obviously borrowed without return from those he met and those who met him.
He was not a gambler, at least he never wanted to win. He wasn't vain. He didn't care at all what people thought about him. Still less could he be guilty of ambition. He teased his father several times, ruining his career, and laughed at all the honors. He was not stingy and did not refuse anyone who asked him. The only thing he loved was fun and women, and since, according to his concepts, there was nothing ignoble in these tastes, and he could not think about what came out of satisfying his tastes for other people, in his soul he believed considered himself an impeccable person, sincerely despised scoundrels and bad people and carried his head high with a calm conscience.

During the First World War, the confrontation unfolded between the military-political bloc "Atlanta", which included Great Britain, France and the Russian Empire (later the Republic), and the allies (more than twenty states were on the side of "Atlanta") on one side and the powers of the Quadruple Alliance (Second Reich, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Third Bulgarian Kingdom) on the other. European countries Albania, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and several other countries maintained their neutrality.

Brief summary

The results of the conflict were disappointing for everyone. The consequences of World War 1 (briefly) are as follows:

1. Human losses: Atlanta - 5.6 million out of 45 million mobilized, civilians - 7.9 million; opponents - 4.4 million out of 25.9 million soldiers, civilians - 3.4 million.
2. The main territorial consequences of World War 1 were the redistribution of borders and the cessation of the existence of four powerful empires.
3. Political results - the establishment of the United States as a world leader, the transition to a new legal system.
4. Economic consequences - decline of the national economy, loss of national wealth. Against the backdrop of the conflict, only two countries managed to improve their economic situation.

Casualties of the Quadruple Alliance

Austria-Hungary, after declaring war, mobilized 74% of the male population from 15 to 49 years old. For every thousand soldiers, on average, about 122 were killed by Atlanta and died from other causes on the battlefield. Human losses in terms of the entire population of the empire amounted to 18 people per thousand citizens.

In Germany, the number of those mobilized amounted to 81% of the total male population from 15 to 49 years old. Most of the losses were among young people born in 1892-1895; thousands of Germans returned from the war disabled. Per thousand soldiers, the losses of the Second Reich were approximately 154 people, and if calculated for the entire population - 31 people per 1000 citizens of the empire. In 1916, female mortality in Germany increased by 11% from the pre-war level, and by 1917 - by 30%. The main causes of death were diseases caused by chronic malnutrition.

Of the 685 thousand Bulgarian soldiers, 88 thousand died. The Ottoman Empire mobilized almost three million men (out of a population of 21.3 million), and one in four of them died. In total, the powers of the Quadruple Alliance sent almost 26 million males to war, every sixth died on the battlefields (almost four and a half million men).

Casualties of Atlanta and allies

British casualties - more than seven hundred thousand soldiers out of almost five million; France – 1.3 million out of 6.8; Italy - 462 thousand out of almost six million; USA – 116 thousand out of 4.7 million; Russian Empire - 1.6 million people out of 15.3 million mobilized.

Damage to the world economy

The consequence of World War I was a reduction in sown areas by more than 22%, and grain harvests by 37% from pre-war levels. In France alone, for example, during the hostilities, almost eight thousand railway lines, almost five thousand bridges, twenty thousand factories and more than three hundred thousand residential buildings were destroyed.

Metal smelting decreased by 43% of pre-war levels, and other areas of industry suffered significantly. Germany's public debt has grown 63 times, Great Britain's - almost nine times. In 1921, three years after the establishment of peace, twenty thousand German marks were given for one pound sterling.

Territorial losses

The results and consequences of World War I are also expressed in a large-scale redistribution of the borders of the Old World. The Second Reich lost more than 13% of its territories, the Ottoman Empire (more precisely, no longer an empire, but Turkey) - 68%. Austria-Hungary ceased to exist altogether. Subsequently, Hungary was located on 13% of the territory of the empire, Austria - on 12%. The remaining territories became part of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Romania. Only 7% were “plucked off” from Bulgaria.

Russia, which was part of Atlanta, lost 15% of its territories. Some of them went to Poland, some went to Latvia, Finland and Romania. Part of these lands in 1939-1940. returned to the Soviet Union.

Political results

As a result of the First World War, new states appeared on the map, and the United States became the leader. Europe, as the center of the colonial world, no longer existed, as four powerful empires disappeared: German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman. It was after the First World War that a new legal system was established in the world, class, ethnic and interstate contradictions intensified, and social processes that arose at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were frozen.

Economic consequences

The economic consequences of World War I weighed heavily on both the winners and the losers. Direct military losses amounted to more than two hundred billion US dollars, which was twelve times the gold reserves of European states. A third of the national wealth of the Old World was destroyed.

Only the United States and Japan increased their incomes during the years of conflict. Japan established a monopoly on trade in southeast Asia, and the United States established itself as a leader on the international stage. The national wealth of the States in 1914-1918 increased by 40% from the pre-war level, trade volumes with other countries doubled, and the value of export products tripled.

The social consequences of World War 1 were hunger, crime, fatherlessness, increased rates of alcohol consumption and frequent illness.

The First World War completely changed the world. The post-war division of the world caused a significant weakening or collapse of the strongest empires, all trade ties were disrupted, the development of national capitalism and anti-war movements of workers accelerated. And in Russia, active hostilities on the world stage coincided with the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of Bolshevik power.

But the results of the world war were not only geopolitical and economic. The fighting directly or indirectly affected the majority of the civilian population of the participating countries, destroyed families, deprived many families of shelter, made healthy men disabled, women into unhappy widows, and children into orphans. The casualties in the First World War were not comparable to those of conflicts that had occurred before.

Parties to the conflict

The lead-up to the outbreak of World War I was the assassination of ex-Duke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian terrorist Gavrilo Princip. How did it happen that this particular crime a few years later became the reason for calculations of how many people died in the First World War? In fact, the war could have started ten years before this event.

Germany has long felt deprived of the colonial division of the world. The power tried to unite either with Great Britain against France, or with France against Great Britain, but the English leadership had good relations with the French, and France’s sphere of interests included Russia. Germany had no choice but to enter into an alliance with the Ottoman Empire, Italy and Austria-Hungary.

After the incident with Morocco, nationalist sentiments spread throughout Europe. All countries have been building up their military capabilities for several years. All that was needed was a reason for the war machine to come into action. This is precisely the reason given by the Serbian student Gavrilo Princip.

Austria-Hungary was the first to declare war on Serbia, and a few days later Germany made the same attack on Russia, France and Belgium. Great Britain declared war on Germany, Montenegro on Austria-Hungary, and Austria-Hungary on Russia. The events of the First World War (table - see below) began to develop rapidly.

Two enemy camps formed even before the start of active hostilities. Russia took the side of the Entente. The union also included France, the USA (only in 1917-1918), Serbia, Great Britain and the dominions, Italy (since 1915). The opponents were the Central Powers (they were also called the Triple Alliance, later the Quadruple Alliance): Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria (since 1915).

Human strength

How many people died in the First World War? A monstrously large number, especially if you don’t count the soldiers who were mobilized. In percentage terms, losses look almost the same as in other conflicts. The number of victims seems so huge only because many more people took part in the war than in previous wars.

The Entente forces amounted to more than 45 million soldiers. The population of the member countries of the union at the same time totaled 1.315 million people. For allied countries, mobilization resources (from among men of military age or the total population) are:

• The Russian Empire mobilized 15.3 million soldiers;
• France - 6.8 million men;
• Great Britain - almost five million males of military age;
• Italy - almost six million men of military age;
• Greece - 353 thousand soldiers;
• USA - 4.7 million soldiers (sent just over two million soldiers to Europe);
• Belgium - 500 thousand men of military age;
• Romania - 1.2 million people;
• Serbia - more than 700 thousand;
• Portugal - 53 thousand soldiers;
• India (as a dominion of the British Empire) - 1.4 million people;
• Empire of Japan - 30 thousand people;
• Canada - more than 600 thousand men of military age;
• Australia - 412 thousand.

