How many died in World War 1. Losses of the Russian Armed Forces in the First World War. Losses of the German army according to various dates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some general data and assessments of the consequences of the war

Austria-Hungary

Great Britain

During 1915, German U-boats sank 227 British ships (885,721 gross tons). The belt of British cemeteries, which ran from the North Sea to the Somme and beyond, is an idealized memorial to all those whose deaths on the battlefields of the Great War are not marked by anything. The bodies of over 500,000 British soldiers were never found, and if they were found, it was impossible to identify them. The English economy suffered the biggest losses in the First World War - 24.1 billion dollars or more than 34% of the national wealth.

The historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of men mobilized in the UK to the total number of men aged 15-49 was 50%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 122 killed and dead, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years, the UK lost 61 person, and the loss in terms of every thousand inhabitants of the UK amounted to 16 people.

Germany

Between 1870 and 1899, 16,000,000 boys were born in Germany; almost all of them served in the army and about 13% were killed. The German youth born in 1892-1895 suffered the greatest losses. Many thousands of Germans came home disabled: 44,657 Germans lost a leg in the war, 20,877 people lost their arm, 1264 people lost both legs, 136 people lost both arms. 2547 Germans lost their sight in the war. By the end of 1916, more than 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 an offer of peace, which was rejected. Female mortality, for example, in 1916 increased by 11.5%, and in 1917 - by 30.4% compared with pre-war figures, and the main reason for this was diseases caused by malnutrition. The German economy suffered over 20% losses.

The historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of mobilized Germany to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 81%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 154 killed and dead, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49 years, Germany lost 125 people , and the 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 the position of "armed waiting". In the political and military circles of the belligerent countries, the opinion prevailed that the entry into the war of small states could significantly change the course of events. Therefore, the Entente for a long time tried to win over Romania 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 number 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 provide at least some supply to combat units. Thus, Romania was able to send only 23 divisions to the front. The Romanian army proved to be an extremely weak ally, which forced Russia to send significant forces to its aid. Despite this, by the end of 1916, the 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 in the troops not to miss the “last chance” to preserve the Romanian statehood. The offensive of the Austro-German troops under the command of Mackensen was stopped in the battle of Maresheshti. It is believed that the heroism of the Romanian soldiers shown there actually saved Romania from being withdrawn from the war, especially since the Russian units in these hostilities were rather passive due to the ever-increasing decomposition of the Russian army. By September 8, the front 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 was surrounded on all sides by the troops of the Central Powers. Therefore, at the end of the year, the Romanian government agreed to conclude an armistice (signed in Focsani on November 26/December 9, 1917). And after the Brest Peace, the situation for Romania became so complicated that she was forced to start negotiations on a separate peace, which was concluded on April 24/May 7, 1918 (Bucharest Peace Treaty).

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

Russia

Below are the 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 of October 3, 1917; data from the Central Statistical Bureau of the USSR in 1925; calculations by N. N. Golovin, published in 1939).

According to Western sources, by the time of the exit from 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

The historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of men mobilized in Russia to the total number of men aged 15-49 was 39%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 115 killed and dead, 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 belligerents 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 won the war in the end, but in early 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 the defeat of Germany in the war, independent states were formed in the territories seized from Russia with the support of the Entente.

Serbia

The most catastrophic losses of the First World War were for Serbia. During the 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 starvation, 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 killed and was reduced from 400 to 100 thousand people during the four years of the war. In total, Serbia lost a sixth of its population in four years, the war left more than 100,000 disabled people and 500,000 orphans in the country. The consequences of that demographic catastrophe are still being felt.

France

French losses amounted to 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 have time to marry, and a considerable number of young French women lost their chance to marry. The 630,000 widows were not in the best position either. In 1921 in France there were 11 women for every 9 men aged 20-39. 2,800,000 French were injured, 800,000 of them seriously. Many of the injured, returning from the front, preferred to settle in homes for the disabled or in specially built settlements. The French economy suffered serious losses of 11.2 billion dollars (more than 19% of the national wealth). The historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of mobilized France to the total number of men aged 15-49 years was 79%, while for every thousand mobilized there were 168 killed and dead, 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

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

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

Notes

1. Volkov S.V.(Russian). Article. Website of the historian S. V. Volkov (2004). Retrieved April 16, 2012. .
2. published: “Proceedings of the Commission for the Survey of the Sanitary Consequences of the War of 1914–1920.” (Ed. People's Commissariat of Health.) Issue. I. Page 158, 159.
3. Russia in World War 1914–1918 (in numbers). M .: Central Statistical Bureau of the USSR, military statistics department, 1925
4. Golovin N. N.
5. of which seriously wounded and dismissed from service 348 508
6. 643,614 along with 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 the wounded calculated by him (4,200,000), assuming that the ratio of the number of killed and 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 those who died from wounds was greater than in France or Germany - although on this account he himself gives the opposite statistics
9. 4,200,000 wounded, of which 350,000 died - those who died from wounds were classified by N. Golovin as dead (1,300,000). It should be noted that N. N. Golovin has 4,200,000 wounded - this is also an 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 "The Irish Rebellion of 1916").
13. It is also worth remembering that the Spanish flu pandemic broke out in the city, which claimed the lives of tens of millions of people. The article does not indicate the number of deaths from the Spanish flu (for statistics, see the Spanish flu article).
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 population of Europe. - M .: 1960). However, Urlanis calculated the basic losses of the Russian army (killed in battles and died at the stages of sanitary evacuation - 1,200,000) purely theoretically - by a "simple" recalculation from the known military losses of the 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 enemy killed as on the Western Front the Allied armies lost more than the German, i.e. 1.5 times. However, G. Krivoshein in his book also cites other data, in particular, data from the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR in 1925 (Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers). TsSU, M., 1925) - killed in battle and died at the stages of sanitary evacuation 626 440 people. (not 1,200,000). Even less were the data of Gen. headquarters of the Russian army in the summer of 1917. B. Urlanis writes in his book (): " Unlike some other countries participating in the First World War in Russia, the General Staff of the Army had regular records of losses by their individual types. These data were summarized by the information department of the General Staff and published in the Proceedings of the Commission for the Survey of the Sanitary Consequences of the War. According to these data, the number of killed soldiers and officers of the Russian army amounted to 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 "The National Economy of the USSR in Figures". Then the same results were given in the collection "Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers)", published by the Central Statistical Bureau in 1925. According to these final data, the number of Russian soldiers and officers killed was 626,440 people. This number was grouped according to the time of losses, according to rank and type of troops, but the same total appears in all tables: 626,440.". Thus, it is very likely that the total loss figures are actually less than 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 loss 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 were missing and subsequently not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 220,000 died of wounds, 170,000 died of disease, 18,964 died in captivity, 14,000 accidents and suicides .
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. 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 subsequently were not found, 8,000 died from gas attacks, 131,000 died from wounds, and 67,000 died from diseases.
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 action, went missing and subsequently were not found (this number includes 4,627 deaths from gas attacks, 47,000 deaths from wounds, 79,000 deaths from diseases and 6,000 deaths in accidents), died in captivity (according to official statistics) 90,000.
26. Of these, in only one battle of Caporetto, 335,000 Italians were taken prisoner by the German-Austrian troops.
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 subsequently were not found, 2,000 died of wounds, 15,000 died of 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, there were 25,541,000 men of military age in the USA in 1914
33. Of these, 37,000 were killed in battle, 37,000 went missing and subsequently were not found, 14,000 died of wounds, 1,462 died from gas attacks, 58,000 died of disease, 4,421 accidents, 272 suicides, 154 murders, died in captivity 400
34. Of these, 128 people died during the crash of the Lusitania liner.
35. In total, there were 1,924,000 men of military age in Belgium in 1914
36. Of these, 28,958 were killed in battle or died of wounds, 28,587 died of disease, went missing and subsequently were 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, 116,300 died of wounds, 30,000 died of disease, 70,500 died in captivity, and 3,000 were 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 subsequently were not found, 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, in Portugal in 1914 there were 1,315,000 men of military age
44. Of these, 5,000 were killed in battle, went missing and subsequently were not found, 1,000 died of wounds, 1,000 died of diseases.
45. Altogether there were 82,600,000 men of draft age in British India in 1914
46. Of these, 24,000 were killed in battle, went missing and subsequently were not found, 3,000 died of wounds, 3,500 died in captivity
47. All died from starvation 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 subsequently were not found, 325 died from gas attacks, 13,340 died of wounds, 3,919 died of disease, 397 died in captivity, 809 accidents and suicides.
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 subsequently were not found, 12,000 died of wounds, and 1,029 were accidents.
52. There were 320,000 men of military age in New Zealand in 1914
53. Of these, 10,000 were killed in battle, went missing and subsequently were not found, 4,000 died of wounds, 60 died in captivity
54. In total, in the Union of South Africa in 1914 there were 1,700,000 men of military age
55. Of these, 4,000 were killed in battle, went missing and subsequently were not found, 1,000 died of wounds, 100 died in captivity
56. In total, there were about 114,025,000 men of military age in China
57. They were mostly not soldiers, but volunteer workers.
58. Mostly 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, there were 16,316,000 men of military age in the German Empire in 1914
65. Of these, 1,373,000 were killed in battle, 100,000 were missing and subsequently not found, 3,000 died from gas attacks, 320,000 died of wounds, 166,000 died of 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, there were 12,176,000 men of military age in Austria-Hungary in 1914
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 diseases, 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 of wounds, 466,759 died of diseases, and 16,000 died in captivity.
78. Of these, 100,000 died from hostilities, 500,000 from hunger and disease. Also, 1,000,000 died during the Armenian genocide, 500,000 Aysors (Assyrians) genocide, 500,000 Kurds, 100,000 Greeks, 100,000 other peoples

Literature

• Golovin N.N.. Paris, 1939.
• Keegan D. World War I 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 the population of Europe. - Moscow., 1960.
• Erlikhman V.V. Population loss 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. - S. 22.
• Utkin A.I. Forgotten tragedy. Russia in the First World War. - Smolensk, 2000. - p. 27
• Thomas Mitchell. Casualties and Medical Statistics of the Great War. - London. - Battery Press, 1997. - 382p. - ISBN 0-898-39263-2.

