German Casualty discussion

[bmac]

Having followed this discussion with interest I don't know whether the following figures are in any way useful (from the 1910 and 1924 Whitaker's Almanac):

German population

1910 Census: population 64,925,993, male 32,031,967, female, 32,871,456

1919: population 59,858,284, male 28,498,891, female 31,359,393

Of course, before anyone gets too excited we are not comparing like with like as the 1919 figure presumably excludes certain territories ceded to or occupied by France, Poland, Denmark and Belgium. Alsace-Lorraine for example contained 965,000 males from a population of 1.87 million in 1910. In addition parts of Posen and West Prussia had been ceded to Poland and North Schleswig to Denmark (and the area around Malmedy to Belgium). The total poulations of these areas in 1910 were 5.7 million. It is not possible to extrapolate from the data what proportion of this total moved into the other states. The birth rate in 1920 showed a surplus of 766,000 of births over deaths as the birth rate bounced back from the war years.

I wonder whether anyone has access to any German census data from the between the wars or even post war. I ask as, in a book I own entitled 'The Visual Display of Quantitative Information' by Edward Tufte, there is an interesting chart taken from the French census of 1967. The vertical access is the year of birth from 1866 to 1966. To the left are the numbers of males and to the right the number of females born in each year and still alive in 1967. The chart reveals two fascinating results:

1. The significantly greater number of surviving females aged between 66 and 87 (i.e. born between 1879 and 1899) which reflects the casualties suffered in the war; and

2. The collapse in the birth rate between 1914 and 1918 which was at its worst in 1915/16/17 (it immediately bounced back in 1919 as the armies returned home).

As an example, the relative figures for surviving children born in 1885 are (approximately): 110,000 females to 50,000 males.

If similar figures were available for the various states of Germany still completely occupied after the war they may give some indication of the likely answer to this long running discussion though I suspect something closer, i.e. a 20s or 30s census might be more useful as one can discount an element of women living longer than men which may slightly skew the 1967 French data.

What, if anything, the numbers above contribute I really cannot say but I live in hope.

[phil andrade]

Brilliant contribution, Bill !

You're right about the absolute numbers being distorted by territorial deprivation after 1919, but in terms of displaying gender imbalance, the figures must have a certain valididty irrespective of how the ceded lands impinged on population numbers.

I would take the proportions extant in the 1919 sample, apply them to the 1910 figure, and compare the gender ratio.

I've just tried it....and it doesn't make sense !

Phil (PJA)

[Jack Sheldon]

I hate to bring this up, but the Spanish flu epidemic cut swathes through Germany. The starvation years, turnip winters etc greatly reduced overall resistance, so the population was highly susceptible to the bug. Much care is needed, therefore, if the pre- and post war figures are to be mentioned in the same breath.

Jack

[Ken S.]

In the introduction to the volume, it states that for the HG the number of dead represents 19.7% or so (and compares this to an overall rate of 14% for all of Germany to emphasize the sacrifice that the territory made).

Ken.

That's hard work.

Thanks for the effort.

These fellas were luckier than most, weren't they ?

The sample stands in marked contrast with the Saxon experience, where more than three quarters of all who served became casualties.

Edit : Mind you, am I right here ? From 329 who served, 55 lost their lives ; a mortality rate of 16.7%. Apply that to thirteen and a quarter million, and we get more than 2.2 million deaths for the entire German army. If we combine the figures we have for Saxony, Wurtemberg and Bavaria, and apply an extrapolative calculation, we might have to concede that the two milllion appears too low, although not by a margin sufficient to justify the three to four million school of thought.

Phil (PJA)

[Latze]

Hi all,

from the Prussian statistical year book 1922 edition:

1910 population 40,165,219 of these male 19,847,725

1916 population 38,528,526 of these male 16,853,713

1917 population 38,374,433 of these male 16,594,205

1919: population 37,075,240 of these male 17,734,568

all these are marked as 'Zählungsjahre', being based on a census.

1916 is marked as 'not definite'

1916 and 1917 are marked: not including foreign POW on Prussian soil, not including Prussian military personnel at the front, on foreign soil or in eenemy hands

1919 is marked: without foreign POW or Prussian personnel in enemy hands, including areas now under Polish control but excluding areas under Belgian or Danish control and without those areas of the Saar in which the census was not made

Military deaths in Prussian units:

1914: 143,578

1915: 288,336

1916: 201,952

1917: 178,461

1918: 248,707

1919: 10,445

in sum: 1071,479. This figure is quoted in the SanB but does not include lots of still missing soldiers and is based on the VL as of March 1921 and marked as such in the year book. These figures are broken down by provinces and Regierungsbezirke. The most dead coming from the Rhine, Westphalia and Brandenburg.

