ww2 military deaths

[ww2fanatic1944]

This is interesting...i have been searching for the military death figures for ww2. Alot of websites had totally different figures but these were the most commonly accepted figures. Only military deaths, no civilian deaths included.

US- 407,000
Soviet Union-8 million
Germany-5 million
Japan-1.5 million

Everyone believes that the US was really the biggest, or at least most important player in world war two, and without them that the world would be under axis control. But the Soviets (now Russians) really won the war. It is also interesting to note that the Americans, who were fighting on 2 fronts lost alot less men then Japan who was only fighting the US.

Also there are alot of countries that were minor players, or countries that i didnt even know were in world war 2 that lost alot of men:
China- 2.5 million
Yugoslavia- 300,000 (what did they do?!)
France-210,000 (taken over in about a week by the Germans)
Romania-290,000

It is odd to see that countries like Yugoslavia and Romania lost so many men, and yet had such a small impact on the war. The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.

[Sturmtruppen]

hi mate,welcome to the forum!. :D

here is a web: http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

the credit of finding this web is for a mate who found it,it's a member of this forum,i don't remember who was.

but cheers :wink:

[Mars]

Well,the US never fought in the Rusian winter....

[pdf27]

Well,the US never fought in the Rusian winter....
Perhaps as relevantly, the Germans never operated a policy of starving to death all the US prisoners they captured. IIRC something like 4 million of the Russian casualties died of starvation or were murdered while PoWs.

[Crab_to_be]

It is also interesting to note that the Americans, who were fighting on 2 fronts lost alot less men then Japan who was only fighting the US.

You seem to have forgotten the Forgotten Army. Which is quite apt, I suppose. They inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese during the Burma Campaigns.

Edited for spelling, and to add:
You didn't just forget the Forgetten Army! You forgot the entire country.

[pdf27]

It is also interesting to note that the Americans, who were fighting on 2 fronts lost alot less men then Japan who was only fighting the US.
You seem to have forgotten the Forgotten Army. Which is quite apt, I suppose. They inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanes during the Burma Campaigns.
Not to mention a little contretemps in China which had been going on for 10 years or so by the end of WW2...

[festamus]

Also there are alot of countries that were minor players, or countries that i didnt even know were in world war 2 that lost alot of men:
China- 2.5 million
Yugoslavia- 300,000 (what did they do?!)
France-210,000 (taken over in about a week by the Germans)
Romania-290,000

It is odd to see that countries like Yugoslavia and Romania lost so many men, and yet had such a small impact on the war. The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.

Death seemed to follow the Nazi's wherever they went and visit itself on the local populace... and they went and invaded Russia and Romania. They fought rather vicious little wars with the Nazi's. In fact, didn't Yugoslavia liberate itself? Certainly the Yugoslav resistance was (according to the Wiki I've pulled up for clarification) the largest in Western or Central Europe.

[ww2fanatic1944]

ya, death did follow the germans, as it did the Russians. Stalin was brutal. Also, the japenese fought to the death, no retreat. So that had to attribute to some of their losses. But it still amazes me that the US only lost that amount of men, altho they did have another 700,000+ injured.

[Hosenfield]

the reason why the us death toll is comparably low is because the americans only truely commited there forces against germany after june 1944. and even then, the english/commonwealth had to deal with all the hardest fighting, against most of the german armored divisions in france

america, didn't do as much fighting on the ground as you think.

9/10s of the german military losses were in Russia, so the we got off easily with comparably little fighting. and , by late 1944, we were fighting the deteriated portions of the german army.

Even when the situation escalated after D-day, the majority of german forces were still in Russia for the rest of the war.

And, THe pacific island battles the us fought were tiny compared to the fighting going on in China.

[Hanz Lutz]

:
China- 2.5 million
Yugoslavia- 300,000 (what did they do?!)
France-210,000 (taken over in about a week by the Germans)
Romania-290,000

It is odd to see that countries like Yugoslavia and Romania lost so many men, and yet had such a small impact on the war. The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.

Yugoslavia lose 300.000 soldiers 1941 becouse they not have panzer divisions ,they have only old tanks ,for one month germans crash them.

US army have equipment romania and yougoslavia dont have ,search on net germans lost betwean 1941-45 in romania and yugoslavia ,and you will see .