Links

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

An excerpt characterizing the losses in the First World War

On the stage there were even boards in the middle, painted pictures depicting trees stood on the sides, and a canvas on boards was stretched behind. In the middle of the stage were girls in red corsages and white skirts. One, very fat, in a white silk dress, was sitting especially on a low stool, to which a green cardboard was pasted at the back. They all sang something. When they finished their song, the girl in white went up to the prompter's booth, and a man in tight-fitting silk pantaloons on thick legs, with a feather and a dagger, came up to her and began to sing and spread his arms.
The man in tight trousers sang alone, then she sang. Then they both fell silent, the music began to play, and the man began to run his fingers over the hand of the girl in the white dress, obviously waiting for the beat again 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 the stage, who portrayed 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, talking 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 ashamed of the actors, then laughed at them. She looked around her, at the faces of the spectators, looking for in them the same sense of mockery 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. "It must be so necessary!" thought Natasha. She alternately looked either at these rows of pomaded heads in the stalls, or 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 the stage, feeling the bright light spilled throughout the hall and the warm, crowd-warmed air. Natasha, little by little, began to come into a state of intoxication she had not experienced for a long time. She did not remember what she was and where she was and what was happening before her. She looked and thought, and the strangest thoughts suddenly, without connection, flashed through her head. Now she had the idea of ​​jumping up on the ramp and singing the aria that the actress sang, then she wanted to hook the old man who was sitting not far from her with a fan, then bend over to Helen and tickle her.
At one of the minutes, when everything was quiet on the stage, waiting for the beginning of the aria, the front door of the parterre creaked, on the side where the Rostovs' box was, and the steps of a belated man sounded. "Here he is Kuragin!" whispered Shinshin. Countess Bezukhova, smiling, turned to the incoming person. 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 look, approaching their box. It was Anatole Kuragin, whom she had long seen and noticed at the St. Petersburg ball. He was now in the uniform of an aide-de-camp, with one epaulette and an exelbane. He walked with a restrained, valiant gait, which would have been ridiculous if he were not so good-looking and if there were not such an expression of good-natured contentment and merriment on his beautiful face. Despite the fact that the action was going on, he, slowly, slightly jingling his spurs and saber, smoothly and high, carrying his perfumed beautiful head, walked along the carpet of the corridor. Glancing at Natasha, he went up to his sister, put his gloved hand on the edge of her box, shook her head and leaned over to ask something, pointing to Natasha.
Mais charmante! [Very nice!] - he said, obviously about Natasha, as she not only heard, but understood from the movement of his lips. Then he went into the first row and sat down beside Dolokhov, friendly and casually elbowing that Dolokhov, whom others treated so ingratiatingly. He winked merrily, smiled at him and put his foot on the ramp.
How similar brother and sister are! the count said. And how good both are!
Shinshin in an undertone began to tell the count some story of Kuragin's intrigue in Moscow, to which Natasha listened precisely because he said charmante about her.
The first act ended, everyone in the stalls got up, got mixed up and began to walk and go out.
Boris came to the Rostovs' box, accepted congratulations very simply, and, raising his eyebrows, with an absent-minded smile, conveyed to Natasha and Sonya the request of his bride to be at her wedding, and left. Natasha, with a cheerful and coquettish smile, talked to him and congratulated on his marriage the same Boris with whom she had been in love before. In the state of intoxication in which she was, everything seemed simple and natural.
Naked Helen sat beside her and smiled the same way at everyone; and Natasha smiled at Boris in exactly the same way.
Helen's box was filled and surrounded on the side of the stalls by the most noble and intelligent men, who seemed to vied with each other to show everyone that they knew her.
Kuragin stood all this intermission with Dolokhov in front of the ramp, looking at the Rostov box. Natasha knew that he was talking about her, and it gave her pleasure. She even turned 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 grown even fatter since Natasha had last seen him. He, not noticing anyone, went to the front rows. Anatole went up to him and began to say something to him, looking and pointing to the Rostov box. Pierre, seeing Natasha, perked up and hurriedly, along the rows, went to their bed. Going up to them, he leaned on his elbows and, smiling, talked for a long time with Natasha. During her conversation with Pierre, Natasha heard a male voice in the box of Countess Bezukhova and for some reason found out that it was Kuragin. She looked back and met his eyes. He looked almost smiling 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 to be acquainted 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 bass, and many people in black robes came out to the right and left. People began to wave their hands, and in their hands they had something like daggers; then some other people came running and began to drag away that girl who was formerly in white, but 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 the enthusiastic cries of the audience.
During this act, every time Natasha looked into the stalls, she saw Anatole 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 something bad in this.
When the second act was over, Countess Bezukhova got 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, she began talking to him kindly smiling.
“Yes, introduce me to your lovely daughters,” she said, “the whole city is shouting about them, but I don’t know them.
Natasha got up and sat down to the magnificent countess. Natasha was so pleased with the praise of this brilliant beauty that she blushed with pleasure.
“Now I also want to become a Muscovite,” Helen said. - And how shameless you are to bury such pearls in the village!
Countess Bezukhaya, in fairness, had a reputation as a charming woman. She could say what she did not think, and especially flatter, quite simply and naturally.
- No, dear count, you let me take care of your daughters. At least I won't be here for long. And you too. I will try to amuse yours. I heard a lot about you in St. Petersburg, and I wanted to get to know you, ”she said to Natasha with her uniformly beautiful smile. - I heard about you from my page - Drubetskoy. Did you hear he's getting married? And from a friend of my husband - Bolkonsky, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, - she said with special emphasis, hinting that she knew his relationship with Natasha. - She asked, in order to get to know each other better, to allow one of the young ladies to sit the rest of the performance in her box, and Natasha went over to her.
In the third act, a palace was presented on the stage, in which many candles burned and paintings depicting knights with beards were hung. In the middle were probably the king and queen. The king waved his right hand, and, apparently shy, sang something badly, and sat down on the crimson throne. The girl, who was first in white, then in blue, was now dressed in one shirt with loose hair and stood near the throne. She sang about something sadly, turning to the queen; but the king waved his hand sternly, and men with bare legs and women with bare legs came out from the sides, and they all began to dance together. Then the violins began to play very thinly and cheerfully, one of the girls with bare thick legs and thin arms, separating from the others, went backstage, straightened her corsage, went out to the middle and began to jump and soon beat one foot against the other. Everyone in the stalls clapped their hands and shouted bravo. Then one man stood in a corner. In the orchestra, cymbals and trumpets began to play louder, and this one man with bare legs began to jump very high and mince his legs. (This man was Duport, who received 60,000 a year for this art.) Everyone in the stalls, in the boxes and in the rayka 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 a storm broke out, chromatic scales and chords of a diminished seventh 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 enthusiastic faces, began to shout: Duport! Duport! Duport! Natasha no longer found this strange. She looked around with pleasure, smiling happily.
- N "est ce pas qu" il est admirable - Duport? [Isn't it true that Duport is delightful?] - said Helen, 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 my brother to you,” Helen said, uneasily shifting 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 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 had the pleasure, which he had not forgotten, to see her. Kuragin with women was much smarter and simpler 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 in this man, about whom so much was said, 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 Semyonova, playing in the last performance, fell.
“Do you know, Countess,” he said, suddenly addressing her as if he were an old acquaintance, “we are having a carousel in costumes; you should participate in it: it will be very fun. Everyone gathers at the Karagins. Please come, right, eh? he said.
Saying this, he did not take his smiling eyes off his face, from his neck, from Natasha's bare hands. Natasha undoubtedly knew that he admired her. It was pleasant for her, but for some reason it became cramped and hard for her from his presence. When she did not look at him, she felt that he was looking at her shoulders, and she involuntarily intercepted his gaze so that he would better look into her eyes. But, looking into his eyes, she felt with fear that between him and her there was not at all that barrier of shame that she always felt between herself and other men. She herself, not 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, kiss her on the 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 at her father, as if asking them what it meant; but Helen was busy talking to some general and did not return her glance, and her father's glance told her nothing, only that he always said: "fun, well, I'm glad."
In one of the minutes 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 is ce sont les jolies femmes, [pretty women,] isn’t it? Well, now I like it very much,” he said, looking at her significantly. “Are you going to the carousel, Countess?” Go," he said, and reaching out to her bouquet, 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 behind her so close to her.
“What is he now? Is he confused? Angry? Need to fix this?" she asked herself. She couldn't help but look back. She looked him straight in the eyes, and his intimacy and confidence, and the good-natured tenderness of his smile won her over. She smiled exactly as he did, looking straight into his eyes. And again she felt with horror that there was no barrier between him and her.
The curtain went up again. Anatole left the box, calm and cheerful. Natasha returned to her father in the box, already completely subordinate to the world in which she was. Everything that happened before her already seemed quite natural to her; but for that, all her former thoughts about her fiancé, about Princess Mary, about village life never once entered her head, as if everything had been long, long past.
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 sank down there. Natasha only saw 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 left the theatre, Anatole approached them, called their carriage, and helped them up. As he lifted Natasha up, he shook her hand above the elbow. Natasha, excited and red, looked back at him. He, shining with his eyes and gently smiling, looked at her.

Only when she arrived home, Natasha could clearly think over everything that had happened to her, and suddenly remembering Prince Andrei, she was horrified, and in front of everyone for tea, for which everyone sat down after the theater, she gasped loudly and flushed out of the room. - "My God! I died! she said to herself. How could I let this happen?" she thought. For a long time she sat 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 to her dark, indistinct and frightening. There, in this huge, illuminated hall, where Duport jumped on wet boards to the music with bare legs in a jacket with sequins, both 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 is this fear that I felt for him? What is this pangs of conscience that I feel now? she thought.
To one old countess, Natasha would be able to tell everything that she thought in bed at night. Sonya, she knew, with her stern and solid look, either would not have understood anything, or would have been horrified by her confession. Natasha, alone with herself, tried to resolve what tormented her.
“Did I die for the love of Prince Andrei or not? she asked herself, and answered herself with a reassuring smile: What kind of fool am I that I ask this? What happened to me? Nothing. I didn't do anything, I didn't cause it. 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 like this. But what kind? Oh my 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 there was nothing, instinct told her that all her former purity of love for Prince Andrei had perished. And she again in her imagination repeated her entire conversation with Kuragin and imagined the face, gestures and gentle smile of this handsome and courageous man, while he shook her hand.

Anatole Kuragin lived in Moscow because his father sent him away from St. Petersburg, where he lived on more than twenty thousand a year in money and the same amount of debt 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 take up the post of adjutant to the commander-in-chief, which he secured for him, and would finally try to make a good match there. He pointed out to him Princess Mary and Julie Karagina.
Anatole agreed and went to Moscow, where he stayed with Pierre. Pierre received Anatole reluctantly at first, but then got used to him, sometimes went with him to his revels 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 by the fact that 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 close contact. He did not miss a single revelry at Danilov and other merry fellows of Moscow, he drank all night long, drinking everyone, and visited all the evenings and balls of high society. They told about several intrigues of him with Moscow ladies, and at balls he courted some. But with girls, especially with rich brides, who were for the most part all bad, he did not get close, especially since Anatole, which no one knew except his closest friends, was 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 reprimanded himself for the right to be known as a bachelor.
Anatole was always pleased with his position, himself and others. He was instinctively convinced with his whole being that it was impossible for him to live otherwise than as he lived, and that he had never done anything wrong in his life. He was unable to consider how his actions might resonate with others, nor what might come out of such or such an act of his. He was convinced that just as a duck was created in such a way that it must always live in water, so he was created by God in such a way that he must live on thirty thousand income and always occupy the highest position in society. He so firmly believed in this that, looking at him, others were convinced of this and did not deny him either the highest position in the world, or the money that he obviously borrowed without return from the oncoming and transverse.
He was not a player, at least he never wanted to win. He was not conceited. He didn't care what anyone thought of him. Still less could he be guilty of ambition. He teased his father several times, spoiling his career, and laughed at all the accolades. 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 consider what came out for other people from satisfying his tastes, then in his soul he considered himself an irreproachable person, sincerely despised scoundrels and bad people, and with a clear conscience carried his head high.

Data on the losses of the Russian army during the First World War is still unknown. The estimated number of deaths in it is 2-2.3 million people, prisoners - 4 million. The war made 600 thousand people disabled. The relative number of captured soldiers and surrendered tsarist generals was higher than in the Great Patriotic War, which well shows the lack of spirit among the troops.

1914 marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. Another name for it in Russia is the “forgotten war”. It was forgotten not so much by the memory of ordinary people as by the elites, for whom this war was a silent accusation of their complete incompetence.

The question remains open about the number of Russian losses in the First World War. As in the Second World War, it never occurred to the authorities to keep records of them. And today we have only estimated losses.

Let's start from the end of this story - the situation of the winter of 1917, preceding the Revolution and the beginning of the complete collapse of the Russian army.

The answer to the question of concern to many: “Could Russia have attacked in 1917 if it had not been for the abdication of Nicholas II?” gave the British Ambassador to Russia D. Buchanan. He wrote in his diary on January 17th:

“On January 19, 1917, in his speech at the opening of the Allied Conference in Petrograd, General Gurko said:

Russia mobilized 14 million people;

lost 2 million killed and wounded and the same number captured;

currently has 7.5 million under arms and 2.5 million in reserve.

He expressed no hope that the Russian army would be able to launch a large-scale offensive until the forthcoming formation of new units was completed and until they were trained and supplied with the necessary weapons and ammunition. Until then, all she can do is hold the enemy back with secondary operations."

The figures of our losses (and especially the number of prisoners), first officially announced at the allied conference, shocked the allies. Prior to this, the tsar and the Headquarters got off only with general phrases, such as "the losses are small, we are holding the front."

Only one fact speaks of the general mood in the Russian army: 73 people surrendered to the tsarist generals then. Even the shameful beginning of the Great Patriotic War in 19141-42 did not give such a number of captured Soviet generals. For comparison, only two German generals fell into Russian captivity, one of whom committed suicide while in captivity.

35 Russian generals were killed in battle and died of wounds during WWI - more than two times less than those who surrendered! If the generals prefer to surrender rather than fight to the end, then it is difficult to expect special stamina from the troops in battle.

Even the rare most successful military operations (well thought out and led by talented generals) of the Russian army brought a huge number of victims.

So, S. Nelipovich (data from the book by S.G. Nelipovich, Brusilovsky breakthrough as an object of mythology, 1998) indicates the following data on the losses of the Southwestern Front during the famous “Brusilov breakthrough”: “Only according to approximate calculations according to the statements of the Headquarters, From May 22 to October 14, 1916, Brusilov's Southwestern Front lost 1.65 million people, including 203 thousand killed and 152.5 thousand prisoners. It was this circumstance that decided the fate of the offensive: thanks to the “Brusilov method”, the Russian troops choked on their own blood.”

The existing figure of Western researchers of 1 million people lost by the Russian armies during the Brusilov breakthrough for the entire period of attacks by the Southwestern Front from May to October 1916 is also not "taken from the ceiling."

The figure of 980 thousand people lost by the armies of General Brusilov was indicated by the French military representative at the Petrograd Conference in February 1917, General de Castelnau, in a report to the French War Ministry dated February 25, 1917. Apparently, this official figure was given to the French by Russian colleagues of the highest level - first of all, by the acting Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Gurko.

The Western historian D. Terrain cites the following numbers of German losses throughout the First World War (represented by the Germans themselves): 1 million 808 thousand killed, 4 million 242 thousand wounded and 617 thousand prisoners.