The appendix gives the male inhabitants of the area belonging to Prussia in 1920 in 1910 as 17,751,848, comparing that to 17,734,568 as of the 1919 census. The year book from the previous year gives us an age cohort comparison. I will post that later.

regards

Matt

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I am not a math major, never was, never will be so I hope this not only makes sense but also adds up correctly.

Lets take a set of three population numbers that represent a country such as Germany in the war. Then add a random percentage of loss for known dead from each are. Finally, combine the population into one number, average in the percentages of loss and see what we get.

State A: 7,000,000 men, 3.5% fatality percentage = 245,000 men

State B: 10,000,000 men, 4.2% fatality percentage = 420,000 men

State C: 45,000,000 men, 2.9% fatality percentage = 1,305,000 men

1,970,000 total fatalities

62,000,000 total population

3.53% average of percentages of fatal losses (add all three and divide by 3)

3.17% average based on comparison of total loss number to total population number.

The problem as I see it is that the percentages for each of the three states are weighted differently based upon the population number being compared against the number of men lost.

In reversing these numbers we could get the following figures:

2,188,600 fatal losses if 3.53% is used on the larger population number. 1,965,400 fatal losses if 3.17% is used on the larger population number.

The difference between the two results would be: 223,200 men, a sizeable amount. Since the 1,965,400 would be the actual loss based upon my set of figures shown above then the overage you would see, if using the average percentage of loss per population would be 11.35% more fatal losses than actually occurred.

I understand this is a very simple example but it works for me. If there are any flaws in my thinking on this please let me know, I would like to be as accurate as I can.

Ralph

[bmac]

Jack.

Is there anything to indicate whether Spanish flu struck all ages equally or were casualties mainly amongst the very old, very young and the already sick (e.g. wounded) or concentrated in some other way. I see herenumbers given for the fatalities amongst the German Army and civilian populations at 168,000 and 400,000 respectively, mainly in 1918.

[phil andrade]

Hi all,

from the Prussian statistical year book 1922 edition:

1910 population 40,165,219 of these male 19,847,725

1916 population 38,528,526 of these male 16,853,713

1917 population 38,374,433 of these male 16,594,205

1919: population 37,075,240 of these male 17,734,568

all these are marked as 'Zählungsjahre', being based on a census.

1916 is marked as 'not definite'

1916 and 1917 are marked: not including foreign POW on Prussian soil, not including Prussian military personnel at the front, on foreign soil or in eenemy hands

1919 is marked: without foreign POW or Prussian personnel in enemy hands, including areas now under Polish control but excluding areas under Belgian or Danish control and without those areas of the Saar in which the census was not made

Military deaths in Prussian units:

1914: 143,578

1915: 288,336

1916: 201,952

1917: 178,461

1918: 248,707

1919: 10,445

in sum: 1071,479. This figure is quoted in the SanB but does not include lots of still missing soldiers and is based on the VL as of March 1921 and marked as such in the year book. These figures are broken down by provinces and Regierungsbezirke. The most dead coming from the Rhine, Westphalia and Brandenburg.

The appendix gives the male inhabitants of the area belonging to Prussia in 1920 in 1910 as 17,751,848, comparing that to 17,734,568 as of the 1919 census. The year book from the previous year gives us an age cohort comparison. I will post that later.

regards

Matt

What a first rate contribution, Matt ! Thanks.

The rough and ready assessment is that sixty per cent of the German population was Prussian.

Judging by the tabulation in the ZN that we have used in this thread, the total German death toll had been confirmed at about 1.77 million by the spring of 1921, with the emphatic caveat that there were about another 225,000 missing who were going to be confirmed as dead as time passed. That Prussian death total that Matt has provided us conforms neatly with the parameters of its population size. It implies a final figure of about 1.2 million for Prussia. Now I have to confess that I had always assumed that the Prussians would have sustained a disproportionately heavy loss, simply because they were supposed to be the warrior race of the modern world...a kind of latter day Sparta, if you like. How wrong of me. It's the lesser states that took the bigger beating...perhaps they were trying to prove a point.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Ralph,

Your explanation of weighted averages has helped me.

I can see now that some of my extrapolative assertions have been flawed.

All the same, I feel that the German total of two million dead is challenged somewhat by those Saxon figures.

How do you feel this thread is going, Ralph ?