When partisans take country in your hands ,germans have not anyone win battle. :wink:

[Tsolias]

My country is very small.
10% of the population was killed in WWII.

[Hosenfield]

Also there are alot of countries that were minor players, or countries that i didnt even know were in world war 2 that lost alot of men:
China- 2.5 million
Yugoslavia- 300,000 (what did they do?!)
France-210,000 (taken over in about a week by the Germans)
Romania-290,000

It is odd to see that countries like Yugoslavia and Romania lost so many men, and yet had such a small impact on the war. The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.

Death seemed to follow the Nazi's wherever they went and visit itself on the local populace... and they went and invaded Russia and Romania. They fought rather vicious little wars with the Nazi's. In fact, didn't Yugoslavia liberate itself? Certainly the Yugoslav resistance was (according to the Wiki I've pulled up for clarification) the largest in Western or Central Europe.

yes, Mr. Tito had acquired himself a sizeable army that was actively annoying the germans. Then, german intelligence discovered his fortress hideout and parachuted SS para Battalion 500 to finish him off. (Operation Rosselsprung) But when the germans stormed his hideout, all they found was his personal belonging, and tito had excaped already.

[ww2fanatic1944]

mr tito?

[Firefly]

Also there are alot of countries that were minor players, or countries that i didnt even know were in world war 2 that lost alot of men:
China- 2.5 million
Yugoslavia- 300,000 (what did they do?!)
France-210,000 (taken over in about a week by the Germans)
Romania-290,000

It is odd to see that countries like Yugoslavia and Romania lost so many men, and yet had such a small impact on the war. The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.

Death seemed to follow the Nazi's wherever they went and visit itself on the local populace... and they went and invaded Russia and Romania. They fought rather vicious little wars with the Nazi's. In fact, didn't Yugoslavia liberate itself? Certainly the Yugoslav resistance was (according to the Wiki I've pulled up for clarification) the largest in Western or Central Europe.

yes, Mr. Tito had acquired himself a sizeable army that was actively annoying the germans. Then, german intelligence discovered his fortress hideout and parachuted SS para Battalion 500 to finish him off. (Operation Rosselsprung) But when the germans stormed his hideout, all they found was his personal belonging, and tito had excaped already.

And the para battalion found itself cut off in a graveyard and was very nearly destroyed before ground forces arrived to save them.

[Hosenfield]

yes. somehow, this scenario reminds me of us' forray into somalia, the "Black hawk down". a small elite force comes in to preform an extraction, and then finds itself completely surrounded by numerically superior enemy forces.

[Hanz Lutz]

Tito is not been in town like germans think ,he is been in cave over the city.

[Commando Jordovski]

2.5 million people lost in China is alot, considering you dont hear about it much.
You are also forgetting countries like Australia and Africa, Australia was being invaded by the Japanese and we fought our asses off losing alot of men for a new country like us.

[Crab_to_be]

Eh? Africa isn't a country.

Australia was never actually invaded by the Japanese, although they did get rather too close for comfort. In any case, Australia was most certainly not fighting Japan on her own. There was furious fighting across Burma by British and Commonwealth troops. That British and Commonwealth troops did little to reinforce the efforts in the South Pacific is more to do with the USA being in a far better position to do so than any ignoring of the importance of Australia.

Is suspect one of the reasons that Australia appears to get overlooked is that typing 'The British Empire and Her Commonwealth' is quite time consuming, so people tend to just refer to Britain.

I believe I speak for all the British members here when I say that we are accutely aware of the contribution made by the Colonies and Dominions before, during and after WW2. This includes the ANZAC, Indian Army, Canadians and South African contributions.

[Commando Jordovski]

Eh? Africa isn't a country.

Australia was never actually invaded by the Japanese, although they did get rather too close for comfort. In any case, Australia was most certainly not fighting Japan on her own. There was furious fighting across Burma by British and Commonwealth troops. That British and Commonwealth troops did little to reinforce the efforts in the South Pacific is more to do with the USA being in a far better position to do so than any ignoring of the importance of Australia.

Is suspect one of the reasons that Australia appears to get overlooked is that typing 'The British Empire and Her Commonwealth' is quite time consuming, so people tend to just refer to Britain.

I believe I speak for all the British members here when I say that we are accutely aware of the contribution made by the Colonies and Dominions before, during and after WW2. This includes the ANZAC, Indian Army, Canadians and South African contributions.