However, Terraine believed these figures were incorrect. As the main argument, he cited the figures of the Western allies, according to which the Germans lost 924 thousand prisoners (a third difference!), “so it is very possible that the other two categories of losses are underestimated to the same extent.” (J. Terrain's book "The Great War. World War I - background and development", 2004)

Russian historian A. Kersnovsky in his work "History of the Russian Army" writes:

“The unparalleled tension led to unprecedented losses. The extent of these losses can never be determined exactly. The Russian high command was not at all interested in the already used human meat.

The Main Sanitary Administration was not interested in this either: in hospitals there were no statistics of those who died from wounds, which cannot but stun the researcher.

Calculations of losses were made during the war and after it by individuals on the basis of incomplete and unsystematized data. They were random in nature and led to completely different, often fantastic conclusions (suffice it to say that the number of prisoners, for example, was determined in the range from 1.3 million to 4.5 million people).

The headquarters was not at all interested in the question of the losses incurred.

People who for three years in a row sent millions of Russian officers and soldiers to the slaughter, invented the “double bypass of the Masurian Lakes”, the “offensive in the heart of Germany”, gave frenzied directives “Not a step back!” to the bloodless armies, erected pyramids of skulls on Bzura, Naroch, near Kovel, these people have never asked in three years to find out what, at least approximately, their strategic creativity costs Russia and the Russian army.

When, in July 1917, the French representative at Headquarters, General Janin, requested information about the losses suffered by Russia, the Headquarters was taken by surprise.

After three months of fussy searches, the Headquarters presented the French with the first figures that came across. Only 700 thousand people were killed, but 2.9 million were captured. Giving these explanations without any reservations or explanations, our military bureaucrats did not bother to realize that the count of the dead was carried out satisfactorily only for the troops of the Northern Front. The headquarters was completely unaware that this kind of "information" only dishonored the Russian army in the eyes of foreigners.

According to the data of the Military Department, presented shortly before the February Revolution to the Council of Ministers, our "final losses" - killed, dead from wounds and diseases, disabled, missing and captured - were determined from the beginning of the war to December 1916 at 5.5 million people.

According to information officially reported to the Russian Red Cross by the enemy, by the winter of 1916/17, there were 2.2 million prisoners of war in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. This figure is quite reliable (the enemy did not have any calculation to underestimate it).

Subtracting this number from the total, we get 3.3 million Russian losses just before the February Revolution.

100,000 people died from diseases (the number is precisely established - the statistics of the sick were much better than the statistics of the wounded).

There were 200 thousand people in unauthorized absence (in other words, so many military deserted). 600 thousand people were retired from the army due to injuries received in battle, 300 thousand people were dismissed due to illness.

Adding these losses, we get 1.2 million crippled, dead from wounds and deserters.

The remaining 2.1 million were considered killed (we repeat once again - this is before the February Revolution).

There are ambiguities with the generally accepted figure of 2.4 million Russian prisoners during the WWI.

In 1919, the Tsentrobezhplen, an organization that was engaged in the return of prisoners to Russia, took into account the following number of captured Russian military personnel using their name lists and registration cards:

In Germany - 2 million 335 thousand 441

In Austria-Hungary - 1 million 503 thousand 412.

In Turkey - 19 thousand 795.

In Bulgaria - 2 thousand 452.

Total - 3 million 911 thousand 100 people.

Let's add here the 200,000 who died in captivity and we get a figure of more than 4.1 million people. It is hard to imagine that in the year from the February Revolution to the conclusion of the Brest peace another 1.7 million surrendered. Most likely, the initial figure of 2.4 million people for the winter of 1917 was underestimated.

Another important point. The number of Russian soldiers who were captured in the First World War - 4.1 million - in relative terms is much more than the number of Soviet soldiers who surrendered in the Second World War. 14.5 million people were mobilized in WWI, i.e. prisoners made up 28.2% of the army. 34 million people were mobilized in WWII, 5.6 million people, or 16.2% of the army, were captured. And this is taking into account the fact that WWII for the USSR lasted almost six months more than for the Republic of Ingushetia the First World War.

That is, not only the number of tsarist generals who surrendered, well characterizes the spirit (more precisely, its absence) of the Russian army in WWI, but also the total number of prisoners.

Of course, this all proves that the First World War was a foreign war for Russia (a war for foreign interests). It also well showed the entire degree of decomposition of the tsarist regime and not an accident of the two Revolutions of 1917.

World War 1914-1918 was an aggressive, predatory war on both sides, a war of "thieves for booty" (Lenin). It was prophetically foreseen by Engels 27 years before it broke out. In the introduction to Borkheim's pamphlet, he wrote: “For Prussia-Germany, no other war is now possible but a world war. And it would be a world war of unprecedented scope, unprecedented strength. From. 8 to 10 million soldiers will choke each other and at the same time eat the whole of Europe to such an extent clean, as clouds of locusts have never eaten before. The devastation caused by the Thirty Years' War, compressed in three or four years and spread over the whole continent, famines, epidemics, the general savagery of both the troops and the masses, caused by acute need, the hopeless confusion of our artificial mechanism in trade, industry and credit; all this ends in general bankruptcy; the collapse of the old states and their routine statesmanship, such a collapse that dozens of crowns are lying on the pavements and no one is found to lift these crowns; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge victorious from the struggle; only one result is absolutely certain: general exhaustion and the creation of conditions for the final victory of the working class.

Almost three decades after Engels wrote these lines, events took place in Europe that confirmed his predictions. Lenin devoted a special article to this remarkable fact, which he called "Prophetic Words." Citing Engels’ words, Lenin wrote: “What a brilliant prophecy!.. Some of what Engels predicted /139/ turned out differently… »

A prominent figure in French socialism, Jean Jaures, at the end of the 19th century. also foresaw the impending war. “For the first time, a war may break out,” he said, “which will cover all continents. Capitalist expansion widens the battlefield: our entire planet will be stained with human blood.

German imperialism was formed and strengthened when the world was already divided. Therefore, he strove for a redistribution of the divided world, completely ignoring the sacrifices to which he inevitably doomed his people and the peoples of other countries.

The external reason for the war was the so-called Sarajevo massacre. On June 28, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand, who had arrived in Sarajevo for the maneuvers of the Austro-Hungarian army, was killed by the secret Serbian nationalist officer organization Black Hand. Under other circumstances, this fact would not have had great consequences: the incident would have been settled diplomatically. But the German imperialists used the Sarajevo massacre as a convenient pretext for starting a war. On August 1, 1914, the First World War began, which, in terms of the size of victims and the scale of destruction, surpassed all other wars that had happened before in the history of mankind.

On one belligerent side were the so-called Central Powers, that is, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria, forming the German bloc. They were opposed by a broad coalition of states that formed an anti-German bloc. This coalition included: the British Empire, France, Russia, Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Romania, USA, Belgium, Portugal, Japan.

Having unleashed a world war, the German imperialists counted on a quick victory. However, reality overturned all their plans. The war turned out to be protracted and ended for Germany not in victory, but in defeat. In the course of this war, the German people suffered heavy losses, which cannot be compared with the losses suffered by Germany in all previous wars.

The first months of the war were successful for Germany. Already in early September 1914, German troops reached the approaches to Paris. However, their advance in France stopped there: as a result of stubborn fighting on the Marne River, the Germans were defeated, which meant the collapse of the campaign against Paris. This happened largely as a result of the fact that the Germans /140/ were forced to transfer to the Eastern Front part of their troops (two corps and one cavalry division), advancing on Paris, in order to stop the offensive of the Russian army that invaded East Prussia. The Germans more than once during the war made attempts to break through to Paris, but all these attempts ended in failure (the siege of Verdun, the battles on the Somme, etc.).

On the Eastern Front, the Germans managed to achieve success, which led to the capture of a significant territory of Russia (all Polish provinces, part of Belarus and the Baltic states). The retreat of the Russian troops was caused to a large extent by the huge shell "hunger" that the Russian army began to experience already a few months after the start of the war, as well as the mediocrity of the military leadership on the part of the tsarist generals. With all this, throughout the war, Russian troops won significant victories.

The war ended with the complete defeat of Germany. Her allies capitulated even earlier: Bulgaria - September 29, Turkey - October 30, Austria-Hungary - November 3. November 11, 1918 in France, in the forest of Compiègne, the surrender of Germany was signed.

Later, peace treaties were signed between the Entente and the countries of the German block: Versailles - with Germany, Saint-Germain - with Austria, Trianon - with Hungary, Sevres - with Turkey, Neuilly - with Bulgaria. But the end of the war did not mean the appeasement of Europe. Immediately after the defeat, the German imperialists began to prepare for revenge, which meant a new, second world war.

Despite the fact that the First World War took place in an era when accounting and statistics were highly developed, the losses in this war cannot be calculated quite accurately, since there is great discrepancy in the materials on the number of victims of this war. Let us consider the information about the dead as a result of this war for individual countries that participated in it, and we will try to determine the number of soldiers and officers killed on the battlefields of this grand world battle.

Entente

Russia. Determining the losses of Russia in the First World War is a rather difficult task. Statistical materials about the losses of Russia are very contradictory, incomplete and often unreliable. This partly (led to the fact that the world / 141 / press featured fantastic figures about Russian losses in the war of 1914-1918. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine the main primary sources and then approach the determination of the most reliable number of Russian soldiers and officers killed in time of this war.

Unlike some other countries participating in the First World War in Russia, the General Staff of the Army had regular records of losses by their individual types. These data were summarized by the information department of the General Staff and published in the Proceedings of the Commission for the Survey of the Sanitary Consequences of the War. According to these data, the number of killed soldiers and officers of the Russian army amounted to 511,068 people. However, in the same article in which this figure is given, it is indicated that it cannot claim to be complete. During periods of major setbacks on the fronts, such as, for example, during the defeat of the 2nd Army under the command of General Samsonov and the defeat of the 1st Army of the North-Western Front (due to the betrayal of General Rennenkampf), the flow of information about losses to the center significantly decreased and was incomplete. Therefore, the above figure cannot be considered as the actual number of those killed.

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 "The National Economy of the USSR in Figures". Then the same results were given in the collection "Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers)", published by the Central Statistical Bureau in 1925. According to these final data, the number of Russian soldiers and officers killed was 626,440 people. This number was grouped according to the time of losses, according to ranks and types of troops, but the same result appears in all tables: 626,440. on combat losses received by the CSO by processing the reports of the former. Main Directorate of the General Staff, compiled for the dead, wounded, shell-shocked and gassed, according to information received from the theater of operations.

Despite the fact that the authors of the text talk about the processing of reports of the General Staff, there is reason to believe that this processing was very superficial and, in any case, did not affect the final figures, and it is they that are of the greatest interest. The fact that the data processing was superficial can be judged from the materials published already in 1942. These materials contain reports of the War Ministry /142/ on losses for individual years of the war. So, in the report for 1914, the figure is 42,907 killed soldiers and officers, and for 1915 - 269,699 soldiers and officers. It turns out that 312,606 people were killed in two years. During the same years, in the collection "Russia in the World War of 1914-1918", where 1914 is given together with 1915, the figure is 312,607 killed soldiers and officers, that is, one more person! The report of the Ministry of War for 1916 gives a figure of 269,784 soldiers and officers killed and died from wounds, and the collection of the Central Statistical Service gives the number of dead from wounds for 1916 - 8687 people. Subtracting this number, we get 261,097 killed soldiers and officers in 1916 against 261,096 people in the collection of the Central Statistical Service, i.e., one person less. Thus, the entire "processing" of the compilers of the collection was reduced to the fact that they transferred one person from among those killed in 1916 to those killed in 1914-1915. Meanwhile, the materials of the General Staff were in dire need of a thorough check in terms of the correctness of the results. It can be considered indisputable that the number of those killed, according to the data of the General Staff, is significantly underestimated, since only those soldiers and officers who were firmly known to have been killed fell into the group of those killed. In addition, as already mentioned, a significant part of the reporting materials were lost during the retreat. The significance of this circumstance can be judged by comparing the numbers of those killed by years:

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 this difference cannot be explained solely by the fact that hostilities in 1914 lasted five and a half months, but must be attributed to the loss of documents during the retreat from East Prussia. The above comparison of the number of those killed by war years should be taken as evidence that the figure of 626,440 killed is a gross underestimate.

Another source of information about the losses of the Russian army can be the data of the military sanitary authorities. So, in the report of the chief military sanitary inspector, received at the headquarters at the beginning of 1917, it is indicated that during the period from the beginning of the war to September 1, 1916, 562,644 soldiers and officers were killed and died before entering medical institutions. For the same department, there are data for a later time. They are given in Avramov's article, which is a very valuable document /143/ on losses in the war of 1914-1918. Avramov determines the number of those killed at 664,890, i.e., 38,000 more than the figure published in the collection, and 154,000 more than the figure of the General Staff. However, this figure does not fully reflect the losses. Apart from the fact that it does not cover data on the Caucasian Front and casualties after October 1, 1917, it does not include information lost during demobilization and retreat. Avramov himself believes that a correction of 10% should be made for this underestimation. However, the size of this correction is set quite arbitrarily and, as will be shown below, is insufficient to restore the correct picture.