Although the statistics of death and wounds might be considered dreary at best, and downright distasteful at worst, I think that we have struck an invaluable vein of historiographical controversy here, and I for one am very heartened by the input of people who have worked hard to help us examine the touchy subject of statistics and how they are applied to human beings in extremis.

Phil (PJA)

[Terry_Reeves]

bmac

A significant proportion of Spanish flu deaths occurred (roughly) in the 20 to 40 year age range, which is very unusual. You can see this trend in the various local council Medical Officers Annual Reports for 1918 and I believe was the same around the world.

TR

[Jack Sheldon]

Thanks Terry. That was my impression as well. Things I have read about it talk about a 'W' graph, rather than a 'U' one (i.e the very young and the very old). I am hoping that Robert or someone will come along and help us understand this, because it is well outside my comfort zone.

Jack

[Guest]

Some interesting flu statistics HERE

Mike

[bmac]

Interesting graph. I wonder if there is there any research which might explain this unusual pattern. Off to Google....

PS Interesting article, btw, which raises the why of the v high incidence amongst young adults but no particular reason why.

[Guest]

I read or saw somewhere, ( no idea where ) that younger, fitter men/women were more likely to die, as it was the immune system, over reacting that caused the damage?

Mike

[bmac]

The latter part of this article previously mentioned has some interesting stats about the relative sickness and fatality rates amongst the Allied armies and it suggest that, at its peak, the worst sickness/fatality rates were amongst the new arrivals in France and not the ones who had been there for a long time.

Anyway, I am aware that we are hijacking the original thread and, perhaps, we should all withdraw the field and leave it to the various protagonists to see if they can arrive at some acceptable conclusion about German casualty rates.

[phil andrade]

Please do not depart the scene, Bill...your contribution on the gender disparities in the 1910 and 1919 census figures for Germany was very pertinent and illuminating.

And you, too, Mike, please stay with it !

Even if we allow for the influenza, I think I'm right in stating that not more than a quarter of a million of the two million plus German military dead from the Great War were from non battle causes.

Phil (PJA)

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Ralph,

Your explanation of weighted averages has helped me.

I can see now that some of my extrapolative assertions have been flawed.

All the same, I feel that the German total of two million dead is challenged somewhat by those Saxon figures.

How do you feel this thread is going, Ralph ?

Although the statistics of death and wounds might be considered dreary at best, and downright distasteful at worst, I think that we have struck an invaluable vein of historiographical controversy here, and I for one am very heartened by the input of people who have worked hard to help us examine the touchy subject of statistics and how they are applied to human beings in extremis.

Phil (PJA)

Hello Phil, I am glad so many poeple are contributing to the thread and so many others are reading it.

In regard to the Saxon losses they involve only the Saxon units. Each area and each regiment within an area will have different experiences as the loss numbers for the Württemberg units show. Some formed at the same time have much different loss experiences so it is not really possible to assign a general number or percentage to all.

Take each group as they come up and once all are known you can get an idea of the overall loss percentages.

Ralph

[SiegeGunner]

Not being gifted mathematically, I have instead been casting around for factors that may have a bearing on the casualties issue, and have thought of the following: Leaving aside accidents, only those men who served within range of the enemy were at risk of being killed or wounded. Those men also form the class who were eligible to receive the Ehrenkreuz für Frontkämpfer, instituted in 1934. The Cross had to be applied for, so we can assume that uptake was something short of 100%, but nevertheless 6,250,000 eligible men were alive to apply for and receive the Cross 16 years after the end of the war. Is it known how many, or what proportion, of the total number of German men who ever put on a uniform served within the qualifying proximity for the EfF? For the sake of completeness (or perhaps, more likely, incompleteness), 1,200,000 examples of the Ehrenkreuz für Kriegsteilnehmer were issued to qualifying military non-combatants and 720,000 examples of the Ehrenkreuz für Hinterbliebene were claimed by eligible NoK of the fallen.

Secondly, the Navy — where one would expect casualties to be somewhat easier to keep tabs on, not least because the Imperial German Navy was a single entity with no separate contingents from the various kingdoms. How many of the German men who ever put on a uniform served in the Navy, and how do the Navy's casualties compare with those of the armies?

[Jack Sheldon]

Throughout most of this thread and certanly latterly, I have been concentrating on the internal evidence we can derive from study of the German published documentation, not only to provide food for thought for those of an open mind, but to demonstrate how complex the whole matter is and how extraordinarily difficult it would have been to disguise the true extent of the losses from the German people once the war was over. I have pointed out, for example, that Books and Rolls of Honour are the only place where the sacrifice of the missing could be commemorated - no Thiepvals or Menin gates for the losers - and I have mentioned the great lengths to which towns, cities and regiments went to provide posterity with an accurate picture. I have read within such pubications, notes to suggest that the result may not be perfect, that they may be a few gaps, but these are not the words of those who would attempt to put over the gigantic fraud that the death of every second man who was killed never occurred.