I would of said American Propoganda, over looks alot of the Australians in WW2.

[Cuts]

...

we fought our asses off losing alot of men for a new country like us.

'We' ?

You're older than I thought !

[Crab_to_be]

...

we fought our asses off losing alot of men for a new country like us.

'We' ?

You're older than I thought !

[Walter]
Oops. I should have said 'I'. WW2 was a sole effort by myself to destroy the Nazis and Japanese. Everyone else was just a distraction from the main effort. [/Mitty]

You are right, I used a horrible turn of phrase, more often seen when footballer fans say 'we beat' rather than 'my team beat' when talking about the results of a football match. To the edit button!

Edit: Oh, so it wasn't me after all! :oops: Reading other people's posts always helps. I very nearly did refer to the allied war effort as 'we'. I'll leave this post here as a general apology to those who actually did fight, whether they frequent this forum or not

[IRONMAN]

Everyone believes that the US was really the biggest, or at least most important player in world war two, and without them that the world would be under axis control.

They do? I've only head teenagers spout that crap.

[IRONMAN]

Well,the US never fought in the Rusian winter....

No, but they faught in the North Korean winter at -40 below for extended period of time. The Korean weather was just as cold. Probably worse because it is also more humid there than in Russia. Korea is an ithsmas.

[IRONMAN]

the reason why the us death toll is comparably low is because the americans only truely commited there forces against germany after june 1944. and even then, the english/commonwealth had to deal with all the hardest fighting, against most of the german armored divisions in france

You've lost it. You're thinking of North Africa dude. Not Europe. That is absolutely and completely false. After D-Day, the US forces comprised the strong majority of the forces fighting against Germany in Europe in the west. I cannot image how you got so mislead.

[LargeBrew]

Ironman I think Hosenfield got the idea from the fact that two thirds of the invasion force on D day were comprised of British and Commonwealth forces and that when Hitler released the Amoured units held back for the expected crossing at the pas de callais they moved south to counter the advance of the Brithish and Commonwealth forces.
I'm certain that before the end of June US forces out numbered British and Commonwealth forces but in the aftermath of the invasion days were designated as D day plus and not 6th 7th etc of June, so in some respects you are both right.
I notice that in your previous post you mentioned Korea, there is another poster who has mentioned US winter actions in Korea ( Chosin IIRC ) if you check back through some of the threads you may find the posts and the links he posted with them.

[IRONMAN]

Ironman I think Hosenfield got the idea from the fact that two thirds of the invasion force on D day were comprised of British and Commonwealth forces and that when Hitler released the Amoured units held back for the expected crossing at the pas de callais they moved south to counter the advance of the Brithish and Commonwealth forces.
I'm certain that before the end of June US forces out numbered British and Commonwealth forces but in the aftermath of the invasion days were designated as D day plus and not 6th 7th etc of June, so in some respects you are both right.
I notice that in your previous post you mentioned Korea, there is another poster who has mentioned US winter actions in Korea ( Chosin IIRC ) if you check back through some of the threads you may find the posts and the links he posted with them.

Hey, I'm not trying to say that the US did all the fighting. I'd never make such a stupid statement. Good information though. Your post has some good info. Thanks. Yes, I agree. I also think we are both right.

[IRONMAN]

It's certainly true that the British kicked ther German's asses in Africa. The tactics of the tank battles were superior, and they fooled the Nazis and then smoked em.

Ardennes was rough, and the Canadians did some real fighting at Market Garden.

[pdf27]

and the Canadians did some real fighting at Market Garden.
I thought Arnhem was British and Polish rather than Canadian troops. Incidentally, Market Garden included the US parachute attacks on the nearer bridges (Nijmegen and the like? Can't quite remember).

[Firefly]

Market garden was the attempt to end the war by christmas.

A failed attempt. The biggest success was the US paratroopers capture of the Bridges at Gravre and Nimejen. The ground force was spearheaded initially by the Irish Guards of XXX Corps.

The biggest debacle was at Arnhem where the British made a pigs ear of it.

The whole thing was a gamble that never paid of and spookiliy enough its almost the anniversary now:

Try this if interested:

http://www.arnhemarchive.org/frames.htm

[Man of Stoat]

Market garden was the attempt to end the war by christmas.

A failed attempt. The biggest success was the US paratroopers capture of the Bridges at Gravre and Nimejen. The ground force was spearheaded initially by the Irish Guards of XXX Corps.