An even higher number of those killed is given in the certificate of the duty general of the General Staff 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 the missing, is defined as 775,369 people, i.e., 1000 more than Avramov’s figure. The same number of those killed and missing is given in the Balance of Manpower Expenditure, compiled according to the data of the former Headquarters. 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 of the Central Statistical Service and in the "Proceedings of the Commission ..." these figures are considered as covering the period up to September 1, 1917 G.

The inclusion of the missing in the total figure together with those killed cannot be regarded as a circumstance exaggerating the number of those killed. If there is a separate heading "prisoners", the missing, for the most part, can be attributed to the heading "killed", and therefore their combination in one group is quite legal.

So, we have five official or semi-official figures for the number of Russian soldiers and officers killed in the First World War: 511,068, 562,644, 626,440, 664,890 and 775,369.

Which of them should be preferred or none of them can claim to be an approximation to reality? We believe that all the given figures for the number of those killed are lower than the actual ones, and some researchers have vainly proceeded from these figures.

So, Binstock based the calculation on Avramov's figure (664,890), adding only 200,000 missing to it. Sazonov proceeds from the figure of 600,000 killed. Volkov also /144/ dwells on Avramov's calculation as "a figure most accurately established in the order not only of the simple use of military accounting data, but also of their critical analysis" .

If we, like the researchers mentioned above, take one of the five figures given as the basis, then in any case we should take the highest of them, since the inclusion of the missing somewhat reduces the huge underestimation of the number of those killed. In addition, losses after May 1, 1917 should also be taken into account. According to the Bureau of Losses of the Reporting and Statistics Department of the Red Army, from May to November 1917, 22,457 soldiers and officers were killed. If we take into account the losses in December, January and February, then we can assume that the total number of those killed in the period from May 1917 until the signing of peace in Brest-Litovsk amounted to at least 30 thousand people. We must also add the losses of the fleet during the entire period of the war, which, however, were very insignificant. In the Baltic Fleet, there were 2223 people killed and dead, and together with the Black Sea and Siberian fleets, the total number of killed and dead was 3074 people.

However, a much more significant correction is provided by the corrections that need to be made in connection with the underestimation of losses in 1914. The fact that such an underestimation really took place can be seen from a comparison of the average monthly losses for 1914-1916, calculated on the basis of the reports of the Ministry of War, which differ little from the figures published in the CSO collection.

Average monthly losses of the Russian army in 1914-1916 by type (thousand people)

Despite the fact that, as is known in the course of hostilities, the first half of the war brought significant losses for the Russian army in killed, wounded and prisoners, according to reports / 145 / of the War Ministry, the average monthly losses in 1914 were 3 - 3.5 times less than in 1915-1916, which clearly indicates the loss of a significant amount of reporting materials and the lack of accounting for losses in the first months of the war. The fact that losses in 1914 were much higher than is obtained from the figures of the Ministry of War is also evidenced by the fact that, according to the Moscow Central Evacuation Committee, the average monthly number of wounded evacuated from the front in 1914 was 73.7 thousand, and in 1915 - 70.2 thousand people, that is, 3.5 thousand less.

The obvious underestimation of the number of those killed in 1914 is also evidenced by the fact that the number of wounded was six times higher than the number of those killed, which is completely implausible. The number of those killed in 1915, as can be seen from the table above, was 15 thousand more per month than in 1914. If we accept for 1914 the average monthly number of those killed in 1915, then for five and a half months of 1914 This will give about 83 thousand people over the counted number. Since the losses of the Russian army in 1914 were more significant than in 1915, it can be roughly considered that in 1914 the underestimation of the number of those killed was 100 thousand people.

As a result, with this calculation, the losses of the Russian army in the war of 1914-1918. will be presented in the following figures (in thousands of people):

Main starting figure:

The number of those killed in the fleet. . .............3

Underestimation of those killed in 1914 .............. 100

Total..............908

Can the resulting figure be considered closer to reality than others? This requires more proof. It should be noted that foreign authors who studied the losses of Russia 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.

So, for example, the British War Ministry gives a figure of 1,700 thousand killed, referring to a telegram sent by an unknown person on December 20, 1918 from St. Petersburg to Copenhagen. This figure was apparently first published in the French /146/ magazine Drapeau Bleu in 1919 and then reprinted by many other publications. However, in none of them is there even a hint of the origin of this figure, which is 2-3 times higher than the numbers of those killed given above.

It is interesting to note that in 1921, the well-known Russian statistician V. G. Mikhailovsky, in his introduction to the 1920 census, also cited a figure of 1,700 thousand Russians killed in the war of 1914-1918. We do not know whether this figure is the result of any calculations, or whether Mikhailovsky took this figure as being widely circulated in the foreign press. To this figure he added 800,000 Russian soldiers and officers who died from other causes, and in the end he got 2.5 million killed and dead. This figure became known abroad as the official number of Russian losses in World War I.

Some foreign authors came up with even higher figures for Russia's losses in their calculations. Thus, the Dane Daring brings the number of those killed to 2,500 thousand people, based on the initial calculation of 1,498 thousand killed in the first two years of the war (for more details, see p. 373) and then extrapolating to the subsequent period. Even more dubious calculations of Russian losses are made by the American economist, professor at the University of Illinois Ernest Bogart. Referring to some official and semi-official sources, he cites the number of those killed in the Russian army with curious accuracy: 2,762,064 people! At the same time, he immediately exposes the illusory "accuracy" of this figure, considering it necessary to add to it half the total number of prisoners and missing persons. At the same time, Bogart loses sight of the fact that if the missing are united in one group with the prisoners, it cannot be assumed that the proportion of those killed among them is so large. The number of prisoners and missing, according to Bogart, is 2.5 million people. By adding 1,250,000 to 2,762,064, he gets a "new", with the same "accuracy", the calculated figure of those killed in the Russian army - 4,012,064 people! Despite the absurdity of Bogart's figures, they have become widespread and even found their way into encyclopedic dictionaries.

It can be seen from the given data that the number of those killed in the Russian army is determined within a very wide range - from 500 thousand to 4 million people. This obliges us to ensure that the figure of 900,000 killed, which we have previously planned, should receive /147/ 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 those killed. So, for example, did the lieutenant general of the tsarist army, former professor of the Academy of the General Staff N. N. Golovin. 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 those killed.

Among the wounded, amounting, according to Avramov. 3 813 827 people, Golovin added 10% for underestimation 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 the number of those killed, he divides 4.2 million by 3.3 and gets a figure of 1,260 thousand, more precisely 1,273 thousand, which he rounds up to 1,300 thousand. This, according to Golovin, is the actual number of those killed. In the following presentation, he tries to reinforce and substantiate it. Golovin believes that, in addition to 626,000 registered dead (the figure given in the collection of the Central Statistical Service), there were another 674,000 unaccounted for, passing under the heading "missing." Wishing to show that the group of "missing" is large enough to include these 674,000 unrecorded deaths, Golovin again proceeds from the proportion of the French army. Tardieu stated at the Paris Peace Conference that French casualties in prisoners and missing were 800,000. On the other hand, Hubert reports that 253,000 missing people have not been found and must be added to the number of those killed. 253 thousand make up 32% of the 800 thousand people. Applying this percentage to the Russian data on the number of prisoners and missing persons, expressed as 3,638,271, Golovin gets 1,164,250 people, i.e., a figure almost 2 times greater than 674,000 unrecorded deaths. Consequently, the number of missing people is large enough to include all the unrecorded dead.

But Golovin is not satisfied with this. He establishes separately the number of prisoners and subtracts it from the indicated number of 3,638,271 people in order to obtain a more reliable number of missing people, namely 1,200 thousand people. And this figure is quite enough to include 674 thousand unaccounted dead. However, Golovin for some reason passed over in silence the number of missing persons given in the collection of the Central Statistical Service. In this collection, the main figure given in the calculations / 148 / Golovin - 3 638271 prisoners and missing - is given broken down into prisoners and missing:

Prisoners ............. 3 409 433

Missing....228 838

Total...... 3638271

This number of missing people would not suit Golovin in any way, because it would not "accommodate" three times the number of unrecorded killed, who were supposed to form part of the group of missing people. True, the number of missing persons given in the collection is doubtful and in no way correlates with the reports of the War Ministry. So, according to this report, in 1914 there were 131 thousand missing, and in 1915 - 383 thousand. Thus, in the first year and a half of the war alone, the number of missing was 514 thousand people, which is 2, 5 times higher than the figure published in the collection relating to the entire period of the war!

However, a more important place in Golovin's calculations is occupied not by determining the number of missing people, but by determining the number of wounded, since it is from this that he directly derives the figure for the number of those killed. Meanwhile, it cannot be said that the number of wounded in the Russian army can be expressed by Avramov's figure with a surcharge of 10%. Determining the number of wounded is perhaps even more difficult than the number of those killed, since serious methodological difficulties arise here. Firstly, a significant part of the wounded were treated in front-line hospitals and first-aid posts, and information about them is far from complete. Secondly, some of the wounded ended up in sanitary facilities twice or more due to repeated wounds. Thirdly, there were frequent cases of the transfer of the wounded from one hospital to another, and this could also be a source of double counting. Fourthly, the timeliness of medical care played a big role, when a mortally wounded person fell into the category of the wounded, not the dead.

In order to apply the proportion established for the French army between the dead and the wounded, one must be sure that the system for recording the wounded and the organization of the sanitary service in France was the same as in Russia, and that Avramov's figures in terms of their coverage and completeness of registration correspond to the number of wounded French, on the basis of which the ratio of 3.3 wounded to one killed was calculated. Only a small change in the numerator or denominator is enough - and the indicated ratio changes dramatically. Golovin himself points out that if the number of the wounded is taken not in /149/ in relation to the number of those killed, but in relation to the number of those killed and who died from wounds, then the above coefficient will fall from 3.3 to 2.39 (and for the German army it will be expressed at 2.35) . If only the addition of the number of those who died from wounds can change the ratio of the number of wounded and killed so dramatically, then it is easy to imagine how this ratio will change depending on the method of calculating the number of wounded, taking into account the above complexities and difficulties. This convinces us that Golovin's calculation methods cannot be considered satisfactory and the number of those killed must be verified in some other way. One way to do this is to use data on enemy losses on individual fronts.

For the German army on individual fronts, losses can be established on the basis of the following data published in the fundamental sanitary report on the war of 1914-1918.

Losses of the German army in 1914-1918. on the western front (in thousand people)

Losses of the German army in 1914-1918. on the eastern front (in thousand people)

The overwhelming majority of the missing remained unidentified, so they should be counted among the dead. Thus, in the battles with the Russian army, the Germans lost more than 300 thousand soldiers and officers killed.

From the above data it is clear that the Germans on the Eastern Front lost 4 times less than on the Western. In the light of these figures officially published by the Germans a few years after the end of the war, the following statement by the German General Blumentritt becomes incomprehensible: “I will cite a little-known but significant fact: our losses on the Eastern Front (in 1914-1918 - B.U.) were much more than the losses we suffered on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918.” (see "Fatal decisions", M., 1958, p. 73). It remains unknown, however, where did Blumentrint get his "significant facts" from? /150/

The Austro-Hungarian army suffered heavy losses. The following data are available on the distribution of losses of this army on individual fronts:

Losses of the Austro-Hungarian army on separate fronts in 1914-1918.

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 (see p. 163). If we take the indicated percentage attributable to losses in battles with the Russian army, we get that the Austro-Hungarian army lost 450 thousand people killed on the Eastern Front.

The Turkish armies also fought against the Russian armies. It can be tentatively assumed that two-thirds of the killed Turkish soldiers died from Russian weapons, that is, about 150 thousand people out of a total of 250 thousand (see p. 164). This number also includes the losses of two Bulgarian divisions fighting 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 loss of Russians killed also amounted to 900 thousand people. Could it actually happen that the Germans and their allies, given the lack of combat equipment of the Russian army and other conditions in which the war of 1914-1918 proceeded, suffered the same losses as the Russians?

It is unlikely that this could have happened. In addition, it must be taken into account that the Russian armies then had a significant numerical superiority over the enemy. By October 1, 1917, in the Russian army, there were 1.15 battalions per verst of the front and only 0.63 battalions from the enemy, 860 bayonets in the Russian army and 470 bayonets from the enemy. Only weak armament of the army and poor military /151/ leadership in the war of 1914-1918. they did not allow the Russian army, which had a numerical superiority, to achieve decisive victories over the enemy.

The ratio of losses on the Western Front can be judged by the following figures. The French alone lost over 900 thousand people killed on the battlefields. The loss of British troops in France exceeded 500 thousand people. To this we must also add 50 thousand 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. This 1.6 million is contrasted with only 1.1 million killed German soldiers and officers. Consequently, the Germans on the Western Front had 1.5 times less losses than their opponents.

