The Guardian’s chart (First world war deaths as a percentage of population, 10 November) effaces the Caribbean from the tally of losses, an all too frequent oversight. Presumably, the figures supplied by your named source cut off at 0.02% of the population, whereas for the British Caribbean the corresponding figure was about 0.01%. But this is not a negligible figure.
Over 1,200 young men from the British Caribbean (about a tenth of the volunteers), who were allowed only in 1915 to join the British West India Regiment to fight for king and empire, died of wounds, frostbite and sickness in Flanders and Africa. That number doesn’t include West Indians who enlisted directly in English regiments, like my uncle who joined the Artists’ Rifles from St Kitts and died of pneumonia without seeing active service.
In the Jamaican market town where I grew up there are about a dozen names on the local memorial roll of honour in the Anglican church. And that is just one small place. Nor does the figure include the many deaths among the 13,000 volunteers from the French Caribbean. For more information, one might begin with sources such as the West India Committee’s website and with Lisa Peatfield’s article on the Imperial War Museum website
Nora Crook
Cambridge
• I see from the data you published that the UK as a whole suffered a death rate of 2.2% of the population. Last week, after years of further detailed analysis, Scotland’s total has been somewhat reduced to around 135,000 within a UK total of around 700,000.
Given the relative sizes of the populations at that time, if the figure of 2.2% is correct, the Scots percentage would be 4.5% and the rest of the UK 1.9%. This would give Scotland the highest figures outwith Serbia and the Ottoman empire and must surely be worthy of reporting given the previous attempts since 1914 to discredit the figures calculated by Professors Devine and Ferguson since some of the Scots may have been double-counted. The latest research has removed the counting errors and still leaves percentages worthy of reporting.
Brian McGuckin
Falkirk
• I was disappointed, though not really surprised, to see in your map no mention of the war dead of China (nor of the south-east Asian troops who, like many Africans, fought for France, though that is another story). Although China was not a combatant nation, it joined the allies and sent 135,000 men to Europe as members of the Chinese Labour Corps; these men undertook physical labour, digging trenches, transporting munitions and so on, thus freeing up large numbers of allied soldiers to fight.
Although the Chinese labourers had been assured that they would not be working near the front, that front could move unexpectedly, and many were killed by shell fire and explosions; around 3,000 died from various causes in Europe, while just under 1,000 died at sea from submarine attacks on their transport ships. Although these numbers are of course a vanishingly small proportion of China’s population, even then, their lives matter too.
China’s participation, however limited, in the first world war had profound effects on its history throughout the 20th century and even today, especially as a result of the betrayal by the allies in the Versailles treaty, when German territories in China were handed over to Japan despite promises of their return to Chinese sovereignty. We would do well to remember the contribution of the Chinese Labour Corps.
Alison Hardie
(Retired lecturer in Chinese studies), Edinburgh
• My father fought with the 2nd Battalion Seaforth Highlanders for the duration of the war, being twice wounded, in June 1915 at Festubert and in March 1918 at Cambrai, during the last German offensive. He survived, to die in 1985, but continued to suffer physically and psychologically for all of his life.
The other casualties rarely mentioned are those left behind; the families of those killed and wounded and the generation of women who lost actual and potential husbands. My mother was the only one of six sisters to marry; my husband’s grandmother the only one of seven sisters to do so. The “maiden aunts” of this generation often went on to be strong women who supported their families and were the teachers, nurses and others who become role models for second wave feminists – but they are largely omitted from the record when we remember the casualties.
Kate Purcell
Coventry
• I see no recognition by anyone of the war in Africa, where it began. No, the Germans were not attacking our colonies; we wanted to take over theirs. So “we” – mainly the Gold Coast Regiment and some French troops – took over Togoland in a couple of weeks, as it was only defended by policemen. Then Kamerun was taken, by about 13,000 African troops from French and British colonies. Their rifles, ammunition, food, tents and so on were carried by the “Pioneer Corps”, usually referred to as “carriers” – at least one “carrier” for each soldier, three or four for each of the white officers. Then “German East Africa”, where the fighting was only stopped after armistice was declared in Europe. This was fought by the 25th Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers, about 130,000 African troops mainly from British colonies, about 700 West Indian troops, some Indian troops and the Chinese “Labour Corps”. Now there were about two “carriers” for every soldier and again three or four for each white officer.
Historians have found the numbers of soldiers and carriers conflicting in the records. So how were they recruited? Or should it be “recruited”, certainly for the “carrier corps”? We don’t know how many were paid, how many disabled people received some sort of payment, whether widows received pensions. The numbers of recorded deaths also vary hugely. As the Germans were prevented from importing food and the allies had little to spare for African troops, local crops were seized. How many local people died of hunger?
So we don’t know how many fought, either for Germany or the allies, or how many died. But certainly Germany lost its colonies and we acquired them. But we choose to ignore these wars in our much promulgated histories of the first world war.
Marika Sherwood
Senior research fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London
• The correspondent (Letters, 10 November) who wrote in criticising Natalie Nougayrède’s article (For millions of Europeans, the war did not end in 1918, 7 November) is quite mistaken in comparing Hungary’s nationalistic response to the losses after the Paris peace treaties with Austria’s. Hungary lost much of its own territory and millions of its people. Austria only lost its overseas territories. Completely different.
Barry Winkleman
London
• Natalie Nougayrède’s article was a timely reminder that a large part of the east of Europe had battles of a different kind. Finland is one of the countries where a short, bitter civil war was fought in the aftermath of the Russian revolution.
As a result and after hundreds of years of the rule of both Sweden and Russia, last year, on 6 December, Finland celebrated a hundred years of independence.
Sirkka Betts
Honingham Norfolk
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