How many of them died in the First World War? More than five and a half million people are listed as dead. The table of events of the First World War clearly confirms this.

The forces of the Triple Alliance were represented by almost 26 million people (almost two times less than at the disposal of the Entente). Most of the soldiers were mobilized by the German Empire (13.2 million out of 16 million men of military age), less by Austria-Hungary (9 million out of 12 million men of military age). The Ottoman Empire sent almost three million out of five and a half million people to the front. Bulgaria mobilized the fewest soldiers - almost seven hundred thousand out of more than a million men.

Total losses of participants

The archive of those killed in the First World War contains ten million names of soldiers on both sides. More than eighteen thousand were wounded, and 8.5 million were captured. Among civilians, almost eleven and a half thousand people were killed. So how many people died in the First World War, including soldiers, officers, and civilians? More than twenty million people lost their lives during the hostilities.

Russia in World War I

The losses of the Russian Empire in the First World War amounted to more than 1.5 million soldiers. All these people were killed in battle or died during sanitary evacuation. On average, 12% of soldiers died, and 17% of the officers who died in the First World War were officers. Almost four million Russian soldiers were wounded, and 3.3 million were captured. More than a million civilians were killed.

Allied losses

The losses of the Entente together with the Russian Empire amounted to 5.6 million soldiers and almost eight million civilians, a total of almost 13.5 million people. France lost 1.3 million soldiers, Great Britain - 702 thousand, Italy - 462 thousand, Greece - 26.6 thousand, USA - 116 thousand, Belgium - 58.6 thousand, Romania - 219 thousand, Serbia - 127 thousand, Portugal - 7 ,2 thousand, British India - 64.4 thousand, Japanese Empire - 415 people (out of thirty thousand mobilized), Canada - 56.6 thousand.

Central States losses

The Triple (Quadruple) Alliance lost 4.4 million soldiers and 3.4 million civilians in the war. In the German Empire, just over two million people were killed, in the Ottoman Empire - 763 thousand, Bulgaria lost 155 thousand, and Austria-Hungary - almost 1.5 million soldiers.

For the first time, a study of the losses of the Armed Forces and the civilian population of the Soviet Union by this team of military historians was published back in 1993 under the title “The classification has been removed. Losses of the Armed Forces of the USSR in wars, hostilities and military conflicts” (M., Voenizdat). This publication was the final result of the work of a state commission of specialists from Goskomstat, the Moscow Region, the Academy of Sciences and Moscow State University, which in 1989–1990 carried out an analysis of demographic losses during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945, submitted from the Ministry of Defense with an extension to all military conflicts of the RSFSR and the USSR, starting since 1918.

In 2001, the second edition of the study, carried out by the same team of authors, was published, entitled “Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century: Losses of the Armed Forces” (M., “OLMA-PRESS”), supplemented by an analysis of the losses of the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) and the First World War (1914–1918). The third edition of 2010 received an update of the title in its second part and thereby was relieved of the indication of partial correction of obvious distortions and errors made in previous editions regarding the losses of military personnel and civilians during the Great Patriotic War, but the total loss figures were left without changes.

The materials relating to the First World War (Great) in the third edition are identical to the second edition. This means that regarding the losses of the Imperial Russian Army following the First World War, everything presented by Krivosheev’s team of authors was ignored by the expert community.

However, familiarization with the figures of losses submitted by the authors for the losses suffered by the Russian armed forces in the First World War leaves the impression of superficiality in relation to the results presented, since it becomes obvious that the study as such is completely absent, and there is simply borrowing, and not only uncritical, but also deliberately biased.

Initially, the authors (p. 89 “Losses of the Russian Army”) cover themselves with the statement: “Information about the human losses of the Russian armed forces in the First World War, found in domestic and foreign sources, suffers for the most part from inconsistency and inconsistency. This is explained primarily by the unequal completeness and reliability of the materials used by researchers, as well as significant differences in the methodology for calculating losses. As a result, the difference, for example, in the number of killed and deceased Russian soldiers and officers varies in published works from several tens of thousands to 1–2 million people. In confirmation of this fact, we present here a number of figures for irretrievable demographic losses of the Russian army taken from various domestic sources: 511,068 people, 562,644 people, 626,890 people, 775,369 people, 908,000 people, 2,300,000 people, 3,000,000 people.” . As will become clear later, the authors combined the presented figures with combat losses killed and deceased during the stages of sanitary evacuation (511,068, 562,644, 626,890), the same combat losses with the partial addition of missing persons (775,369) and total demographic losses (2 300,000, 3,000,000).

Of the seven sources named by the authors (p. 90), the last two (6th and 7th) attract attention, respectively, with loss figures: 2,300,000 and 3,000,000. The sixth source (listed in footnote 1 , p. 90) is a 1934 publication entitled “The World War in Figures.” The losses of 2 million 300 thousand indicated in this source do not inspire confidence due to their roundness. The seventh source (in the same list) is the “Collected Works” of M.V. Frunze, published in 1926. Also here, attention is drawn to the given roundness of the figure of 3.0 million, adopted, obviously, to achieve good memorization. But there is no point in dealing with the “deep tradition” belonging to Frunze.

The authors in Table 52 (p. 91) gave the figure for all irrevocable (combat and non-combat) demographic losses of the Russian army at 2,254,369 military personnel. Since this author’s number, already submitted twice in the first decade of the 21st century (in 2001 and 2010), is close to the rounded figures of 2,300,000 (2.3 million), it makes sense to understand its origin.

The essence of the author's research on all irretrievable losses is concentrated in Table 52 “Irreversible demographic losses of the Russian army in the war of 1914–1918. (in absolute numbers)”, located on pages 90 and 91 of the 2010 edition, as well as in the Notes and Explanations to the table on page 91.

The first column “Killed, died during the sanitary evacuation stages” – 1,200,000.

In the Note, the authors claim that in the CSB publication, all data on the losses of the Russian army turned out to be underestimated by 1.92 times compared to their actual number. The question immediately arises: “What is the CSO loss data, which is underestimated by 1.92 times in relation to its actual number?”

For the first column of losses, the authors give an explanation “a”, from which it follows that the figure of 1.2 million was taken from the book of Urlanis B.Ts. “Wars and the population of Europe” (Moscow, 1960). Therefore, for all clarifications, it is necessary to refer to this book by Urlanis, in which (Part II, Chapter III, paragraph 2 “The First World War (1914–1918, “Entente”, “Russia”), in two consecutive paragraphs, two contradictory statements are made in a row one statement to another.

Urlanis's first statement: “Determining Russia's losses in the First World War is a rather difficult task. Statistical materials about Russian losses are very contradictory, incomplete and often unreliable. This partly led to the fact that fantastic figures about Russian losses in the war of 1914–1918 appeared in the world press. Therefore, it is necessary to critically understand the main primary sources and then approach the determination of the most reliable number of Russian soldiers and officers killed during this war.” Thus, as Urlanis argues, statistical materials, that is, materials from the main primary sources, about Russia’s losses, in general, are unreliable, which led to the “appearance” of fantastic figures in the world press.

But this is what Urlanis writes in the next paragraph. His second statement: “Unlike some other countries that participated in the First World War, Russia in Main (?!) At the army headquarters there was a regular record of losses by individual types. These data were compiled by the information department of the Main (?!) headquarters and published in the “Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the Sanitary Consequences of the War.” According to these data, the number of killed soldiers and officers of the Russian army was 511,068 people. However, the same article in which this figure is given indicates that it cannot claim to be complete. During periods of major failures on the fronts, such as the defeat of the 2nd Army under the command of General Samsonov and the defeat of the 1st Army of the Northwestern Front (due to the betrayal of General Rennenkampf), the influx of materials about losses to the center decreased significantly and was incomplete. Therefore, the above figure cannot be considered as the actual number of those killed."

So, the matter of accounting for losses in the General Staff was set at a good level. But in reality, in the conditions of encirclement (albeit incomplete in terms of the composition of units and formations) of Samsonov’s 2nd Army in East Prussia in 1914, having information about total losses, it was difficult to reliably divide them into types (killed, wounded, missing, trapped captured). But this did not mean that it was impossible to make approximate estimates of the types of losses, based, among other things, on the enemy’s information.