The biggest debacle was at Arnhem where the British made a pigs ear of it.

The whole thing was a gamble that never paid of and spookiliy enough its almost the anniversary now:

Try this if interested:

http://www.arnhemarchive.org/frames.htm

I'll be attending the commemorative parachute drop on Saturday if I can drag myself out of bed & drive to Ede for 10am.

[Hosenfield]

It's certainly true that the British kicked ther German's asses in Africa. The tactics of the tank battles were superior, and they fooled the Nazis and then smoked em.

Ardennes was rough, and the Canadians did some real fighting at Market Garden.

superior tactics?? You mean winning the war of supply and raw numbers. Rommel wasn't called the "desert fox" for nothing.

and , i was talking about the caen area.

[IRONMAN]

It's certainly true that the British kicked ther German's asses in Africa. The tactics of the tank battles were superior, and they fooled the Nazis and then smoked em.

Ardennes was rough, and the Canadians did some real fighting at Market Garden.

superior tactics?? You mean winning the war of supply and raw numbers. Rommel wasn't called the "desert fox" for nothing.

and , i was talking about the caen area.

OK. But there was a major tank battle in North Africa in which the British tricked the Germans and then whooped them good. BBC has a multimedia demonstation of this battle and audio describing it on their web site. It is very cool.

[Skobert]

The US lost only about 100,000 more and yet had a huge impact on the war.The nuclear bomb gave the U.S. most recognition for winning the war. Also, the Japanese did sustain many more osses but that's because of the way they fought. They had kamikaze attacks on many battles and would fight to extinction. They were proud to die for the Emperor, only the dead were awarded in the Japanese forces. And that's also, in a way, how the Russians would fight battles. The U.S. sustained minimal casualties (compared to others) because of a different fighting style, and also we took care of our wounded. I remember reading in Flags of Our Fathers that a captured Japanese officer asked a Medic why they were waisting so many medic supplies on their men. The way you fought came out in casualties.

[Crab_to_be]

The experience of the General (later Field Marshal and Viscount) Slim was that the reason behind Japanese successes was the same as the reason for them taking high casualties. The reasons are twofold - the behaviour of the commander and the individual soldier.

Individual Soldier -
Individual Japanese soldiers rarely surrendered. They would routinely fight to the death, even in obviously hopeless situations. This is an advantage, in that a defence can be made stronger if the defenders will not surrender despite casualties and an attack is harder to blunt if the individuals will continue to attack regardless. It carries with it the obvious disadvantage that unless the commander orders a withdrawal, defending units will be completely lost and an attack that fails will fail with very heavy losses on the Japanese side. Slim noted that about ten soldiers was the most that could be expected to be captured from the destruction of a roughly battalion sized formation (I don't have the book handy, so will have to check numbers later).

Commander -
In battle, it is important to have a reserve. That is, troops not engaged by the enemy who can be deployed to exploit successes or block enemy counter attacks etc. Having your own reserve committed while the enemy commander retains his is often a ticket to defeat as he has freedom of action while all your units are engaged. For this reason, commanders are reluctant ever to commit all their reserve to battle.
Early Japanese successes in Russia are partly attributed to the willingness of the Japanese Commander to commit his entire reserve to battle. This had the effect of tipping the balance of a closely fought battles in favour of the Japanese. This was repeated across China and through Burma.

Soldier and Commander Combination -
Because the individual soldier would not surrender, and the commander would almost routinely commit his reserve, the Imperial Japanese Army could mount very effective attacks and resist enemy attacks better than might be expected by a similar formation from the other major combatants. This strength was the cause of the major vulnerability. If an IJA attack could be stopped, the casualties taken by the Japanese would be high and the commander would have no reserve, making him vulnerable to a rapid counter attack. Similarly, defeating a Japanese defensive position was tough, but succeeding would then leave an greater opportunity to exploit the success than would be expected against, say, the Germans.

Thus, although the characteristics described above were a vital part of the success of the IJA they were also the source of a key weakness, one that was exploited by Slim in Burma with great success.

[Twitch1]

Just a thought from the 1st post's quantities- figures from declassified government documents released in the 1990s show some 303,000 US combat deaths. And the 2.5 million Chinese deaths is WAY low when they were being slaughtered from the occupation of Manchuria 1931-1945.