In the light of these figures, it is difficult to assume that on the Eastern Front there was almost an inverse ratio, which is obtained if we proceed, for example, from the number of Russians killed according to Avramov, although they have been recognized by many researchers. Even our preliminary proposed figure of 900,000 killed, in the light of an analysis of enemy losses, seems to be an underestimate. Apparently, the undercount of those killed in the Russian army was much higher than it was supposed. With regard to a large number of those killed, there was no reliable information about the fact of their death, and they were included in the group of those who were taken prisoner. This is confirmed by the presence of overestimated figures for the number of prisoners (3.5 - 4 million), given in the reports of the former headquarters and other organizations. The actual number of Russian prisoners did not exceed 2.5 million people (see below for more on this). It can be considered undoubted that several hundred thousand killed were included in the heading "captured".

We found above that for every 900,000 Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, and Turks killed, there were 900,000 Russians killed (1:1 ratio). At the same time, on the Western Front, 1.1 million German losses accounted for 1.6 million Allied losses (a ratio of approximately 3:4). If we accept the same ratio for the Russian front, then the number of killed Russians will increase to 1.2 million people, that is, it will be 300 thousand people more than according to the “balance of manpower expenditure” compiled by the headquarters in 1917 .with our additions. This figure, one must think, is much closer to reality than the often figured figures of 500-600 thousand and the fantastic figures of 3-4 million killed, encountered in the foreign press.

France. Losses of France in the war of 1914 - 1918. are very significant. They have repeatedly been the subject of discussion in / 152 / the Chamber of Deputies. Therefore, data on losses can be drawn from documents submitted to the chamber.

The official declaration of losses was made on December 26, 1918, when a representative of the Ministry of War announced that the number of soldiers and officers of the French army killed, dead and missing was 1,385 thousand people. In the future, this figure repeatedly changed either downward, as a result of the identification of missing persons, or upward, due to the death of seriously wounded and. sick after the end of the war. The last report, compiled according to the card index on August 1, 1919, contained the following information. / 153 /

Losses of France in the war of 1914-1918. (in thousand people)

Thus, the total number of dead and missing was 1398 thousand people. Since the missing persons were not subsequently discovered, it is quite correct to classify them as dead. Subtracting from this total number of deaths from diseases (179 thousand), in captivity (19 thousand), from accidents (14 thousand), from wounds (232 thousand), poisoned by gases (8 thousand), we get that in total, 898 thousand French soldiers and officers and 48 thousand soldiers of the French colonial troops were killed on the battlefield.

British Empire. Statistics on the casualties of the British Armed Forces in the First World War are published in detailed summaries in the book Statistics of the Military Efforts of the British Empire during the Great War, as well as in a large series of official publications on the history of the world war.

The War Office Statistical Report gives the following summary of British Empire casualties.

This number included not only killed, but also missing soldiers and officers who were officially considered dead. Despite the fact that the missing were counted among the dead in other countries (for example, in France, Russia), some authors proceeded from the fact that this category of losses should not be included.

So, for example, Greenwood in his study of British losses in the war of 1914-1918. takes only the number of those killed, who died from wounds, in captivity and from diseases, namely 724 thousand people in the army and 48 thousand in the navy, and a total of 772 thousand people. /154/

In his calculations, Greenwood proceeded from the publication of the official history of the war, published in 1931, but in the same publication, in addition to the prisoners, also the missing, the number of which was still expressed in significant numbers. The question arises, what are these missing people who are published under this name 12-13 years after the end of hostilities? Of course, there is every reason to believe they were killed. And it remains incomprehensible why Professor Greenwood considers all this mass of soldiers and officers as living! In France, already six months after the war, all the missing were considered killed, and Greenwood, a quarter of a century after the war, apparently still hopes to wait for some news about these missing!

On the number of killed and missing British soldiers and officers with distribution along the fronts, the consolidated volume of the "Official History" gives the following figures:

The number of killed and missing soldiers and officers of the British army in 1914-1918. (in thousand people)

To the final figure, we must also add 20 thousand people who died in the fleet, in total we get 606 thousand people killed and missing. Since the victims of chemical warfare are singled out as a separate heading for us, the number of all those soldiers and officers who died from gases in positions before entering medical institutions should be subtracted from the indicated final figure. Based on the total number of 8 thousand people who died from gas poisoning (see p. 177) and considering (based on Russian materials and other data) that three-quarters of this number died in hospitals, we get that they died directly on the positions gas poisoning 2 thousand people. /155/

Thus, the total number of those killed on land and at sea amounted to 604 thousand people. According to the individual parts of the British Empire, this number can be distributed as follows:

Italy. It is difficult to obtain sufficiently reliable data on the losses of the Italian army in the war of 1914-1918. If some sources give a figure of 364 thousand killed and dead Italians, then according to other sources it reaches 750 thousand. The number of pensions issued to the families of those who died in the war can serve as some basis for determining the amount of losses. On February 28, 1921, this number was 580,700. In addition, there were another 163,307 pension applications that should not be taken into account, as it is possible that a significant number of them were not granted. The number of pensions issued roughly corresponds to the number of deaths given by the Italian statisticians Gini and Livi, - 575 thousand. Taking 578 thousand as the basis for calculations - the average between the figures given - and subtracting from it the number of deaths from wounds (47 thousand. See p. 172), from diseases and accidents (85 thousand, see p. 301), who died in captivity (60 thousand), according to the Italian statistics Mortara, we get 386 thousand Italians killed on the battlefield. From this it is necessary to subtract another 5 thousand deaths from gas poisoning. Then the total number of those killed in the Italian army and navy will be determined at 381 thousand people.

Belgium. In no other country are there such discrepancies in the figure of casualties as in Belgium. While Bogart gives a figure of 267,000 dead, 9 other sources indicate only 14,000. Daring in his first calculation also gives a clearly exaggerated /156/ figure - 115,000 killed, which Gersh quite rightly calls pure fantasy.

More reliable data on Belgian losses are given in the "Statistics of War Efforts, etc.", according to which the number of killed and dead soldiers and officers on November 11, 1918 was estimated at 13,716 people. In addition, there were 24,456 missing people, who can also be considered dead. If from the total number of those killed and dead (38,172) we subtract the number of those who died in captivity (1 thousand), from diseases (2 thousand), from wounds (3 thousand), we get that 32 thousand Belgians were killed on the battlefield .

Serbia and Montenegro. It is especially difficult to determine the number of those killed in the world war for these two countries. Data on the number of victims of the First World War in Serbia, published in various sources, differ greatly from each other. According to the materials of the American War Department, the losses of Serbia were expressed in 45 thousand people, Montenegro - in 3 thousand. These figures were quite widespread and reproduced in various almanacs, encyclopedias, collections, etc. On the other hand, printed in French for outside of Serbia, the magazine "Serbia" published a figure of 690 thousand killed and dead soldiers of the Serbian army. This figure was taken by Daring as the basis of all his calculations. Then the same figure was published in the German statistical yearbook for 1922-1923. Bogart gives an even higher figure. According to his data, which for some reason he considers official, the number of those killed and dead was 707,343 people. However, the absurdity of such a high figure is beyond doubt. The number of men of military age in Serbia did not exceed 1 million people, and the number of those mobilized was about 750 thousand people. How, then, could the number of those killed exceed 700,000 people?

In addition to the two extreme figures, there are a significant number of intermediate ones. The French magazine Drapeau Bleu lists 100,000 people; the American Aires calls the figure of 125,000 killed. Of some interest is the official communication of the Yugoslav royal government in response to a request from the International Labor Office. This report indicates that the number of those killed and dead was 365,164 in the Serbian army and 13,325 in the Montenegrin army, for a total of 378,489 people. However, these figures do not inspire much confidence. It is enough just to cite two /157/ discrepancies to be convinced of this: 1) the population of Montenegro is 1/15 of the population of Serbia; in the figures given, the losses in Montenegro accounted for 1/30; 2) the ratio between the numbers of dead soldiers and officers was 100: 1 in Serbia, and 40: 1 in Montenegro. This ratio in Serbia is unbelievably high and makes one think that the number of killed and dead soldiers of the Serbian army is exaggerated.

Not trusting the official figures of the Yugoslav royal government, Gersh calculated the losses of Serbia on his own. According to the census carried out at the end of 1910, in Serbia, the preponderance of the number of men over the number of women was almost 100 thousand, and 10 years later, in the same territory, the census recorded almost the same preponderance of the number of women over the number of men. Based on this, Gersh determines the increased mortality of men in the period 1911-1920. in 205 thousand people. Taking into account southern Serbia, the total loss of men will be expressed in 248 thousand, and minus the losses in the Balkan wars - in 200 thousand people. To this figure, Gersh adds the number of men who died from epidemics that engulfed the entire population and therefore did not affect the sex ratio. Gersh considers the final figure of losses in Serbia and Montenegro to be 325 thousand people.

For our part, we have done some calculations in the other direction. The population of northern Serbia would have increased by 1921 to about 3,450 thousand people, provided there were no Balkan wars and the world war of 1914-1918. The actual population, according to the 1921 census, turned out to be only 2,650 thousand people. Thus, the actual population loss from wars amounted to 800 thousand people. Of this amount, about 300 thousand should be attributed to the fall in the birth rate during the war years, and 500 thousand people remain for human losses. The increased mortality of the civilian population, which suffered significant deprivation from hunger and epidemics, was expressed in 200-250 thousand people. In accordance with this, the figure of military losses will be 250-300 thousand, and taking into account southern Serbia and Montenegro - 300-350 thousand people. If we take into account the losses during the Balkan wars, then the number of those killed and died in the war of 1914-1918. could hardly exceed 300 thousand people. These figures form the basis of the calculations. Excluding those who died in captivity, from diseases and wounds, the total number of those killed in Serbia and Montenegro can be estimated at about 140 thousand people. A large figure for the number of those killed would be incorrect: one cannot ignore the fact that the number of wounded and prisoners in this war was 3-4 times higher than the number of those killed. Indeed, the number of wounded in the Serbian army was significant. According to the Yugoslav government, there were 164,000 war invalids in Serbia alone. /158/

By Romania there is also no sufficiently reliable data on the size of losses in the world war of 1914-1918. The figures published in the press about the number of Romanian soldiers killed are nothing more than simple estimates, which, moreover, differ significantly from each other. So, for example, Daring gives a figure of 159 thousand killed and dead, borrowing it, probably, from the bulletin of the "Union of French Patriots", while the French newspaper "Tan" of November 5, 1919 reported 400 thousand killed and the missing. The Englishman Lawson also gives this figure. The same high figure of losses is given by Bogart, who with enviable "accuracy" determines the number of those killed at 339,117 people. Considering, however, that the number of mobilized in the Romanian army was 1 million people and that Romania entered the war two years later, Bogart's figure is absolutely implausible. Romania's participation in the war was short-lived and soon ended in the defeat of her army. The figure of 339,000 killed could refer to an army of several million men, which Romania, of course, did not possess.

Much more reliable is the figure reported by the Romanian Royal Government in response to a questionnaire from the International Labor Office. The Romanian government believed that the number of killed and dead soldiers and officers of the Romanian army amounted to 250 thousand people. If we assume that the number of those who died in captivity was 40 thousand people (see p. 321), those who died from diseases - 30 thousand (see p. 301), from accidents - 3 thousand, then there remains for lethal combat losses 177 thousand people. Assuming that the dead from wounds account for about one-seventh of combat losses, we can assume that the number of those killed was 152 thousand people.

Participation Greece in the war it was insignificant, since she entered it on the side of the Entente only at the end of 1916. According to various sources, the figures for Greece's losses range from 7 thousand to 15 thousand killed. Bujac gives the most accurate and more credible figures. According to him, 8467 Greek soldiers and officers were killed in Thrace and Macedonia. In addition, over 3 thousand were missing. Taking one-fifth of this number for the dead, we can assume that the number of those killed was 9 thousand people.

Of all the warring European countries Portugal less than others took part in hostilities. Therefore, its losses are insignificant. The number of killed and dead was 7222 people, including 1689 in the European theater of military / 159 / actions and 5533 in the African (Angola and Mozambique).

Assuming that the number of deaths from diseases and wounds was 2 thousand people, we can assume that the number of Portuguese killed was 5 thousand people.

Losses were the least Japan: 300 Japanese soldiers and officers were killed throughout the war.

To sum up the total number of victims of the First World War, we also note the losses United States of America who formally participated in the war for 19 months; in fact, the American army suffered more or less significant losses only from July to November 11, 1918, when 34 thousand soldiers and officers were killed; in total, 36.7 thousand soldiers and officers were killed in the American army during the war. Thus, the number of soldiers and officers of the armies of the countries of the anti-German bloc killed in battle was expressed in the following figures:

The number of those killed in the war of 1914-1918. by countries of the anti-German bloc

Central Powers

Germany. According to the German Central Information Bureau for Military Losses, based on official loss lists, by the end of 1918 the number of killed soldiers and officers of the German army was 1,621,034 people. However, for several years after the war, the death toll steadily increased, as the dead were found among the missing, the seriously wounded, sick, etc. died. By October 31, 1922, the death toll had increased to 1,821,922 people. This number does not yet include 170,000 missing people. If you add them to the number of dead, then the total number of victims will increase to 2030 thousand people.

