[cowboyway]

I think our Lads were busy killing the Germans for you in North Africa and Italy and in the skies over France at the time, winning lots of medals and taking lots of casualties. Saved you the bother. You’re welcome, mate.

At its peak in July 1942, New Zealand had 154,549 men and women under arms (excluding the Home Guard) and by the war's end a total of 194,000 men and 10,000 women had served in the armed forces at home and overseas. 11,625 were killed.

One the other hand 16,354,000 men & women served in the U.S. Armed Forces during WWII. 671,485 U.S. Soldiers were wounded and 450,670 U.S. soldiers died.

[BigCinBigD]

For a nation that small NZ did a good job. It's the haughty attitude that irks me. But that's common from England and it's ilk. They resent our power and help but refuse to admit with out us they would be speaking Japanese or German or Russian. I told him “see you in the history books” because that's where his island will wind up. But it's just my opinion.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> At its peak in July 1942, New Zealand had 154,549 men and women under arms (excluding the Home Guard) and by the war’s end a total of 194,000 men and 10,000 women had served in the armed forces at home and overseas. 11,625 were killed.
>
> One the other hand 16,354,000 men & women served in the U.S. Armed Forces during WWII. 671,485 U.S. Soldiers were wounded and 450,670 U.S. soldiers died.

Right, thanks for that.

Using your numbers, then, and populations for 1943 (1,642,000 for New Zealand, and 136,739,353 for the US), we find that 12.4% of New Zealand’s population served in WW-II (or 11.8% if you just include men), compared with 11.9% from the US.

And of that, 5.7% of New Zealand’s servicemen & women were killed (or 5.9% if you just include men), as opposed to 2.7% from the US.

So, NZ had about the same level of service per populace as the US, with over twice the fatality rate by war’s end.