[Skobert]

And the 2.5 million Chinese deaths is WAY low when they were being slaughtered from the occupation of Manchuria 1931-1945.Wasn't it around the 7 million mark?

[Dani]

Off-topic: Skobert, please resize your avatar. Check this:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7009#7009

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Off-topic: Skobert, please resize your avatar. Check this:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7009#7009

Missed that one :oops:

[AmyLynnB17]

This is purely opinion on my part, but I am going to speculate on these numbers. I've thought about it often, and can come up with numerous reasons for the drastic differences in casualities. First of all, for Germany and Japan, they were both fighting quite awhile before the US came into the picture. Thats probably pretty obvious to us all, so that accounts for some of those numbers. Also, the bulk of their fighting forces were their armies. Certainly Japan had quite a Navy, and Germany had quite the Air Force. However, they still concentrated their efforts on building armies. Certainly the US had a mighty army as well. But the US had probably the mightest of the Air Forces, and they inflicted many many military deaths(and of course civilian, but we are only talking military numbers here) through their bombing and dogfighting campaigns. I think the Army Air Force (along with Navy and Marine airpower) played a critical role in decisive turning points in the war as well. Think of the Battle of Midway for instance. Without US airpower, Yamamoto's Navy could have inflicted much more damage to a lot more than just the US. The daylight raids flown day after day into the heart of Germany broke the Nazi's back. There are so many examples. Now, I don't want anyone to think by me saying this that I believe that the Navy, Marines, and Army did not contribute significantly to the war. I simply think that our airpower ability grew to be superior to any other axis or allied country by the time the war ended. Again, please don't think that by me saying that I think that the other countries did not have worthy airpower. They certainly did. Certainly we lost a lot of men to our air endevors. We lost 28,000 men belonging to bomber crews in the ETO alone. I think we would have lost a LOT more had we had to achieve all we achieved through virtually all ground forces alone, which is what those countries that suffered such great losses pretty much had to do. There is much to consider in the contemplation of such an issue. I don't think there is any right or wrong answer to it, and there are certainly many facets to the possibilities.

[Firefly]

I wonder what would be the result if we just compared casualties. The US medical services were good and US casualties were removed from the battlefield asap, the same obviously cant be said for Japanese wounded.

Has anyone just compared casualties then?

[Twitch1]

also off topic- I can't get an off-site avatar of 90x90 pixels to show up at all!?

AmyLynnB17- another area that came to mind was German U-boat service deaths compared to ours. It was something like 36,000 compared to a few hundred......... :shock:

[Firefly]

also off topic- I can't get an off-site avatar of 90x90 pixels to show up at all!?

AmyLynnB17- another area that came to mind was German U-boat service deaths compared to ours. It was something like 36,000 compared to a few hundred......... :shock:

Yes but the Japanese didnt put as much emphasis on killing SUbs as the Brits did.

[Dani]

also off topic- I can't get an off-site avatar of 90x90 pixels to show up at all!?


Try to decrease the size of the picture or ask Tiger (our combat photographer) - he is in charge with the avatars.

[Hosenfield]

some of the orginal poster's numbers are off

while there are different estimates, these are probably the most accurate ones. (all military dead)

US dead 407,000, (375,000 dead in the Europeon theater of operations)

UK 403,000

soviet union 11.6 million dead (not including the winter war)

Germany- 3.25 million dead (2.9 million died in russian, 350,000 died everywhere else)


an interesting thing is that 350,000 germans died fighting ALL the allied forces...

including the invasion of poland and france, which lost the allies all together 300,000 dead.

not to mention the other minor europeon nations....

[Hosenfield]

