Where are they today?

[Selous]

Originally Posted by shri

Well- no need for that comment! why go personal?

It's a comment from chairman Mao - Nuclear weapons are paper tigers. Hence calling you 'Chairman'. Just a little dig, nothing personal. I think if I wanted to be insulting I could've come up with something better than 'chairman.'

All i was trying to say- on paper, the mongols could never have conquered the largest contiguous empire or the British the largest empire ever.. if you did not have hindsight.. then seeing the paper power, there were huge powers present who did not amount to much and vice- versa.

And my point, as I've hinted on above, is that I disagree with your metrics of power status.

[ljadw]

Originally Posted by shri

Out of its total mobilization of around 300000, approx.

50000 dead, 10000 wounded and about 25000 sick by the end of the first year (wasn't that a disastrous outcome for Japan?)
Russians never cared for casualties- whether the Crimean War, Napoleonic, great War or Second World War (Russian casualties had crossed 200000 by then but they had over 500000 available).
1905 rebellions in St.Petersburg really alarmed Russia.[Grand Duke Nicolai was not sent to the Far east for this reason alone]
The Shadow of the Winter Palace: Russia's Drift to Revolution, 1825-1917[Crankshaw] repeatedly writes that internal revolts scared Russian Tsars more.

As for Financing-- Russia had over 100Million pound sterling of gold reserves and its fiscally rich ally (France) was funding a good share of its war effort, Japan had only about 10Million pound sterling gold reserves it was New York Jewish Bankers who ended giving Japan approx. 200 Million Dollars of loans to help finance the war effort. Of course the UK(nominal ally of Japan then) also financed a small part.

Proofs for your claim that France funded a good share of the Russian war effort ???

[Nickuru]

Sweden, Spain, Norway and Denmarck won because they kept out of the bloodbath.

[Napoleon]

Although the British Empire was arguably fatally weakened by the First World War, it is useful to look at the impact of the war from the perspective of the colonies, in particular the Dominions. I am surprised that many of the Canadian posters here have neglected to mention the impact of the war on Canada.

Canada suffered greatly during the war, according to Wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but these numbers seem accurate), 67,000 were killed and 173,000 wounded. This was an immense cost for a young nation to pay with a population, at the time, of around 7.9 million.

At the same time, from a larger perspective, Britain and France's demand for raw materials and manufactured goods helped to develop the Canadian economy. Perhaps more importantly, Canada's contribution to the war effort gave it a massively increased prestige and bargaining position within the Empire. The same could be said for Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It is notable that in 1914, all of the self-governing Dominions were brought into the war the moment Britain declared war, and although it would take until the 1931 Statute of Westminster to formally give the Dominions control of their foreign policy, as early as the Chanak Crisis of 1922 it was clear that the Dominions would never again be brought into a war against their will. One of the reasons Britain backed down during the Chanak Crisis was that the Dominion Prime Ministers made it clear that the motherland could not count on their support.

More broadly, the war arguably helped foster a sense of Canadian national identity. Overall, Canada, much like the United States, came out of the First World War bloodied, but stronger than it had been in 1914.

PS This does not necessarily apply to Newfoundland, which was a separate Dominion at the time, and which suffered greatly during the war.