Urlanis: “Later materials from the Chief (?!) headquarters were processed by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and published for the first time in 1924 in the short reference book “National Economy of the USSR in Figures”. Then these same results were presented in the collection “Russia in the World War of 1914–1918 (in numbers),” published by the Central Statistical Office in 1925. According to these final data, the number of killed Russian soldiers and officers amounted to 626,440 people. ...In the comments to the tables in the collection “Russia in the World War of 1914–1918” it is stated that “information on combat losses was obtained by the Central Statistical Office by processing reports of the former. The Main Directorate of the General Staff, compiled on the killed, wounded, shell-shocked and gassed, according to information received from the theater of military operations.”

It is unclear what, exactly, the processing of reports on information “received from the theater of military operations” consisted of. What specific work was done in about two years from the publication in 1923 of “Proceedings of the Commission ...” (with the number of killed 511,068 military personnel) to the publication in 1924 of “National Economy of the USSR in Figures” (with the number of killed 626,440), since no explanation of where the number 626,440 came from? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider both sources in comparison. However, this was not done either by Urlanis in 1960, or by Krivosheev’s team 40 years later in 2001. It can be assumed that the number 626,440, which differs by 115 thousand from the number 511,068, was obtained as a result of more careful processing of data covering the entire time of the war until February 1918.

But Urlanis, using a comparison of losses by year: 1914 - 42,908; 1915 – 269,669; 1916 - 261,097 (total 573,674), declares the number 626,440 unreliable: “Losses in 1915 and 1916. 6 times higher than the losses of 1914, although it was in this year that heavy and bloody battles took place. It is clear that such a difference cannot be explained solely by the fact that hostilities in 1914 lasted five and a half months (?!) , but should be attributed to the loss of documents during the retreat from East Prussia. The above comparison of the number of killed by war year should be taken as evidence that the figure of 626,440 is a significant understatement."

Military operations in 1914 lasted not five and a half months, but only four and a half months. The East Prussian operation began with the crossing of the border by the 1st Army of P.K. Rennenkampf on August 17 and the 2nd Army of A.V. Samsonov on August 19, 1914. The fighting for the 2nd Army ended in encirclement on August 30, 1914. The losses of the 2nd Army were: killed - 6 thousand, wounded (captured) - 20 thousand, captured - 30 thousand military personnel. The 1st Army with losses (30 thousand) close to the German ones (25 thousand) left Prussia on September 14. (Wikipedia: “East Prussian Operation.”)

The Galician operation, carried out by troops of the Russian Southwestern Front, began on August 18 and ended on September 21, 1914 with the defeat of the Austro-Hungarian army, followed by access to Przemysl and the Carpathian passes by November 10, 1914.

Assessing Russian losses in killed in the East Prussian operation, one can reasonably assert (taking into account the losses of the 2nd Army) that they amounted to no more than 12–15 thousand. Significantly greater losses occurred in the Galician operation, in which the maximum number of losses in killed and wounded was determined to be 230 thousand. If we assume that the number of killed was 80–90 thousand, then the ratio of wounded to killed: 150: 80 = 1.88 or 140: 90 = 1.56.

The simplest approximate definition of casualties in 1914 is to divide the heavy losses of 1915 by 2.7 (12: 4.5 = 2.7), since hostilities in 1914 took place only for slightly more than one-third of the year. When we divide 270 thousand by 2.7, we get 100 thousand killed. Therefore, the total number of military personnel killed must be increased: 626,440 + (100,000 – 43,000) = 683,440.

Urlanis points to information from the report of the chief military sanitary inspector: “They are given in Avramov’s article (Vl. Avramov, Victims of the imperialist war in Russia, “News of the People’s Commissariat of Health” No. 1–2, 1920, p. 41), which is a very valuable document on losses in the war of 1914-1918. The number of killed Avrams is 664,890... (It can be assumed, by comparing the figures of 683,440 and 664,890, that Avramov’s casualty losses for 1914 were counted not at 100 thousand, but only at 80 thousand.) However, this figure does not fully reflect the losses. In addition to the fact that it does not cover data on the Caucasian Front and losses after October 1, 1917, it does not include information lost during demobilization and retreat. Avramov himself believes that an adjustment of 10% should be made for this undercount. However, the size of this correction is set completely arbitrarily and, as will be shown below, is insufficient to restore the correct picture.”

It is not clear why Russian casualties on the Caucasian front over three years of war, including during successful offensive operations, were not included in the total figures for overall military losses. Also surprising is the very formulation of the question of losses on the Eastern Front after October 1, 1917 and losses after the “Soviet” demobilization, when, firstly, there was no combat activity at the front, and secondly, the army left its positions without fighting after demobilization. Thus, the amendment adopted by Avramov and equal to approximately 70 thousand dead military personnel completely covers the allegedly unaccounted losses of the Caucasian Front and all losses after October 1, 1917.

Urlanis: “An even higher number of killed is given in the certificate of the department of the duty general of the Chief (?!) headquarters in response to a request from the head of the French military mission, General Janin, about the losses and reserves of the Russian army. In this certificate, dated October 10, 1917, the number of those killed along with missing persons was determined to be 775,369 people, i.e. 110 thousand more than Avramov’s figure. ...We also note that the certificate of the general on duty indicates that the loss figures are given for the period from the beginning of the war to May 1, 1917, while in the collection and in the “Proceedings of the Commission...” these figures are considered as covering the period until September 1, 1917. The inclusion of missing persons in the total figure along with those killed cannot be considered as a circumstance that exaggerates the number of killed. If there is a separate heading “prisoners”, missing persons, for the most part, can be classified under the heading “killed”, and therefore combining them in one group is quite legal.”

Attributing such “missing in action” to “killed” is quite acceptable, but one must not forget in the future that the operation of adding “missing in action” for 110 thousand military personnel has already been done. Unfortunately, even 40 years after Urlanis, Krivosheev’s team ignored this addition in their demographic “research” on Russian military losses in the First World War.

Since the number of missing persons from Urlanis, according to the text of his book, is determined to be 228,838 people, then from the number of dead in 775,369 it is necessary to subtract not 110,000, but 228,838, which gives the result 775,369 - 228,838 = 546,531 (rounded up to 547 thousand). ). But this number still seems to be underestimated. Therefore, it makes sense to return to Avramov’s data, increased by 10%. Then 664,890 x 1.1 = 731,379 (rounded to 732 thousand).

Urlanis allows himself in further calculations to consolidate this combination of types of losses - killed and missing: “As a result... the losses of the Russian army in the war of 1914–1918. will be presented in the following figures (in thousands of people): the number of killed and missing before May 1, 1917 - 775; number of killed from May 1, 1917 to March 1918 - 30; number of killed in the fleet - 3; the undercount of those killed in 1914 was 100. Total: 908.”

The number of unknown losses of 775,369 (775 thousand) is necessary for Urlanis as a base for further increments in order to increase them to 908 thousand. But this number itself (775 thousand) raises doubts, since it includes some part missing (possibly only 110 thousand).

The number of 30 thousand deaths “from May 1, 1917 to March 1918” raises doubts. But the number of those killed in 1914 is completely absurd: 42.9 + 100 = 142.9 thousand, which in terms of 12 months is 142.9 x (12: 4.5) = 385 thousand. Obviously, the control number is 385 thousand represents a refuting estimate of the addition of 100 thousand to the losses of 1914, made by Urlanis clearly without the necessary self-control. Thus, the number of killed and deceased during the stages of sanitary evacuation (excluding missing persons) in thousands can be approximately determined by a decrease of 908 – 110 – (142.9 – 100) = 755 (thousand), that is, less by approximately 150 thousand .