The most complete results of the number of those killed in the war were published much later, in 1934, in the third volume of the special "Sanitary Report". This report contains an interesting table, which shows how, as a result of finding out (after the end of the war) the fate of a particular soldier and officer, the data on those who died in the war changed upwards. Let's reproduce this table in an abbreviated form.

Losses of the German army according to various dates

Thus, it turns out that 15 years after the end of hostilities, the number of those killed and dead was still being clarified, and as a result, their total number increased. Adding the number of dead in the navy (34,836) and in the former colonies (1,185), the total number of killed and dead comes to 1,936,897. At the same time, by 1934 /161/ 100 thousand people still remained unidentified, and therefore can be counted among the dead. With this addition, the number of dead German soldiers and officers will be expressed in the figure of 2,036,897 people.

The number of those killed in battle cannot be determined on the basis of direct data from relevant reports due to the large number of missing people. Therefore, this figure can only be approached by subtracting losses by individual types from the total number of war victims.

Subtracting 564 thousand from the total number of dead - 2037 thousand people, we get the number of those killed in battle - 1473 thousand. Only in this way can we come to the correct figure of those killed in battle. The direct figures on the number of those who fell in battle - 772,687 people - presented in the report, are almost twice lower than those established by us.

Austria-Hungary. According to data reported by Kerkhnave, by the end of the war, 905 thousand killed and died soldiers of the Austro-Hungarian army were registered. In addition, by the end of 1919, 181,000 people were still missing. Adding them to the number of reported deaths, Kerkhnave got 1.1 million dead. Apparently, this figure most correctly reflects the size of the losses of the Austro-Hungarian army. 300 thousand of this number died from wounds and diseases, 70 thousand died in captivity (see p. 325), 3 thousand from gas poisoning. Consequently, the number of those killed on the battlefields /162/ will be determined at 727 thousand people. Nevertheless, Kerhnave's figure of 1.1 million killed and dead requires additional verification, since, compared with Germany, the losses of Austria-Hungary seem too small. If Germany lost more than 2 million people, then Austria-Hungary, in proportion to the population, should have lost about 1.6 million people, that is, 0.5 million more than Kerchnave indicates.

To verify Kerhnave's figure, we calculated the preponderance of the number of women over the number of men according to the censuses of Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1920-1921. compared with the preponderance of the number of women over the number of men according to the census in Austria-Hungary in 1910. The preponderance of the number of women aged 10 to 49 years in 1910 amounted to 303 thousand people. Ten years later, on the territory of Austria and Czechoslovakia, the preponderance of the number of women aged 20 to 59 years (that is, for those generations who were 10 to 49 years old in 1910) amounted to 597 thousand people. Since the population of Austria (within the boundaries of the Treaty of Saint-Germain) and Czechoslovakia accounted for two-thirds of the population of Austria within the boundaries before 1914, the excess of 303,000 must be reduced to 204,000. Thus, after the war, the preponderance of the number of women increased by 393 thousand. This figure can be taken as military losses in the war of 1914-1918. A similar calculation for Hungary gives an increase in the preponderance of the number of women over the number of men by 160 thousand. In total, therefore, an increase in the preponderance of the number of women in these countries will be expressed in 553 thousand people. If the population of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary after the World War of 1914 - 1918. accounted for half of the population of Austria-Hungary, then the total military losses in Austria-Hungary would have amounted to about 1106 thousand people, i.e., a figure close to the given Kerhnava. In fact, the population of these countries was approximately 55% of the population of Austria-Hungary. Therefore, the loss figure calculated on this basis would be even lower than that given by Kerkhnave. Therefore, we can assume that Kerkhnave's figure has withstood the test.

The second test of the correctness of Kerhnave's figures can be a comparison of the number of sick and wounded in Germany - 10.1 million people with the number of sick and wounded in Austria-Hungary - 5.3 million people. The number of sick and wounded in the German army was almost twice that of the Austro-Hungarian. Approximately the same ratio is obtained when comparing the number of deaths.

Regarding losses Turkey there are quite large discrepancies. According to various sources, the death toll ranges from 250,000 to 550,000 people, and it is not known whether we are talking only about combat losses or about all types of losses.

Not a single source provides direct data on the number of those killed in the Turkish army. The number of those killed can be determined from the number of wounded reported by Ahmet Emin, professor of statistics at the University of Constantinople, in his study "Turkey in the World War". Referring to unpublished materials from the second volume of the "Sanitary History of the War", prepared for publication by the Medical Department of the Turkish Ministry of War, Emin cites the following figures:

Turkish casualties during World War I

The number of wounded in the First World War in all warring countries was 3 times higher than the number of those killed. Taking the same proportion for Turkey, we get that the number of those killed in the Turkish army was about 250 thousand people.

In Bulgaria, the figures for the number of those killed also fluctuate quite widely. If the materials of the International Labor Office indicated 33 thousand people, then the newspaper Tan reported 101 thousand people. The report of the Minister of War of Bulgaria deserves the greatest confidence, giving a complete account of the losses by their individual types. According to this report, in the war of 1914-1918. 48,917 soldiers and officers of the Bulgarian army were killed. We will accept this number. /164/

The attempt of the German imperialists to subjugate the peoples of Europe cost the countries of the German bloc great sacrifices.

The number of those killed in the armies of the countries of the German block in the war of 1914-1918.

The total number of those killed in the First World War was approximately 6 million people. The most bloody wars of past centuries cannot be compared in terms of the number of victims on the battlefield with the First World War (see Fig. 9). On average, in one year of the First World War, almost 30 times more soldiers and officers died than in the Napoleonic Wars, 70 times more than in the Seven Years' War, and almost 250 times more than in the Thirty Years' War.

Those who died of wounds in the war of 1914-1918. During the First World War, the sanitary service of the armies reached a fairly high level. The successes of military surgery made it possible to reduce the percentage of mortality from wounds, but this decrease could not be particularly significant, since it was, as it were, opposed by the improvement of military sanitary affairs: the seriously wounded, as a rule, no longer remained for several days on the battlefield, but in a relatively short time after being wounded, they ended up in military sanitary institutions. As a result, the proportion of seriously wounded in the war of 1914-1918. increased significantly.

Rice. 9. The number of people killed in various wars

For the Russian army, the number of those who died from wounds can only be determined approximately, since complete primary data /165/ are not available. Although the documents of the General Staff and the reports of the War Ministry include a group of "who died from wounds", but it is extremely small in number and, apparently, covered the category of "died at the unit", that is, soldiers and officers removed from the battlefield, but who did not survive to be placed in any medical institution. In publications about the losses of the Russian army in previous wars, this group of war victims was combined with those killed into one group of "killed and died before entering a medical institution." During the war of 1914-1918. an attempt was made to separate the dead from wounds before admission to a medical institution from the dead, but this was done very imperfectly and, as already indicated, depending on the rank of the wounded. This, in turn, is explained by the possibilities of timely medical care. In addition, in reports and publications, the number of deaths from wounds before admission to a medical institution was simply referred to as "the number of deaths from wounds." This gave some reason to think that we are talking about the death of the wounded who were in hospitals for treatment. On this basis, some authors found the percentage ratio of this number of deaths from wounds to the total number of wounded and considered it as a percentage of lethality.

There is reason to believe that the group “who died from wounds”, which appeared in the reports of the Ministry of War and in / 166 / the message of the Main Directorate of the General Staff, is heterogeneous in composition: if in relation to privates it includes soldiers who died from wounds before entering a medical institution, then, in relation to officers, it includes all those who died from wounds in hospitals. This assumption is supported by the fact that, according to Avramov, the number of officers who died at the unit was only 716 people, while the total number of officers who "died from wounds", according to headquarters, was 2967 people, and according to more complete data - 3622 people. It is likely that the difference between 3622 and 716, namely 2906, gives the number of officers who died from wounds in medical institutions. If we assume that all 3,622 people died from wounds before entering medical institutions, then it is completely incomprehensible why those who died from wounds in hospitals are not singled out in a detailed distribution of certain types of losses among officer and administrative personnel, made on the basis of a card file of Reporting and statistical department of the Red Army Administration, It is quite likely that the Headquarters was more interested in the fate of the officer personnel than the fate of the privates, and therefore, having information about the officers who died in hospitals, included them in the number of those who died from wounds along with the officers who died before admission to medical institutions.

Valuable material for determining the number of privates who died from wounds can be the information of the chief military sanitary inspector, received at the headquarters in early January 1917 and covering the entire period from the beginning of the war to October 1, 1916, and for the Caucasian army - to June 1, 1916 G.

According to this information, 2,474,935 wounded and shell-shocked were evacuated to medical institutions and, apparently, 97,939 of this number died. The number of dead soldiers in hospitals and infirmaries can be taken as the basis for determining the total number of this type of loss of the Russian army in the war of 1914-1918. The indicated number is based on data covering only two years and two and a half months of the war, that is, twenty-six and a half months, while the war lasted more than forty-three months. Although in 1917 the number of wounded was significantly reduced, but this year there was a certain number of deaths of soldiers wounded in previous years. Therefore, we will increase the figure of the chief inspector /167/ in proportion to the number of unaccounted for months, i.e. by approximately 60%, which will increase the total number of deaths from wounds from 98 thousand to 160 thousand people. To this figure we must also add the number of soldiers who died in the unit (about 18 thousand, according to Avramov), and the number of officers who died of wounds (about 4 thousand). Thus, the total number of soldiers and officers of the Russian army who died from wounds amounted to approximately 180 thousand people.

Now let's come to the definition of the number of deaths from wounds based on the use of a hypothetical percentage of the lethality of the wounded. To do this, it is necessary to determine the total number of wounded. Any exact number of wounded cannot be established. Different sources give different figures depending on the coverage of medical institutions, the degree of double counting, the coverage of different time periods and other reasons.

Here are the numbers of the wounded, appearing in various sources. The fluctuations of these figures are quite significant (see the table on page 169).

The discrepancies are partly explained by the difference in the periods taken into account, partly by the inclusion of the number of wounded who are at the units and in hospitals of the army zone. It is possible that the discrepancy between the 8th and 5th figures, referring to almost the same time, is explained precisely by the fact that about 1 million wounded were not in evacuation hospitals. Above all are the figures of the Main Military Sanitary Directorate, which, naturally, on this basis, should be given preference, since they are obviously more complete. There is no reason to assume that the figures of the Military Medical Directorate are higher than others, because they include a double count of the wounded, since the repeated count of the wounded was, apparently, the same in all the sources cited. Adding to this figure the number of wounded on the Caucasian front, one can determine the total number of wounded at 4 million people. There is no reason to believe that the actual number of wounded was much higher than this figure. The assumptions of the Americans (Bogart, Gilchrist) about 4,950 thousand wounded Russians are without any foundation. Even more far from the truth are Daring's calculations, which in the first two years of the war alone estimate the number of wounded and disabled among Russian soldiers at 5 million people.

Then the question arises of determining the percentage of mortality among the wounded. The largest experts in the military sanitary business in our country - Professor V. A. Oppel and Colonel General of the Medical Service E. I. Smirnov believed that in Russia 10% of all wounds received in the war of 1914-1918 ended in death. However, statistics showed a less significant percentage of deaths among the wounded. So, for example, according to the results of the development of a card index of losses for officer and administrative personnel, for /168/ 52471 wounded, shell-shocked and gassed, there were 3706 dead from wounds. Since these latter were not among the wounded, the percentage of lethality among the wounded should be calculated as follows: / 169 /

3706:(52471+3706) = 3706:56177 = 6,6%

The number of wounded in the Russian army in the war of 1914-1918. according to various sources

The question arises to what extent the percentage of lethality of the wounded among the officers can be extended to the rank and file. On the one hand, the soldiers in the tsarist army did not have the same care as the officers, and, therefore, the percentage of lethality from this point of view should be higher for the soldiers. But, on the other hand, the average severity of injuries among officers was significantly higher than among soldiers, since officers were more carefully selected from the battlefield and, while seriously wounded soldiers often died in positions, seriously wounded officers ended up in hospitals. The factor of the severity of the wound certainly played a more significant role than the factor of caring for the wounded. Based on this, we can assume that for the rank and file, the mortality rate was less than for the officers. It can be assumed that it did not exceed 6%, if for officers it was determined at 6.6%. Acceptance of 6% mortality, on the one hand, and 4 million wounded, on the other, will result in 240 thousand deaths from wounds, while above it was said about 180 thousand deaths from wounds. It turns out a discrepancy of 60 thousand people. We consider it more correct to base 240,000 deaths rather than 180,000. . wounded).