This is purely opinion on my part, but I am going to speculate on these numbers. I've thought about it often, and can come up with numerous reasons for the drastic differences in casualities. First of all, for Germany and Japan, they were both fighting quite awhile before the US came into the picture. Thats probably pretty obvious to us all, so that accounts for some of those numbers. Also, the bulk of their fighting forces were their armies. Certainly Japan had quite a Navy, and Germany had quite the Air Force. However, they still concentrated their efforts on building armies. Certainly the US had a mighty army as well. But the US had probably the mightest of the Air Forces, and they inflicted many many military deaths(and of course civilian, but we are only talking military numbers here) through their bombing and dogfighting campaigns. I think the Army Air Force (along with Navy and Marine airpower) played a critical role in decisive turning points in the war as well. Think of the Battle of Midway for instance. Without US airpower, Yamamoto's Navy could have inflicted much more damage to a lot more than just the US. The daylight raids flown day after day into the heart of Germany broke the Nazi's back. There are so many examples. Now, I don't want anyone to think by me saying this that I believe that the Navy, Marines, and Army did not contribute significantly to the war. I simply think that our airpower ability grew to be superior to any other axis or allied country by the time the war ended. Again, please don't think that by me saying that I think that the other countries did not have worthy airpower. They certainly did. Certainly we lost a lot of men to our air endevors. We lost 28,000 men belonging to bomber crews in the ETO alone. I think we would have lost a LOT more had we had to achieve all we achieved through virtually all ground forces alone, which is what those countries that suffered such great losses pretty much had to do. There is much to consider in the contemplation of such an issue. I don't think there is any right or wrong answer to it, and there are certainly many facets to the possibilities.

German military production doubled between 1943 to 1944. An enormous amount of german war material was poured out, even more then ever before.

Secondly, the german forces in the ETO did not suffer as great losses on the ground as you think due to airpower. Very few tanks were permantly destroyed in the ETO through Allied airpower (however, many more were damaged, but most were salvaged /repaired) The entire normandy campaign saw the total destruction of only little more then 100 german tanks. However, many "soft targets" like trucks and cars were destroyed.

thirdly, German troops on the ground were much, much less afraid of US carpet bombing then Allied artillery. Carpet bombing in the 40s were inaccurate and often predictable. Enormous amount of bombs missed.

Often, the germans got enough warning from air observers and recon units to abandon their positions and relocate to set fall-back positions while the entire bomb carpet missed them.

One thing, though, that helped the US reduce caualties were their use of massive material wastage. The loss of the m4 sherman meant nothing to them as they sent tanks to do a (normally) infantryman's work.

[Hosenfield]

Allied bombers stats:

* 12,000 heavy bombers were shot down in WWII
* Between 1939 and 1945 the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs
* That averages out to be 27,700 tons of bombs a month

* 2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed
* 3 or 4 ground men were wounded for each killed
* 6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded
* Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe

[PzKpfw VI Tiger]

Allied bombers stats:

* 12,000 heavy bombers were shot down in WWII
* Between 1939 and 1945 the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs
* That averages out to be 27,700 tons of bombs a month

* 2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed
* 3 or 4 ground men were wounded for each killed
* 6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded
* Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe

Wow, when you put that all in perspective - those are very impressing numbers....and not necessarily in a good way. :shock:

[pdf27]

Wow, when you put that all in perspective - those are very impressing numbers....and not necessarily in a good way. :shock:
RAF bomber command lost approximately 55,000 men (roughly 60% of the total force). From only German U-boat crews (who lost 28,000 men - roughly 70% of the force) faced greater odds against their survival.

[Johannès]

Note on France:

They lost between 210,000 and 253,000 fighting men in the war. France surrendered in 6 weeks after the initial invasions (not one), and had lost 90,000 men in that time period. The other 160,000 were Free French deaths (Vichy men aren't counted in these statistics).

[Gutkowski]

Countries Total Deaths in WWII


USSR 20,600,000

CHINA 10,000,000

GERMANY 6,850,000

POLAND 6,123,000

JAPAN 2,000,000

YUGOSLAVIA 1,706,000

FRANCE 810,000

GREECE 520,000

UNITED STATES 500,000

AUSTRIA 480,000

ROMANIA 460,000

HUNGARY 420,000

ITALY 410,000

CZECHOSLOVAKIA 400,000

GREAT BRITAIN 388,000

NETHERLANDS 210,000

BELGIUM 88,000

FINLAND 84,000

AUSTRALIA 39,000

CANADA 34,000

ALBANIA 28,000

INDIA 24,000

NORWAY 10,262

NEW ZEALAND 10,000

LUXEMBOURG 5,000
__________________________________________________

Total Deaths In WWII 52,199,262




http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm

[Rinx]

Countries Total Deaths in WWII

FINLAND 84,000


Wow, that is VERY much, considering on the little amount of people in Finland at that time.. :shock:

[Johannès]

That's counting civilian deaths of course, which may seem why the numbers are so high.

[Gutkowski]

Yes it is ,Check the link