In order to free ourselves from the option of determining losses imposed by Urlanis, it makes sense to abandon the number of 775 thousand, which he chose as the “base”, and accept the number of casualties belonging to Avramov, increased by 10%, i.e. 732 thousand. At the same time, it is possible to increase losses in 1914 to 100 thousand, that is, by 20 thousand in relation to the 80 thousand laid down by Avramov, and also add another 30 + 3 = 33 thousand (killed by March 1918. and those killed “in the fleet”). Thus, the total number of killed should be 732 + 20 + 33 = 785 thousand (maximum).

But Urlanis conducts his further research to increase Russian losses: “Can the resulting figure be (908 thousand) considered closer to reality than others? This requires further proof. It should be noted that foreign authors who studied Russia’s losses in the World War of 1914–1918 give completely different figures. For some reason, all the above official and semi-official loss figures remained unknown to them, and in their calculations they were based on very dubious materials.”

For Urlanis, on the one hand, the arbitrary number of 908 thousand “requires further proof,” and on the other hand, the foreign authors “were based on very dubious materials.” Further, Urlanis denounces foreign authors, but comes to the need to adjust the losses of 908 thousand killed in accordance with the French indicator of the quantitative ratio of wounded to dead, proposed by N.N. Golovin and equal to 3.3.

Urlanis: “From the above data it is clear that the number of those killed in the Russian army is determined within very wide limits - from 500 thousand to 4 million people. This requires that the previously planned figure of 900 thousand killed receive additional confirmation on the basis of some other indications. Some researchers take the number of wounded as such indications and, applying to them the proportion between the number of wounded and killed, determine the number of killed. This is what, for example, Lieutenant General of the Tsarist Army, former professor at the Academy of the General Staff N.N. Golovin did. In his study of the Russian army in the world war, he devotes a special chapter to the losses of the army, in which he makes the following calculation of the number of killed. To the number of wounded, which, according to Avramov, amounted to 3,813,827 people, Golovin added 10% for undercounting and received 4.2 million wounded. Having established from materials relating to the losses of the French army that the number of wounded is 3.3 times greater than the number of killed, he divides 4.2 million by 3.3 and gets a figure of 1,260 thousand, or more precisely 1,273 thousand, which he rounds up up to 1,300 thousand. This is, according to Golovin, the actual number of those killed.”

Urlanis shows that Lieutenant General and Professor N.N. Golovin actually manipulates the loss figures, additionally using the French indicator of the ratio of missing to the total number of captured in connection with the missing to calculate the total Russian losses in killed, those who died during the sanitary evacuation stages and those who went missing. But the inflated results obtained by Golovin represent a complete failure. However, a critical attitude towards the calculations made by Golovin does not stop Urlanis from searching for his own version, justifying the acceptance of a larger number of casualties based on the 1.3 million (1 million 273 thousand) initially received by Golovin.

Urlanis: “This convinces us that Golovin’s calculation methods cannot be considered satisfactory and it is necessary to check the number of killed in some other way. This method could be the use of data on enemy losses on individual fronts.”

In his criticism of the first version of the calculation of Russian casualties made by Golovin using the “French coefficient”, Urlanis did not point out the most important thing, namely: the losses in killed and wounded on the Western and Eastern fronts cannot have the same ratio due to the different nature of the hostilities. But this disparity in combat operations and, as a consequence, differences in the ratio of killed to wounded also took place in battles on the Western Front. Thus, the Battle of Verdun (02/21/1916–12/18/1916) and the Battle of the Somme (06/24/1916–11/15/1916) were long-term operations in 1916 with limitations in front and depth. But the Battle of Verdun was a French defensive-offensive operation over a space along the front and a few kilometers in depth, and the Battle of the Somme was an offensive operation of the Franco-British allies over a space up to 10 times larger. By the end of the Somme operation, the Allies managed to push through the German defenses along a front of 35 km and a depth of up to 10 km.

In the battle of Verdun, French losses: killed - 163 thousand, wounded - 216 thousand. For comparison, German losses: killed - 143 thousand, wounded - 196 thousand. Then the ratio of wounded to killed for the French side is 216: 163 = 1, 32. Approximately the same ratio for the German side is 196: 143 = 1.37. Actual equality proves the reliability of the obtained indicators. In addition, the reliability is confirmed by information about the total losses (including the wounded, missing and captured), which are: French - 543 thousand, German - 434 thousand. If we classify most of the missing as killed, then the figures are still will decrease, approaching a 1:1 ratio for the Battle of Verdun, that is, 1.0. Thus, in the Verdun operation, the ratio of wounded to killed in the French army (3.3: 1.32 = 2.5) differs at least two and a half times from the average accepted by Golovin of 3.3 for the French army based on the results of the First world war.

In the Somme Offensive, Allied casualties were 146,431 killed and missing, and total losses were 623,907 troops. The Battle of the Somme is indicative of the following. Firstly, the ratio of losses in wounded and captured to losses in killed and missing is (623,907 – 146,431): 146,431 = 3.26, which coincides with the indicator adopted by Golovin of 3.3. However, the number of those captured in this offensive operation should be significantly less than those missing in action (actually killed on the battlefield). Therefore, this indicator for the battle of the Somme, when reduced by subtracting the numerator and denominator in the accepted ratio, should increase. Thus, if on the Western Front in two operations of 1916, differing in the nature of the fighting, the spread of the indicator chosen by Golovin was 2.5 times, then the use of this indicator of the Western Front (equal to 3.3) when calculating Russian losses in killed on the Eastern Front seems absurd.

Secondly, the losses in killed and missing on the Somme in 1916 (146,431) for four and a half months of continuous bloody battles are comparable to the losses accepted by Urlanis only in those killed on the Eastern Front in the East Prussian and Galician operations in 1914 (142 908), which clearly refutes Urlanis’s arbitrary increase of 100 thousand losses in the Russian army in 1914, also due to the obvious incomparability of military operations.

But, in order to determine the losses of the Russian armed forces, Urlanis calculates the total losses of the enemies (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey) on the Eastern and Caucasian fronts: “Losses of the German army on the eastern front: killed - 173.8; missing – 143.3; total – 317.1 (thousand). The vast majority of missing persons remained unfound, so they should be counted among those killed. Thus, in battles with the Russian army, the Germans lost more than 300 thousand soldiers and officers. ...The share of the Russian front in the total number of losses of the Austro-Hungarian army was approximately 60%. Austria-Hungary lost 727 thousand people killed on the battlefield. If we take the indicated percentage attributable to losses in battles with the Russian army, we obtain that the Austro-Hungarian army lost 450 thousand people killed on the Eastern Front. Turkish armies also fought against the Russian armies. We can roughly assume that two-thirds of the killed Turkish soldiers died from Russian weapons, i.e., about 150 thousand people out of 250 thousand. This number also includes the losses of two Bulgarian divisions that fought against the Russian armies.

As a result, we get that in battles with the Russians, the enemy lost 900 thousand people killed on the battlefield. Above we calculated that the losses of Russians killed (and partly missing) also amounted to 900 thousand people. Could it really happen that the Germans and their allies, given the insufficient combat equipment of the Russian army and other conditions in which the war of 1914–1918 took place, suffered the same losses as the Russians?

Obviously, it would be more competent to pose the question this way: could the Russians have suffered the same losses as the Germans and their allies? From this formulation of the question comes the necessary division of Russian losses into two parts: losses in offensive and defensive operations with German troops and losses in operations against the troops of Germany’s allies - Austria-Hungary and Turkey. The answer to this question is obvious. In the East Prussian operation of 1914, due to poor coordination of the actions of the two Russian armies, as well as during the retreat of 1915, due to the superiority in artillery (primarily heavy) on the German side and the lack of artillery ammunition, Russian losses, including those killed, were higher compared to German ones. In addition, it can be assumed that in the war as a whole, Russian losses exceeded German ones. But the losses of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish troops in the confrontation with the Russian armies were significantly higher than the Russian losses. As a result, the losses in killed in the Russian army, when calculated at the maximum amounted to 785 thousand, are not only unequal to the losses of the Central Powers and Turkey on the Russian fronts, but they are significantly less.