Other authors came up with different numbers. So, for example, Dr. Binstock determined the number of deaths from wounds at 300,000 people. At the same time, he proceeded from the number of wounded at 3,749 thousand people and from the death rate of the wounded at 8%, coming to this percentage simply by doubling the "norms" of mortality during the Russo-Japanese War. Of course, such an approach cannot be considered convincing, and Binstock writes in vain that "it will hardly be possible to speak of a large error." True, he immediately adds: “Is it necessary to emphasize that here we are still in the realm of fortune-telling, the elimination of which can change our numbers by as many as tens of thousands.”

Golovin, in determining the number of those who died from wounds, proceeds from the "norms" of mortality in the French army. Based on Tuber's calculations showing that out of every 72 wounded, three die within the first 12 hours, two in army hospitals and one in an evacuation hospital, Golovin calculates 4.2 million Russian wounded and arrives at a figure of 175,000. died from wounds in the first 12 hours after being wounded instead of 24.7 thousand, according to Avramov. On this basis, he believes that Avramov missed 150,000 deaths or listed them as missing. However, the situation is somewhat different. /170/

Avramov is not talking about those who died in the first 12 hours after being wounded, but about those who died at the unit, that is, before entering a medical institution. Golovin incorrectly and too broadly understands the category of those who died from wounds, obviously including all cases of death from enemy actions that did not cause instant death to the soldier. But in practice, in combat conditions, such a dismemberment is impossible and even impractical. Further, Golovin accepts the "norms" of the same Tuber for army hospitals and evacuation hospitals (3 out of 72, that is, about 4%) and determines the number of deaths from wounds in hospitals at 175 thousand people, and in total, together with those who died in the first 12 hours - 350 thousand people. Such a calculation cannot be considered at least somewhat substantiated, since the application of French "norms" to Russian conditions cannot give a satisfactory solution to the problem. Therefore, we believe that our figure of 240 thousand is closer to the truth, since the majority of those who died in the first 12 hours after being wounded are already included in the group of those killed.

According to the British Army in the official history of the war 1914 - 1918. The following materials are given on the number of those who died from wounds on individual fronts:

The number of soldiers and officers of the British army who died of wounds in the first world war

To this number must be added the 3,553 Dominion and Indian army men who died of wounds in the Dardanelles. Thus, 171 thousand people died of wounds. From this number, 6,000 deaths in hospitals due to gas poisoning must be subtracted, since the victims of chemical warfare are given separately in our country (see below). Consequently, 165 thousand people died of wounds in the British army. /171/

Minor assumptions are made in distributing the number of those who died from wounds among individual units of the British Army. For Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland, the English official source gives direct data on the number of deaths from wounds. For Canadian troops, we made a calculation based on monthly data for the French theater of operations until July 1918. And for the period July - November 1918, the number of deaths from wounds was determined based on the number of wounded in these months and applying to them the percentage of lethality of Canadian wounded for the entire period 1914-1918. For Indian troops, the percentage of lethality is determined by the Mesopotamian theater of operations, which accounted for half of the total number of wounded soldiers of the Indian army (5% lethality). According to the South African troops, 8% of the lethality among the wounded was accepted.

As a result, we can give the following distribution of the number of deaths from wounds in different parts of the British Empire:

For other states - participants in the war of 1914-1918. - the following information is available. In France, the number of deaths from wounds is determined at 250 thousand people, of which 200 thousand died in army hospitals and 50 thousand in evacuation hospitals. Subtracting the number of deaths from gas poisoning and accidents, as well as the colonial troops, we get about 220 thousand deaths from combat wounds. Since the total number of wounded in France was 3 million people, the percentage of those who died from wounds was about 7. There were 44.7 thousand wounded in the Belgian army. Assuming 7% mortality, we get about 3 thousand people who died from wounds. In the Italian army, according to Mortara, 47 thousand people died of wounds. In the US Army /172/ the number of deaths from wounds amounted to 13.7 thousand people. An approximate calculation for the Balkan states that fought against Germany gives about 50 thousand people who died from wounds.

According to the countries of the German bloc, the number of deaths from wounds can be determined as follows.

In Germany, the number of deaths from wounds from August 2, 1914 to July 31, 1918, based on data from a detailed sanitary report issued in 1934, was:

The total number of wounded admitted to various military sanitary institutions was, minus those who remained in hospitals on July 31, 1918, 5,321 thousand people. Thus, the percentage of deaths from wounds was 5.4. The report does not provide information on the number of those who died from wounds after July 31, 1918. Meanwhile, after this date, the war lasted another three and a half months. In addition, people died from wounds even after the end of the war. Therefore, we can assume that this report did not include losses for 4 months of the war, which is about 10% of the total war time. It is by this number that the reported number of deaths from wounds reported in the report should be increased, which will amount to not 289 thousand, but 320 thousand people. We will use this figure as the basis of our calculations.

In the Austro-Hungarian army, the number of deaths from wounds in the first three years amounted to 149,777 people. During the fourth year of the war, the intensity of hostilities of the Austro-Hungarian army was low; therefore, the number of those who died from wounds in the last year of the war was significantly less than the average for the first three years: instead of 50 thousand in the period 1914-1918. the number of those who died from wounds in the fourth year of the war amounted to no more than 20 thousand people. Thus, 170 thousand people died of wounds in the Austro-Hungarian army. According to the Turkish Ministry of War, the number of deaths from wounds in the Turkish army was 68,378 people. In Bulgaria, there are also accurate /173/ data indicating that 13,198 people died from wounds in the Bulgarian army

All the given data on the number of deaths from wounds can be summarized in the following table:

The number of guards who died during the war of 1914-1918 by country

The total number of those who died from wounds is thus 1,325,000 soldiers and officers of all the armies that participated in the First World War. The number of wounded was approximately 18 million people, and together with those who died from wounds - 19 million people. Thus, it turns out that 7% of all the wounded died. If we recall that in the wars of the XIX century. 11-12% died from wounds, then we can say that military medicine has made great strides. However, a comparison of the previous percentage of those who died from wounds with the corresponding percentage in the war of 1914-1918. downplays the successes of military medicine, since the average severity of the wound has increased significantly. /174/

Victims of chemical warfare. As is well known, the German imperialists also used chemical weapons in World War I. On April 22, 1915, in the battle of Ypres, the Germans used a poisonous substance, which later became known as mustard gas. As a result of this first chemical attack, about 15 thousand soldiers were out of action. A few weeks later, on May 18, 1915, the Germans also used gas (chlorine) against the Russians in the sector of the 2nd Army of the North-Western Front. As a result of this chemical attack, 1089 Russian soldiers died on the positions and, in addition, 7735 soldiers were sent to medical institutions. Since then, chemical attacks have become a frequent weapon of the Germans, and this circumstance forced the Russians and their allies to also use chemical weapons against the Germans, who violated the obligations they had taken in The Hague in 1899. At the end of September 1915, the British, and in February 1916 The French used chemical weapons against the German troops. In September 1916, Russian troops also began to use gases.

Determination of the total number of victims of chemical warfare cannot be made with complete accuracy, since the available data are contradictory and do not cover all deaths from poisonous substances. Nevertheless, it is possible to calculate more or less close to reality the number of victims of chemical warfare.

For the Russian army, Avramov gives the following figures for losses from gas poisoning:

Victims of chemical warfare 1915-1918 in the Russian army

Thus, according to Avramov, the number of soldiers and officers who died from gas poisoning in positions is 6340 people. The verification of the correctness of this figure can serve as information about 0 losses in individual gas attacks in 1915 and 1916, / 175 /

Losses of the Russian army in separate gas attacks

When comparing data on individual attacks with Avramov's data, the difference in the percentage of deaths from gas poisoning attracts attention. If Avramov's percentage is below 10, then according to the total losses in individual attacks, it rises to almost 17.

Let us determine the number of deaths due to gas poisoning from among those sent to medical institutions. There is evidence that in 1916 on the North-Western Front, out of 1066 people poisoned by gases and admitted to medical institutions, 60 people died in front-line medical institutions, 6 on the way to the hospital and 60 people in rear hospitals. In total, 126 people died, i.e. 11.8% of the total. If, on this basis, we assume that approximately 10% of those sent to medical institutions died on the way, in army or rear hospitals, then the total number of soldiers and officers of the Russian army who died from poisonous gases in 1915-1917 will be 11 thousand people. Human.

Absolutely fantastic figures appear in the foreign press about the losses of the Russian army from chemical warfare. Colonel of the American Army Gilchrist in his work, which is the official publication of the American chemical schools of the Edgewood Arsenal, indicates that 475,340 people suffered from / 176 / gases in Russia, of which 56,400 died. Prentiss also accepts the same Gilchrist figures in his work on chemical warfare , although from his own detailed data on losses in individual gas attacks, it is quite clear that Gilchrist's calculation of almost half a million victims of chemical warfare is fantastic. In the list of individual gas attacks given by Prentiss, the total number of injured Russian soldiers and officers exceeds 30 thousand. The number of victims in small attacks not given by Prentiss was relatively small. It remains unknown in what battles the remaining 445 thousand people suffered ?!

After the publication of Prentiss's book, these completely absurd figures of victims of chemical warfare in the Russian army were widely disseminated in the periodical press. In 1943, for example, they were reproduced in the Statistical Bulletin of the Metropolitan Insurance Society.

Gilchrist put the number of victims of chemical warfare in the French army at 8,000, and Prentiss agreed with him. Munch cites the same figure.

For Italy, Prentiss also accepts Gilchrist's gassing death toll as 4,627. At the same time, Prentiss points out that the total number of Italian soldiers and officers who suffered from chemical attacks is not 13 thousand people, as Gilchrist points out, but at least 60 thousand people.

For England, Gilchrist gives a figure of 6,062 deaths, but Prentiss points out that 8,109 people died from gas poisoning in England. He adds to the figure of 6109 people indicated by General Faulks, another 2 thousand British soldiers who died in April - May 1915.

For the American army, the number of deaths from gas poisoning is determined, according to official reports, at 1421 people, and including losses in the fleet - at 1462 people.

For Germany, Gilchrist gives a figure of 2,280 deaths from gas poisoning, but this is an underestimate. The Germans themselves /177/ believe that a significant number of victims from gas attacks are not taken into account. Ganslian indicates that only for the period from January 1 to September 30. In October 1918, 58,000 people were gassed in the German army. Based on a study of the course of chemical warfare on the Western Front, Prentiss comes to the conclusion that approximately 200,000 people were gassed in the German army, of which 9,000 died. However, this figure is greatly exaggerated. The sanitary report indicates that from January 1, 1916 to July 31, 1918, 78,663 people were struck by gases in the German army, and taking into account those affected by gas attacks in 1915, the total number of people affected by gases will increase to 80 thousand people. The number of German soldiers and officers who died from gas poisoning is approximately 2300 people. Making allowance for the possible underestimation of the number of those poisoned by gases due to those who died before admission to medical institutions, this figure should be increased to 3 thousand. But even so, it will be 3 times less than the figure named by Prentiss.

Austrian losses as a result of gas poisoning Prentiss determines at 3 thousand people. In the absence of any other sources, we will leave this figure, although it is quite possible that Prentiss's figure for Austria-Hungary is also exaggerated.

Thus, the total number of victims of chemical weapons used in the first world war is expressed in the following figures:

The number of victims of the chemical war 1915-1918. by country

The total number of victims of chemical warfare is thus determined to be 39,000 people./178/

Summing up the number of those killed, who died from wounds and died from gas poisoning, we determine the total number of soldiers and officers who died in the battles of the First World War. It will be expressed in the figure of 7,369 thousand people.

For individual countries, the number of those killed, who died from wounds and gas poisoning, was expressed in the following figures (see Fig. 10):

Rice. 10. The number of deaths in the first world war by country

Of the total number of those killed in battles, 6,786 thousand people accounted for European countries.

In three countries - Germany, Russia, France - irretrievable combat losses exceeded 1 million people; in two other countries they exceeded 500 thousand. The Balkan states (including Turkey) also suffered significant losses - 733 thousand, which was 5 times higher than the losses during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. The combat losses of non-European countries were not very significant. The United States lost in the battles of the First World War 3 times less than such small countries as Serbia and Montenegro.

. Proceedings of the Commission..., p. 150. Statistics of the military Effort of the British Empire..., p. 353. . "Statistics of the military Effort of the British Empire...", p. 352.

Image copyright PA

Much of what we know about the military conflict of 1914-1918 is not true, writes historian Dan Snow.

No other war in history has generated as much controversy and myth as World War I.

For the soldiers involved in the battles, it was in some ways better than previous conflicts, and in some ways worse.

Simply labeling it as horrendous can lose sight of the realities not only of World War I, but of wars in general. There is also a danger of belittling the ordeals that the military and civilians have gone through in countless other conflicts in human history up to the present day.

1. The conflict at that time became the bloodiest

Fifty years before World War I, an even bloodier conflict erupted in China. According to the most conservative estimates, between 20 and 30 million people died during the 14 years of the Taiping Rebellion. A total of 17 million soldiers and civilians died in World War I.

