Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Blogs > Guaporense
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read


Rate this Entry

Military casualties in WW2

Posted August 28th, 2017 at 11:38 AM by Guaporense
Updated August 28th, 2017 at 02:57 PM by Guaporense

One interesting aspect about WW2 is the huge level of military losses suffered by the Allies.

Total military losses in Europe suffered in the war against Germany consisted of soldiers, killed, wounded and missing in battle plus the prisoners of war taken.

USSR ------------- 25,934,494
USA ----------------- 737,590
British Empire ------- 1,159,828
France ------------- 5,500,000
Poland ------------- 1,500,000
Netherlands --------- 400,000
Belgium ------------- 650,000
total ------------- 35,881,912

Where the figures for France, Netherlands, Poland and Belgium are the size of their armed forces in home territory before German invasion, since these armed forces ceased to exist after German invasion they are counted as casualties (specifically, POWs).

Soviet figures are lower than operational losses which were 29,629,205 because I am discounting soldiers reported as sick in the Soviet operational losses.

While total German casualties up to January 31 1945 were 7,846,981 soldiers killed, missing or wounded, or less than a quarter of total allied losses.

Total

Casualties of the great powers against Japan were very light by comparison:


USSR ------------------ 36,156
USA ------------------- 386,328
British Empire ---------- 213,699
Netherlands ------------ 37,000
total ------------------ 673,153

Which were 2.39% of total casualties of these four powers suffered in Europe (which were 28,231,912 casualties).

Of course, the reasons for this were twofold: first Germany was economically/industrially much stronger than Japan, producing 350 million tons of coal and 31 million tons of steel in 1943 compared to about 55 million tons of coal and 6 million tons of steel for Japan, so that Germany could field much larger and better equipped armed forces (in 1943, the German armed forces had 11.3 million men compared to 2.8 million for Japan). Second, the European war was mostly found on the ground which generally produces more casualties than wars fought mostly on the ocean.

By the way, it's hard to get comparable data on Japanese casualties because their methodology of computing casualties was different than Western countries. So that it's hard to measure aggregate Japanese losses against these countries.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 293 Comments 1 Edit Tags
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 1

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Sun of Austerlitz's Avatar
    Quote:
    Where the figures for France, Netherlands, Poland and Belgium are the size of their armed forces in home territory before German invasion, since these armed forces ceased to exist after German invasion they are counted as casualties (specifically, POWs).
    Well, there would be many historians contradicting your stacking of these losses. Soviet literature notoriously stacked the German losses in the same way, whilst also removing the permanently wounded out of the comparison to lower the gap between Axis and Soviet losses (double counting ethnic Germans from regions like Alsace or Lothringia or isolating Waffen SS separately as well). This is a question of definitions and semantics no doubt.
    By these standards you might as well add 87,500 (British) Indian military casualties or 3,500,000 chinese casualties.

    In order to fully assess combat losses, you would have to isolate all battle casualties sustained by all partaking nations, though it would not influence the ratio too much and still prove your point.

    One thing though:

    From the statistical digest of the US Army for battle and non battle losses by branch for WW2 , from 7. Dec 1941-31. Dec 1946:

    ETO:


    586,628 battle casualties of which:

    135,576 deaths among battle casualties
    116,991 KIA
    381,350 WIA
    14,528 MIA

    MTO:

    175,107 battle casualties (40,455 fallen + died)
    35,313 KIA
    111,125 WIA
    8,487 MIA

    761,735 casualties sustained against European Axis.

    Pacific:

    157,938 battle casualties (50,385 deaths among battle casualties)

    30,538 KIA
    95,021 WIA
    4,914 MIA

    169,635 battle casualties (including all Pacific areas) of which:

    57,137 total deaths amongst battle casualties (all branches)
    35,909 KIA
    98,958 WIA
    5,928 DOW

    28,526 captured and interned of which:

    2,805 KIA
    194 wounded
    8,517 non battle causes

    6,242 Missing of which:

    3,637 declared dead

    for a total of 169,635 casualties sustained against Imperial Japan.

    Total figures for the US:

    291,557 battle deaths
    113,842 other deaths
    670,846 Wounded

    1,076,245 casualties.

    Quote:
    By the way, it's hard to get comparable data on Japanese casualties because their methodology of computing casualties was different than Western countries. So that it's hard to measure aggregate Japanese losses against these countries.
    There is info from Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, New York: Random House, 1999, but comparing these is rather pointless because the Japanese were practitioners of "Bullshido" so they sacrificed themselves before capture, pressing the KIA rates to the extreme.

    example:

    Total land forces committed 1,030,832, KIA 996,030, CIA (captured) 34,802
    Posted October 17th, 2017 at 01:50 PM by Sun of Austerlitz Sun of Austerlitz is offline
    Updated October 17th, 2017 at 06:00 PM by Sun of Austerlitz
 

Remove Ads


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.