To justify the increase in Russian losses, Urlanis compares German losses and combined Anglo-French losses on the Western Front (France and Flanders): “With regard to losses on the Western Front, one can judge by the following figures. The French alone lost over 900 thousand people killed on the battlefields. The losses of British troops in France exceeded 500 thousand people. To this we must also add 50 thousand killed soldiers of the French colonial troops, 36 thousand Americans and about 50 thousand Belgians, Portuguese and soldiers of other armies who fought against the Germans. During the First World War, the fields of Flanders and France were watered with the blood of approximately 1.6 million soldiers and officers of the Entente army. These 1.6 million are contrasted with only 1.1 million killed German soldiers and officers. Consequently, the Germans on the Western Front had 1.5 (1,45) times lower losses than their opponents.”

This ratio of losses between the Entente countries and Germany on the Western Front was determined by two reasons. Firstly, the positional nature of the war on the Western Front with active offensive-defensive military operations in limited territories, when in two bloody months-long battles of 1916, the defensive-offensive at Verdun and the offensive at the Somme, as well as in the French “Nivelle’s offensive” and in the English During the offensive at Arras in 1917, Entente troops suffered losses that significantly exceeded those of Germany. Secondly, the Allied command was clearly inferior in professional qualities to the German command both in the Somme offensive in 1916 and in the “Nivelle offensive” in 1917.

Based on the ratio of losses killed by the Allies and Germans on the Western Front, Urlanis makes an adjustment for such losses as a whole for the Eastern Front: “Above we found that for 900 thousand killed Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Turks, there were 900 thousand killed Russians (ratio 1 :1). At the same time, on the Western Front, for 1.1 million German losses, there were 1.6 million Allied losses (ratio of approximately 3:4). (Urlanis's reported ratio as 0.75 is actually 0.69.) If we take the same ratio for the Russian front, then the number of killed Russians will increase to 1.2 million people, i.e. there will be 300 thousand more people than according to the “balance of manpower expenditure” compiled by the headquarters in 1917 .taking into account our additions. (However, using the approximate value of 0.75 gives a result of 1.2 million killed on the Russian side. If we use the actual value of 0.69, then the number of killed Russian military personnel will be 1.3 million. This shows, on the one hand, that Urlanis made a primitive adjustment of the result to an arbitrarily set number of 1.2 million, and on the other hand reveals the obvious distorting anti-information content of this approach.) This figure, one must think, is much closer to reality than the frequently cited figures of 500–600 thousand and the fantastic figures of 3–4 million killed that appeared in the foreign press.”

Urlanis again highlights the generally accepted spread of Russian losses in killed from 0.5–0.6 to 3–4 million only in order to cover up his own numerical arbitrariness.

From what Urlanis has stated, one can draw a simple conclusion that his calculation of the number of killed on the Russian side, resulting in an adjusted number of 1.2 million, was made as arbitrarily as the calculation of Golovin, who obtained a result of 1.3 million killed. At the same time, the degree of arbitrariness in Urlanis is somewhat less, and the arbitrariness itself is of higher quality than what was done by Golovin.

It is obvious that Urlanis and Golovin did not take into account the contrasting nature of the fighting on the Western and Eastern fronts. This conclusion applies both to Golovin’s use of the 3.3 indicator, the ratio of wounded to killed in French troops, and to Urlanis’s use of the 1.5 indicator, the ratio of Allied and German losses on the Western Front.

Returning to the study of Russian losses in the First World War by a team of authors led by Krivosheev, we can state the following. They adopted, in turn, the “multiplicity coefficient”, obtained as the ratio of Russian losses in killed according to Urlanis at 1.2 million to the number of losses according to the statistical publication of the Central Statistical Office of 1924 at 626.44 thousand and equal to 1.92 (1,200,000 : 626,440 = 1.92) is also arbitrary, since the number of killed servicemen of the Russian armed forces initially accepted completely arbitrarily by Urlanis is 908 thousand, which he multiplies by an arbitrary coefficient related to the losses of Allied troops on the Western Front, equal to 1.5 , which should give the number of Russian casualties at 1 million 362 thousand. Then the “multiplicity factor” should increase to a value of 1,362,000: 626,440 = 2.17.

Krivosheev’s team of authors applies a “multiplicity factor” to increase the number of losses in the category – “missing (considered dead or deceased)” in Table 52 (P. 90) in accordance with the Explanations to Table 52 (P. 91): “The figure is received calculation method: the number of missing people is 228,838, to bring it in accordance with the new scale of calculating losses, multiplied by the “multiplicity factor” (1.92).” Thus, the number of missing persons is arbitrarily increased (228,838 x 1.92 = 439,369) to 439,369. This number of missing persons is then entered by the authors into irrecoverable combat losses in Table 52.

These incorrect and falsifying (with a view to increasing Russian losses) calculations must be contrasted with real, substantiated numbers, the summation of which (even using a “multiplicity factor”, but in a different numerical value) will allow us to obtain reliable results on the losses of the Russian armed forces in the First World War.

First. The number of dead and deceased during the sanitary evacuation stages is 785 thousand military personnel. Then the “multiplicity factor” should be 785,000: 626,440 = 1.25.

Second. The number of missing persons (increased by the “multiplicity factor”) is 228,838 x 1.25 = 286,048 (rounded to 286 thousand).

Third. Irreversible combat losses: 785 thousand (killed) + 286 thousand (missing in action) + 240 thousand (died from wounds) + 11 thousand (died from gas poisoning) = 1 million 322 thousand.

Fourth. Irreversible demographic losses: 1,322 thousand (irretrievable combat losses) + 364 thousand (irretrievable non-combat losses) = 1 million 686 thousand.

Note. Irreversible non-combat losses are taken from Table 52 (P. 91).

Thus, the maximum demographic losses of the armed forces of the Russian Empire of 1 million 686 thousand differ less from the 2 million 254 thousand declared by Krivosheev’s team of authors by almost 600 thousand dead military personnel.

Based on the obtained number of irretrievable demographic losses of the Russian armed forces, it is necessary to compare them with the irretrievable demographic losses of both the opponents of Germany and Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and the Entente allies (France and Great Britain).

According to Urlanis, the losses of the German army on the Eastern Front are: killed - 173.8 thousand, missing - 143.3 thousand, total - 317.1 thousand. Urlanis: “The vast majority of missing people remained unfound, so they should count among the dead. Thus, in battles with the Russian army, the Germans lost 300 thousand soldiers and officers killed.”

Urlanis defines the losses of the Austro-Hungarian army as follows: “The share of the Russian front in the total number of losses of the Austro-Hungarian army was approximately 60%. In total, Austria-Hungary lost 727 thousand people killed on the battlefield. If we take the indicated percentage attributable to losses in battles with the Russian army, we find that the Austro-Hungarian army lost 450 thousand people killed on the Eastern Front.”

Urlanis about Turkish losses: “We can roughly assume that two-thirds of the killed Turkish soldiers died from Russian weapons, i.e. about 150 thousand people out of a total of 250 thousand.

Total losses killed by the powers of the Triple Alliance: 300 + 450 + 150 = 900 thousand.

Similar losses of the Russian army (maximum) amounted to 785 + 286 = 1071 (1 million 71 thousand). Thus, the excess of Russian losses in killed (at the maximum) is equal to 1071 – 900 = 171 thousand.

Based on Urlanis’s calculations, the excess of casualties among the Allies on the Western Front (in France and Flanders) in relation to German losses is 1600 – 1100 = 500 thousand.

It is obvious that the following conclusions must be drawn from the data obtained. Firstly, Russia's total losses in killed on the Eastern Front (including the Caucasus Front) are higher than the combined losses of opposing Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. This excess is ensured due to lower German losses compared to the Russians, which indicates German tactical and organizational-technical dominance, determined by the higher level of German command and leadership. Secondly, the losses of killed allies on the Western Front by more than 500 thousand exceeded the Russian losses on the Eastern Front (including losses on the Caucasus Front), which is predetermined by the different nature of the fighting, determined by the greater density of confrontation in limited territories, as well as the significantly shorter length of the Western Front compared to the Eastern Front, and the professionally worse Franco-British level of military command compared to the Russian one.