Although in absolute terms the First World War claimed more British lives than any other conflict before or after it, in percentage terms the civil war of the 17th century was the bloodiest for the inhabitants of the British Isles. During the First World War, 2% of the British died, in the civil war the proportion of deaths in England and Wales was supposedly 4%, in Scotland and Ireland it was even higher.

2. Most of the soldiers died

In the UK, about 6 million people were called up to participate in hostilities. Of these, 700 thousand people did not return from the war. This is approximately 11.5%.

In reality, British soldiers were more likely to die during the Crimean War (1853-1856).

3. Soldiers lived in trenches for several years

Living conditions in the trenches on the front line did not allow them to stay in them for a long time. Often it was damp, cold, there was no protection from fire in them. Soldiers with a long stay in the trenches could quickly lose their morale.

In this regard, the British army constantly replaced soldiers in the trenches. Between major battles, a military unit, as a rule, was in the trenches for about 10 days a month, and of these, soldiers were directly on the front line for no more than three days. It was not uncommon for soldiers to not be sent forward for a whole month.

In critical moments, for example, during the offensive, the British military could be on the front lines for a week, but much more often they were changed after a couple of days.

4. High society got off lightly

Although most of the dead in World War I were working class, members of the political and secular elite also suffered significant losses. Their sons became junior officers, who were supposed to lead people into the attack and thereby expose themselves to the greatest danger.

About 12% of ordinary soldiers died during the war, while for officers this figure is 17%. So, for example, more than a thousand people died on the battlefields from the graduates of the elite Eton College, which amounted to about 20% of those who went to the front. The then British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son in the war, and the future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two sons. Another future head of government, Anthony Eden, lost two brothers, another of his brothers was seriously injured, and his uncle was captured.

5. "Lions under the command of donkeys"

This saying is attributed to German commanders. It supposedly refers to the brave British soldiers under the use of worthless old aristocrats in French castles. In fact, this phrase was invented by the historian Alan Clark.

During the war years, more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Most went to the front line every day. In battles, they were much closer to the center of the battle than the generals of our days.

Naturally, not all generals coped with their duties, but some were skilled military leaders, for example, Canadian Arthur Kerry. He was from the middle class, and in civilian life he could not achieve much success in the field of insurance agent and developer.

Few times before military leaders had to adapt to the conditions of warfare so technologically unusual for them.

In the British army, commanders were trained to fight small colonial wars. And they were drawn into a large-scale industrial conflict, with which the British army had not had to deal with before.

Despite this, in three years the British essentially invented the method of warfare that is still broadly used today. By the summer of 1918, the British army was at the peak of its power and one after another struck at the German army.

6. Australians and New Zealanders participated in the Dardanelles operation

There were more British soldiers on the Gallipoli peninsula than Australians and New Zealanders combined.

Britain lost four or five times as many men in that operation as its Australian and New Zealand allies. The French also died there more than the Australians.

Australians and New Zealanders honor the memory of those killed in the Dardanelles operation with particular zeal, but this is understandable, because their losses were a significant loss in percentage terms both for their armed forces and for the small population of these countries.

7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated setbacks.

Never before had tactics and technology changed so radically in four years of war. It was a time of outstanding innovation. In 1914, the generals pranced across the battlefield on horseback, and the soldiers in caps went on the attack without the slightest fire cover. Both sides were armed primarily with rifles. Four years later, the troops went on the attack in steel helmets and under the cover of artillery fire.

They were armed with flamethrowers, light machine guns and could fire grenades from rifles. In 1914, airplanes seemed like a marvel of technology - by the end of the war, they could engage in air duels. Some aircraft were equipped with experimental wireless radio transmitters and could conduct reconnaissance in real time.

Heavy artillery guns could fire with high accuracy, based only on aerial photographs of the terrain and mathematical calculations. The process of creating tanks from the drawing board to finished samples on the battlefield took some two years. These machines forever changed the course of hostilities.

8. There were no winners

Vast territories in Europe were turned into ruins, millions of people died or were injured. Survivors were forced to carry the most severe emotional trauma for the rest of their lives. The UK is broke. It is strange in such a situation to talk about the winners.

However, from a military point of view, Britain and its allies won a landslide victory. The German warships were blocked by the British Royal Navy until riots broke out among the German sailors.

The German army was defeated as a result of coordinated attacks by the allies, who managed to break through the seemingly invulnerable defenses.

By the end of September 1918, the German Kaiser and his chief military adviser, Erich von Ludendorff, recognized that there was no hope of victory and that Germany needed to ask for peace. Armistice Day November 11, 1918 was, in fact, the surrender of Germany.

Unlike Adolf Hitler in 1945, the German government did not continue the futile struggle until the Allies entered Berlin. Thanks to the armistice, thousands of lives were saved, but it also became an occasion for demagogy that Germany did not lose the war.

9. The Treaty of Versailles was unreasonably harsh

The Treaty of Versailles took away from Germany about 10% of the territory. But even so, Germany remained the largest and richest country in Europe.

Most of the German lands escaped occupation. The demand for the payment of reparations by Germany was linked to its ability to pay and was practically not fulfilled.

The terms of the peace were much softer than the requirements of the treaties concluded both after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 and after the Second World War. As a result of the first war, the regions of Alsace and Lorraine, which had long belonged to France, where the French mining and metallurgical industry was concentrated, went to Germany. France also had to pay a considerable indemnity, and immediately.

After World War II, Germany was occupied and divided into parts. The industrial capacities of the country were systematically destroyed or exported. Millions of captured Germans remained in captivity for several years after the war and worked for the winners for free. Germany lost all the land acquired in the interwar years, and vast territories beyond that.

The Treaty of Versailles was not at all cruel to the vanquished - it was Hitler who presented it as such. He needed to create anti-Versailles sentiments in order to use them later to come to power.

10. Everyone hated the war

As in any war, it all depends on luck. You can become a witness of terrible tragic events that will forever leave a mark on life, both psychological and physical. And you can get out of it without a single scratch. It could be the best or worst time of your life.

Many soldiers in World War I liked it. With good luck, they did not get into violent fights, and in most cases their living conditions in the war were better than at home.

British soldiers were fed meat, which was an unaffordable luxury at home. They were supplied with cigarettes, tea and rum. They were supposed to consume 4,000 calories a day.

The percentage of those who are absent due to illness was barely higher than the peacetime figure. It is an important indicator of the morale of soldiers. Many young soldiers enjoyed secure pay, strong friendships, responsibilities and much more sexual freedom than in Britain.

Have you ever wondered who and to what extent took part in the First World War and whose contribution to the defeat of Germany and its allies was the most significant? Why this question? - you ask. The fact is that one of my colleagues wrote to me yesterday that if Russia had not withdrawn from the war, then it could claim the role of the victorious country in the First World War (with all the ensuing consequences). One can argue with this, although there is a certain logic in this. And let's look at the statistics today, which reflects whose contribution to the victory over Germany was the most significant.

So let's go...

1. Losses of the German army in 1914-1918. along the fronts.

WESTERN FRONT 1914-1915.

1. Killed - 160.9 thousand people.
2. Missing - 170.0 thousand people.

Total : 330,9 thousand people

EASTERN FRONT 1914-1915.

1. Killed - 72.0 thousand people.
2. Missing - 68.4 thousand people.

Total: 140.4 thousand people

2,3

WESTERN FRONT 1915-1916.

1. Killed - 114.1 thousand people.
2. Missing - 96.3 thousand people.

Total: 210.4 thousand people

1. Killed - 56.0 thousand people.
2. Missing - 36.0 thousand people.

Total: 92.0 thousand people

The ratio of the results of the year. For every German killed or missing on the Eastern Front, there were 2,28 killed and missing Germans on the Western Front (!)

WESTERN FRONT 1916-1917.

1. Killed - 134.1 thousand people.
2. Missing - 181.6 thousand people.

Total: 315.7 thousand people

EASTERN FRONT 1915-1916.

1. Killed - 37.0 thousand people.
2. Missing - 36.4 thousand people.

Total: 73.4 thousand people

The ratio of the results of the year. For every German killed or missing on the Eastern Front, there were 4,3 killed and missing Germans on the Western Front (!)

Compare with previous years! Such a sharp roll of German losses towards the Western Front says a lot .

WESTERN FRONT 1917-1918.

1. Killed - 181.8 thousand people.
2. Missing - 175.3 thousand people.

Total: 357.1 thousand people

EASTERN FRONT 1915-1916.

1. Killed - 8.8 thousand people.
2. Missing - 2.5 thousand people.

Total: 11.3 thousand people

The ratio of the results of the year. For every German killed and missing on the Eastern Front, there were 31.6 Germans killed and missing on the Western Front (!)

These data are based on sanitary reports from the war of 1914-1918. (I do not give the name of the German source, I will only say that these data were published in Berlin in 1934)

From the above data, it can be seen that the Germans on the Eastern Front lost 4 times less than on the Western.

“I will cite a little-known but significant fact: our losses on the Eastern Front were much greater than the losses we suffered on the Western Front from 1914 to 1918” (source - Collection “Fatal Decisions”). It remains unknown where Blumenritt got his "significant facts" from?

As you already understood, the main enemy of the Russian army in the First World War on the Eastern Front was not the Germans, but the Austro-Hungarians. On the distribution of the losses of the Austro-Hungarian army on individual fronts, the following data are available (the front and the number of killed, wounded and captured):

1. Russian front - 2724 thousand people
2. Italian - 1478 thousand people
3.Romanian - 79 thousand people
4. Balkan - 295 thousand people
5. French - 6 thousand people

The share of the Russian front in the total number of losses of the Austro-Hungarian army is approximately 60%. In total, Austria-Hungary lost 727 thousand people on the battlefield. At the same time, losses on the Eastern Front amounted to 450 thousand people killed.

The Turkish armies also fought against the Russian armies. It can be tentatively considered 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. This number also includes the losses of two Bulgarian divisions that fought against the Russian armies (here are the "brothers" - assholes!).

Whoever has a calculator can easily calculate the total losses of the Germans and their allies against Russia.

And further. About the ability to fight. The fields of France and Flanders were watered with the blood of approximately 1.6 million Entente soldiers and officers. This 1.6 million is contrasted with only 1.1 million killed German soldiers and officers. Consequently, the Germans on the Western Front had 1.45 times less losses than their opponents.

I want to recall the loss of life among the countries of the anti-German bloc:

Russia - 1200 thousand people
France - 898 thousand people
Great Britain - 485 thousand people
Italy - 381 thousand people
Etc.
USA - 37 thousand people

From my opponents, I have heard more than once that the army of the Russian Empire by 1916 was more combat-ready than ever. Say, after the failures of 1914-1915, by 1916 the army was provided with everything necessary (especially with regard to solving the famous "shell" hunger), and was simply eager to fight! Just a little more, just a little, and victory would be in our hands!

Well, for starters, I would advise such people to look at the map of the front line at the end of 1915 and make sure WHO fought and on WHOSE territory. In addition, I wanted to know more specifically, what is the basis of their puppy optimism? What has changed dramatically in the Russian army and in the attitude of the people to this war, so that one could believe in this nonsense.

They begin to "load" me about the famous Brusilov breakthrough. Yes, there was a breakthrough, but it only softened another bitter pill that the Germans treated General Alekseev and the Russian army advancing "to the rescue of the allies" who had grappled with the Germans near Verdun. In March 1916, he launched the Naroch Offensive. Like the French offensive in Artois and Picardy a year before, this operation turned into a massacre - the corps went to the barbed wire and died under the fire of German heavy artillery and machine guns. Only on March 15 Alekseev ordered to withdraw. “Allied proceeds” cost 20,000 dead.

Brusilov only saved the situation after the so-called "Great Withdrawal" of the Russian army. In general, the year 1916 ended for the Russian army with the inconclusive Battle of Metav, where the Russian army tried to advance, but was driven back by the Germans. Ineffective, except for the loss of 23 thousand people killed, wounded and captured.

Now we come to another interesting piece of information.

Average monthlylosses of the Russian army in 1914-1916.

1914

1. Killed - 8 thousand people.
2. Captured - 11 thousand people.
3. Wounded - 46 thousand people.

TOTAL: 65 thousand people

1915

1. Killed - 23 thousand people.
2. Was captured - 82 thousand people.
3. Wounded - 102 thousand people.

TOTAL: 207 thousand people

1916

1. Killed - 22 thousand people.
2. Was captured - 125 thousand people.
3. Wounded - 77 thousand people.

TOTAL: 224 thousand people

note :

1. The number of prisoners in 1915 and 1916. In 1916 there were much more of them! And keep in mind that this is an average monthly data! The Russian army advanced several times (or rather tried to advance), but each time lost its soldiers as prisoners.

And the data on those killed in 1915 and 1916 are almost the same!

2. On average, fewer people were injured in 1916 than in 1915. Apparently, this is the reverse side of paragraph 2 - “I was taken prisoner.” Otherwise, I can’t even imagine the reason for such statistics.

And last but not least - a map of the front line in 1914-1915.