As has been shown, unreliable figures used and applied by Krivosheev’s team of authors in the category “Irreversible combat losses” (Table 52, p. 90) refer to two main types of losses: “Killed, died during the stages of sanitary evacuation” - 1,200,000 instead real (maximum) 785,000 and “Missing (considered dead or deceased)” - 439,369 instead of 228,838 (or 274,655 taking into account the “multiplicity factor” - 1.25 instead of 1.92). Thus, the involuntary and arbitrary increase by the authors of irretrievable combat losses amounted to (1,200,000 + 439,369) – (785,000 + 286,000) = 569,000 or rounded 570 thousand.

At the end, as it can now be argued, the so-called “research”, the collective authors under the leadership of Krivosheev combine in Table 56 all types of losses of the armed forces of the main participants in the First World War and bring the Russian Empire into first place in terms of losses to the number of armies. The authors (p. 95) state the following: “From table 56 it is clear that the Russian army, in comparison with the armies of other participants in military coalitions, suffered the greatest losses in the First World War, amounting to more than 60% of the total number of armed forces. That is, more than defeated (a year later) Germany and Austria-Hungary.”

It seems that this team of authors has set itself the goal of doing everything necessary to bring Russia to first place in terms of losses. As was shown, in terms of gratuitous combat losses, the arbitrary (unfounded) increase in losses amounted to almost 600 thousand. However, this was not enough and therefore the authors for sanitary losses on the Russian side chose from Urlanis the most unreliable number of 3 million 749 thousand, which represents a combination of wounded , shell-shocked, remaining with the unit, dying from wounds. Obviously, only the wounded, shell-shocked, and poisoned by gases, whose number according to Urlanis is 2 million 755 thousand (or 2 million 855 thousand), can be considered sanitary losses.

Then all the losses of the Russian armed forces in total are equal to: 1,322 thousand (irretrievable combat losses) + 364 thousand (irretrievable non-combat losses) + 2,855 thousand (sanitary losses) + 3,409 thousand (captured) = 7 million 950 thousand. Accordingly, the ratio of losses to army size is 7,950: 15,500 = 0.51 (51%).

Then, when adjusting Table 56 by percentage of losses from the number of armies, Russia, having 51%, finds itself in penultimate place among the great powers, namely: 1. Germany - 59.3%; 2. France – 55.9%; 3. Austria-Hungary – 54.2%; 4. Russia – 51.0%; 5. Great Britain – 34.8%.

Taking into account the data in Table 56, in terms of total losses, Russia and Germany occupy quantitatively close first and second places, respectively: 1. Russia – 7,950 thousand; 2. Germany – 7,860 thousand; then follow: 3. Austria-Hungary – 4,880 thousand; 4. France – 4,701.8 thousand; 5. Great Britain – 3,303.1 thousand.

It must be taken into account that 3 million 409 thousand Russian prisoners, like prisoners of other countries, were released at the end of the war and returned home. Therefore, it makes sense to determine the distribution of states by the amount of demographic and sanitary losses: 1. Germany – 2,350 + 4,510 = 6,860 thousand; 2. Russia – 1,686 + 2,855 = 4,541 thousand; 3. France – 1,397.8 + 2,800 = 4,197.8 thousand; 4. Austria-Hungary – 1,100 + 1,980 = 3,080 thousand; 5. Great Britain – 908.4 + 2,035 = 2,943.4 thousand.

In conclusion, it is necessary to present the distribution of states by demographic losses: 1. Germany – 2,350 thousand; 2. Russia – 1,686 thousand; 3. France – 1,397.8 thousand; 4. Austria-Hungary – 1,100 thousand; 5. Great Britain – 908.4 thousand

Thus, we can conclude that the losses of the Russian Empire in the First World War are not exceptional both in relation to opponents and allies. In terms of the amount of demographic and sanitary losses, Germany ranks first, with a large excess compared to Russia, and in terms of demographic losses, the excess of Germany in comparison with Russia is more than 650 thousand dead.

The political and military-strategic conclusions that can be drawn from the military losses of participants in the World War are as follows.

First. Germany and Austria-Hungary with manic persistence, regardless of losses, from 1914 to 1918 strove to achieve their geopolitical goals.

Second. With all its efforts to avoid participation in a pan-European war, Russia was forced to enter into an alliance with France and then Great Britain to ensure its own security. By taking active steps in the 1914 campaign, Russia saved not only France, but also itself, since in the event of the Allies’ defeat on the Western Front and France dropping out of the war, all German forces would be turned against Russia. Even with the strategic inaction of the Allies in 1915, Germany was forced to keep a significant number of its forces on the Western Front, which, thereby, were not used in the German offensive on the Eastern Front. Thus, thanks to its own military efforts in 1914, preserving the Western Front, Russia significantly reduced the possible severe consequences of the retreat of 1915 and, above all, military losses.

Third. Although the total German losses in the West and East significantly exceeded Russian losses, it is obvious that the ratio of losses on the Eastern Front is not in favor of Russia and German losses are less than Russian ones.

Fourth. The arguments of historians and political scientists that the Allies waged “a war until the last Russian soldier” are false. The Allies bore their heavy burden of war to the fullest. The combined Franco-British losses in all options for accounting for losses (from total to demographic) exceed or are equal to both all German losses (even taking into account losses on the Eastern Front), and exceed all Russian losses on all fronts.

Regarding demographic studies on military losses in the First World War, belonging to Urlanis B.Ts. and the team of authors under the leadership of G.F. Krivosheev, it is necessary to conclude that even separated in time by 40 and then 50 years (from 1960 to 2001 and 2010), they, one way or another, carried out the order to discredit the Russian Empire in period of the First World War. This was done by falsifying an increase in the losses of the Russian armed forces in such a way as to show these losses as the greatest in comparison with both opponents and allies. At the same time, the “research” had to be presented as objective and scientifically verified.

S.A. Kiselev

Losses in the First World War

Austria-Hungary

Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of those mobilized in Austria-Hungary to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 74%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 122 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Austria lost 90 people, and losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire amounted to 18 people.

England

During 1915, German submarines sank 227 British ships (885,721 gross tons). The belt of British cemeteries, running from the North Sea to the Somme and beyond, represents an idealized memorial to all those whose deaths on the battlefields of the Great War were unmarked. The bodies of over 500 thousand British soldiers were never found, and if they were found, it was impossible to identify them. The English economy suffered the largest losses in the First World War - $24.1 billion, or more than 34% of the nation's wealth.

Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of those mobilized in Great Britain to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 50%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 122 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years, Great Britain lost 61 people, and the losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Great Britain amounted to 16 people.

Germany

From 1870 to 1899, 16,000,000 boys were born in Germany; almost all of them served in the army and about 13% were killed. The greatest losses were suffered by German youth born in 1892-1895. Many thousands of Germans came home disabled: 44,657 Germans lost a leg during the war, 20,877 lost an arm, 1,264 lost both legs, 136 lost both arms. 2,547 Germans lost their sight during the war. By the end of 1916, over a million soldiers had already died - 241,000 in 1914, 434,000 in 1915, 340,000 in 1916. Belgium, northern France, Russian Poland, Serbia and Romania were occupied, but in November 1916 the Central Powers approached the Entente with a peace proposal, which was rejected. Female mortality, for example, in 1916 increased by 11.5%, and in 1917 by 30.4% compared to pre-war figures, and the main reason for this was diseases caused by malnutrition. The German economy suffered more than 20% losses. The Germans, fighting on foreign soil, had to create compact and inconspicuous cemeteries and often dug huge mass graves. Thus, in Vladso in Belgium, where the bodies of most of the volunteers killed in 1914 in the so-called “Infanticide at Ypres” lie. Kindermord bei Ypern) the center of the slab hides the remains of over 20 thousand young people.

Historian Volkov cited data that the share of those mobilized in Germany to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 81%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 154 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Germany lost 125 people , and losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Germany amounted to 31 people.

Romania

The decision to enter the war had disastrous consequences for Romania. Romania lost almost 7% of its entire population. In particular, Russia was forced to save Romania from complete defeat and occupation by Austria-Hungary, but after Russia left the war, Romania was also forced to sign a separate peace with the Central Powers and fight on their side for several months. Then, as a result of Entente operations in the Balkans, the Central Powers were defeated, and Romania became one of the victors in the war, significantly increasing its territory at the expense of Hungarian Transylvania.

Russia

Below are data on the losses of the Russian Army in the First World War according to various sources (data from the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army dated October 3, 1917; data from the Central Statistical Office of the USSR 1925; calculations by N.N. Golovin 1939), given in the book by N.N. Golovin ( Chapter 5. Calculation of casualties).

Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of those mobilized in Russia to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 39%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 115 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years Russia lost 45 people, and losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of Russia amounted to 11 people.

Although the relative losses and the economic and internal problems of other warring countries were worse than in Russia, Russia after 1917 suffered huge losses that were not compensated at the end of the war (although the human losses, in any case, could not be compensated), because Russia, although it fought for three years on the side of the Entente that eventually won the war, at the beginning of 1918 signed a separate peace on the terms of the Central Powers. In particular, according to the peace treaty, Russia had to pay reparations to Germany. After Germany's defeat in the war, independent states were formed in the territories separated from Russia with the support of the Entente. In addition to these data, there is another estimate of Russia’s losses in the First World War: according to the book “RUSSIA AND THE USSR IN WARS OF THE XX CENTURY” published under the editorship of Candidate of Military Sciences, Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Russia’s demographic losses are 2254.4 thousand. people, sanitary losses - 3749.0 thousand people. and losses as prisoners - 3343.9 thousand people.

Serbia

The most catastrophic losses of the First World War were for Serbia. For a year, the Serbian army, despite an acute shortage of uniforms and ammunition, held back the superior Austrian troops, preventing them from occupying the country's territory. After Bulgaria entered the war, the fate of Serbia was decided - its territory was occupied, and the remnants of the Serbian army retreated to Greece. As a result of mass famine, epidemics and repression by the occupation authorities, more than 467 thousand Serbs (10% of the total population) died. The Serbian army lost almost a quarter of all those mobilized and was reduced during the four years of war from 400 to 100 thousand people. In total, Serbia lost a sixth of its population in four years; the war left more than 100 thousand disabled people and 500 thousand orphans in the country. The consequences of that demographic catastrophe are still felt today.

France

French losses were 306,000 killed in 1914, 334,000 in 1915, 217,000 in 1916, 121,000 in 1917, for a total of almost 1 million dead among the 19 million male population of France. The French infantry lost 22% of its combat strength. The greatest losses - about 30% - were suffered by the youngest age group of soldiers, 18-25 years old. Many of the dead did not manage to get married, and a considerable number of young French women lost the chance to get married. The 630,000 widows were not in a better situation. In 1921 in France, for every 9 men aged 20-39 there were 11 women. 2,800,000 French were wounded, 800,000 of them seriously. Many of those injured, returning from the front, chose to live in nursing homes or in specially built settlements. The French economy suffered serious losses of $11.2 billion (more than 19% of the national wealth). Historian Volkov cited data that the share of those mobilized in France to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 79%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 168 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years France lost 133 people , and the losses in terms of every thousand inhabitants of France amounted to 34 people.

Population, conscription and casualty data

Warring countries	Population (1914)	Soldier mobilized	Soldier killed (all causes)	Wounded soldier	Captured soldiers	Civilian casualties
Russian empire	175 137 800	15 378 000	1 670 000	3 749 000	3 342 900	1 070 000
France	39 601 509	6 800 000	1 293 464	2 800 000	506 000	160 000
Great Britain	46 037 900	4 970 902	702 410	1 662 625	170 389	3 000
Italy	35 597 800	5 903 140	462 391	953 886	569 000	80 000
Greece	5 463 000	353 000	26 620	21 000	16 000	15 000
USA	99 111 000	4 734 991	116 708	204 002	4 500	757
Belgium	7 638 800	500 000	58 637	78 624	46 686	10 000
Romania	7 560 000	1 234 000	219 800	200 000	240 000	270 000
Serbia	4 428 600	707 343	127 535	133 148	152 958	340 000
Portugal	6 069 900	53 000	7 222	13 751	12 318	923
British India	321 800 000	1 440 437	64 449	128 000	11 264	6 000 000
Japan	52 312 100	30 000	415	907	3
Canada	7 692 800	628 964	56 639	149 732	3 729	3 830
Australia	4 921 800	412 953	59 330	152 171	4 084	6 300
New Zealand	1 149 200	128 525	16 711	41 317	498
Newfoundland	250 000	11 922	1 204	2 314	150
Union of South Africa	6 465 000	136 070	7 121	12 029	1 538
Republic of China	441 958 000	175 000	10 000			500
Montenegro	440 000	60 000	13 325	10 000	8 000	20 000
African colonies of France	52 700 000	1 394 500	115 000	266 000	51 000
Caribs		21 000	1 000	3 000
TOTAL ENTANTE	1 315 140 409	45 073 747	5 614 350	10 581 506	5 141 017	7 980 310
German Empire	67 790 000	13 251 000	2 036 897	4 216 058	993 109	135 000
Austria-Hungary	52 749 900	9 000 000	1 496 200	2 600 000	2 220 000	420 000
Bulgaria	4 535 000	685 000	88 224	155 023	24 619	105 000
Ottoman Empire	21 373 900	2 998 321	804 000	763 753	145 104	2 800 000
African colonies of Germany	12 300 000		14 000	31 085
TOTAL TRIPLE ALLIANCE	158 748 800	25 934 321	4 452 321	7 765 919	3 428 832	3 460 000
Total	1 473 889 209	71 008 068	10 066 671	18 347 425	8 569 849	11 440 310

Notes

1. Volkov S.V. The Forgotten War (Russian). Article. Website of historian S.V. Volkov (2004). Archived from the original on May 28, 2012. Retrieved April 16, 2012.
2. published: “Proceedings of the commission to survey the sanitary consequences of the war of 1914–1920.” (Published by the People's Commissariat of Health.) Vol. I. S. 158, 159.
3. Russia in the World War 1914–1918. (in numbers). M.: Central Statistical Office of the USSR, military statistical department, 1925
4. Golovin N.N. “Russia’s military efforts in the world war” in 2 volumes. Paris, 1939
5. of which 348,508 were seriously wounded and dismissed from service
6. 643,614 including those who died from wounds (17,174)
7. along with those shell-shocked and poisoned during gas attacks
8. When calculating the dead, N.N. Golovin proceeded from the maximum possible number of wounded he calculated (4,200,000), assuming that the ratio of the number of killed to the number of wounded in the Russian army was the same as in France and Germany (approximately 1: 3.23) , and that in the Russian army the number of deaths from wounds was greater than in France or Germany - although on this score he himself gives the opposite statistics
9. 4,200,000 wounded, of which 350,000 died - those who died from wounds are included in the death toll (1,300,000) by N. Golovin. It should be noted that N.N. Golovin 4,200,000 wounded is also an estimated number
10. World History (Edition in 24 volumes. Vol. 19. First World War) / A. N. Badak, I. E. Voynich, N. M. Volchek and others. M.: Ast, Minsk: Harvest, Literature 1997-2001
11. TSB M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978 (article “Irish Rebellion of 1916”).
12. It is also worth remembering that the Spanish flu pandemic broke out in the city, which killed tens of millions of people. The article does not indicate the number of deaths from the Spanish flu (for statistics, see the article Spanish Flu).
13. In total in Russia in 1914 there were 40,080,000 men of military age
14. G. Krivosheev in his book () is based, as he himself writes, on the data of B.Ts. Urlanis (Urlanis B.Ts. Wars and the population of Europe. - M.: 1960). However, Urlanis calculated the basic losses of the Russian army (killed in battles and died during the stages of sanitary evacuation - 1,200,000) purely theoretically - by “simple” recalculation from the known military losses of enemy armies on the Eastern Front, based on the controversial assumption that on the Russian front the Russian The army lost as many times more killed than the enemy as on the Western Front the Allied armies lost more than the German army, i.e. 1.5 times. However, G. Krivoshein provides other data in his book, in particular, data from the Central Statistical Office of the USSR in 1925 (Russia in the World War 1914-1918 (in numbers). Central Statistical Office, M., 1925) - killed in battles and died at the stages of sanitary evacuation 626,440 people. (not 1,200,000). The data of Gen. were even smaller. headquarters of the Russian army in the summer of 1917. B. Urlanis writes in his book (B. Urlanis. Wars and the population of Europe. Part 3, Chapter 2): " Unlike some other countries that participated in the First World War, in Russia the General Staff of the Army had a regular record of losses by individual types. These data were compiled by the reference department of the General Staff and published in the “Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the Sanitary Consequences of the War.” According to these data, the number of killed soldiers and officers of the Russian army was 511,068 people. Later, the materials of the General Staff were processed by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and published for the first time in 1924 in the short reference book “National Economy of the USSR in Figures.” Then these same results were presented in the collection “Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers)”, published by the Central Statistical Office in 1925. According to these final data, the number of killed Russian soldiers and officers amounted to 626,440 people. This number was grouped by time of loss, by rank and by type of military service, but all tables show the same total: 626,440."Thus, it is very likely that the total loss figures are actually less by about 574,000 people (1,200,000 - 626,440), and the total military losses of the Russian army are not 2,254,369 people.(Krivosheev G.F. Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century. M., 2001 - Losses of the Russian army, table 52), and 1,670,000 people.
15. Of these, 340,000 died from hostilities, 730,000 from hunger and disease. Vadim Erlikhman Population losses in the 20th century. Directory. - Moscow., 2004., p. 132
16. In total, in France in 1914 there were 9,981,000 men of military age
17. Of these, 619,600 were killed in battle, 242,900 went missing and were subsequently not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 220,000 died from wounds, 170,000 died from disease, 18,964 died in captivity, accidents and suicides 14,000 .
18. Of these, 130,000 died from hostilities, 30,000 from hunger and disease.
19. Of these, English 4,006,158, Welsh 272,924, Scots 557,618, Irish 134,202
20. In total there were 11,539,000 men of military age in Great Britain in 1914
21. Of these, 327,000 were killed in battle, 158,000 went missing and were subsequently not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 131,000 died from wounds, 67,000 died from disease.
22. In total in Italy in 1914 there were 7,767,000 men of military age
23. Of these, 373,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found (this number includes 4,627 who died from gas attacks, 47,000 who died from wounds, 79,000 who died from disease and 6,000 who died as a result of accidents), died in captivity (according to official statistics) 90,000.
24. Of these, in only one battle of Caporetto, German-Austrian troops captured 335,000 Italians.
25. Of these, 10,000 died from hostilities, 70,000 from hunger and disease.
26. In total in Greece in 1914 there were 1,235,000 men of military age
27. Of these, 6,365 were killed in battle, 3,255 went missing and were subsequently not found, 2,000 died from wounds, 15,000 died from disease.
28. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 10,000 from hunger and disease.
29. Of these, 2,056,000 soldiers were transported to Europe
30. In total, in the United States in 1914 there were 25,541,000 men of military age
31. Of these, killed in battle, missing and subsequently not found, 37,000, died from wounds 14,000, died from gas attacks 1,462, died from disease 58,000, accidents 4,421, suicides 272, murders 154, died in captivity 400
32. Of these, 128 people died during the sinking of the liner Lusitania.
33. In total in Belgium in 1914 there were 1,924,000 men of military age
34. Of these, 28,958 were killed in battle or died from wounds, 28,587 died from disease, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,002 died in captivity
35. In total, in Romania in 1914 there were 1,900,000 men of military age
36. Of these, killed in battle, missing and subsequently not found, 116,300 died from wounds, 30,000 died from disease, 70,500 died in captivity, 3,000 accidents.
37. Of these, 120,000 died from hostilities, 150,000 from hunger and disease.
38. In total, in Serbia in 1914 there were 1,115,000 men of military age
39. Of these, 45,000 were killed in battle, died of wounds, went missing and were subsequently not found, and 72,553 died in captivity (according to official statistics).
40. Of these, 110,000 died from hostilities, 230,000 from hunger and disease.
41. In total there were 1,315,000 men of military age in Portugal in 1914
42. Of these, 5,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,000 died from wounds, and 1,000 died from disease.
43. In total there were 82,600,000 men of military age in British India in 1914
44. Of these, 24,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 3,000 died from wounds, 3,500 died in captivity
45. Everyone died from hunger and disease
46. In total there were 2,320,000 men of military age in Canada in 1914
47. Of these, 39,739 were killed in battle, 801 went missing and were subsequently not found, 325 died from gas attacks, 13,340 died from wounds, 3,919 died from illnesses, 397 died in captivity, accidents and suicides 809.
48. In total there were 1,370,000 men of conscription age in Australia in 1914
49. Of these, 41,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 12,000 died from wounds, 1,029 were accidents.
50. There were a total of 320,000 men of military age in New Zealand in 1914
51. Of these, 10,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 4,000 died from wounds, 60 died in captivity
52. In total there were 1,700,000 men of military age in the Union of South Africa in 1914
53. Of these, 4,000 were killed in battle, went missing and were subsequently not found, 1,000 died from wounds, 100 died in captivity
54. In total, there were about 114,025,000 men of military age in China
55. Mostly these were not soldiers, but volunteer workers.
56. Mostly those who died from disease.
57. Chinese civilians sunk by German submarines.
58. In total, in Montenegro in 1914 there were 110,000 men of military age
59. 2,000 died in captivity
60. Of these, 10,000 died from hostilities, 10,000 from hunger and disease.
61. In total, in the African colonies of France in 1914 there were 13,200,000 men of military age
62. In total, in the German Empire in 1914 there were 16,316,000 men of military age
63. Of these, 1,373,000 were killed in battle, 100,000 went missing and were subsequently not found, 3,000 died from gas attacks, 320,000 died from wounds, 166,000 died from disease, 55,899 died in captivity, 13,410 accidents, suicides 5,106, murders 294.
64. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 130,000 from hunger and disease.
65. Of these, Austrians - 2,250,000, Hungarians - 2,070,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 1,530,000, Yugoslavs - 990,000, Poles - 720,000, Ukrainians - 720,000, Romanians - 630,000, Italians - 90,000
66. In total, in Austria-Hungary in 1914 there were 12,176,000 men of military age
67. Of these, 478,000 died in captivity (according to official statistics), 300,000 died from diseases and wounds (according to official statistics).
68. Of these, Austrians - 410,000, Hungarians - 810,000, Romanians - 450,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 380,000, Yugoslavs - 400,000
69. Of these, Austrians - 280,000, Hungarians - 670,000, Czechs and Slovaks - 350,000, Yugoslavs - 170,000, other peoples - 20,000
70. Of these, 120,000 died from hostilities, 300,000 from hunger and disease.
71. In total in Bulgaria in 1914 there were 1,100,000 men of military age
72. Of these, 48,917 were killed in battle, 13,198 died of wounds, 24,497 died of disease, 888 accidents, 8,000 died in captivity
73. Of these, 5,000 died from hostilities, 100,000 from hunger and disease.
74. In total, there were 5,425,000 men of military age in the Ottoman Empire
75. Of these, 236,707 were killed in battle, 68,378 died from wounds, 466,759 died from disease, and 16,000 died in captivity.
76. Of these, 100,000 died from hostilities, 500,000 from hunger and disease. Also, during the Armenian genocide, 1,000,000 died, the genocide of the Aisors (Assyrians) - 500,000, Kurds - 500,000, Greeks - 100,000, other peoples - 100,000