There is another aspect to this. There was grim pride in having absorbed such losses for so long and it comes out once more in the documents. As an example, I am now going to translate two pages of the Ehrenbuch der Gefallenen Stuttgarts 1914/1918 to give you an idea of the tone of such documents. Remember everything you read refers to Wuerttemberg only, so do not attempt to extrapolate from it. Other contingents; other experiences. On pp XLIII - XLIV of the introduction we find a section headed:

Wartime Numbers and Losses - The Strengths of the Army of Wuerttemberg during the War

Finally, it may be of interest to provide an overall impression, cast in round figures,of the performance of the Wuerttemberg contingent during the war. According to statistics provided by the Wuerttemberg Ministry of War, which, unfortunately do not provide coverage right up until the end of the war, the field army reached its greatest strength in July 1918:

8,300 officers and 240,000 OR - i.e approaching 250,000 men

Of the Army of Occupation, including 4,900 officers, 100,000 men

If we factor in to these figures the reinforcements which were sent forward into the field throughout the war, as well as those Wuerttembergers who served outside the Wuerttemberg formations an in the navy, we find that Wuerttemberg provided a total of 550,000 men, including 14,600 officers, fit for military service. This amounts to more than 20% of a total population of 2.5 million inhabitants. Truly this was a massive performance, especially if we look back to previous campaigns, in particular to the war of 1870/71, during which Wuerttemberg found only a total of 42,000 men, or only 2% of the population. During the Napoleonic Wars, too, the strength of the Wuerttemberg regiments varied between 12,000 and 33,000 men, that is to say, between 1.8 and 2.4% of the population.

Genuinely, the figures of 1914/18 represent a people in arms and an army strength which exceeds anything which a people has ever previously produced. In its achievement, the dream of Fieldmarshal von der Goltz in his epochal book, written when he was an Oberstleutnant of the General Staff in 1883, with the title 'The People in Arms' has become reality.

Numerically Wuerttemberg outperfomed all other contingents and it is hard to put into words how many of these figures fell to the city of Stuttgart. A total number of inhabitants of Greater Stuttgart of 300,000 in 1914 yielded about 75,000 men who were fit and available for military service and who were called up.

Losses

And now a word about losses. As far as the Army of Wuerttmeberg is concerned, according to the statistics of the Zentral-Nachweis-Amt for War Losses (Now the Reichsarchiv, Stuttgart Branch)the numbers are as follows (dead and missing are now counted together):

Dead 82,000

Wounded 189,000

PW 19,000

Total 290,000 The dead include 2,450 officers

Of the senior Wuerttemberg officers, the following fell before the enemy or died of wounds or illness: 10 generals (including Generalleutnant von Berrer, who was killed at the head of Wuerttemberg mountain troops whilst serving as commander of a Prussian Corps in Italy and Generalleutnant von Dorrer, who was killed whilst commanding a Prussian Reserve Division in the Argonne. 17 regimental commanders also [died].

These figures - 82,000 dead! - two strong corps, speak volumes. They amount to 3.2% of the population and 15% of all Wuerttembergers who served! Of these about 9,600 came from Greater Stuttgart. The losses are high, higher than in any other contingent.

This is getting rather long, so I had better get it posted, rather than risk losing it with my currentlypoor internet connection. More to come.

Jack

[phil andrade]

The German navy reported 34,836 deaths, compared with the army's 2,000,000 ( 1,900, 876 onfirmed dead and 100,000 missing unaccounted for and presumed dead in the 1934 tabulation). An additional 1,185 colonial troops raised the total to about 2,037,000.

According to one of my secondary sources, the number of German soldiers in the Field Army "...averaged about 5 million men; the other 1-2 million soldiers were in rear areas." Whalen Bitter Wounds page 39.

One would have thought that the circumstances of two front war and the intensity of fighting East and West might have reduced the proportion of those rear area wallahs. I think Hitler had something to say about that in his subsequent ravings.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

here are the numbers of graves Phil was asking about.

Belgium 135.274

France 768.000

regards

Matt

Amidst all the to-ing and fro-ing of these figures, I think those supplied by Matt form one of the most convincing repudiations of Edmonds' estimate of German losses.

All will agree that the Western Front was the principal theatre of war as far as German manpower committment and casualties were concerned. Even in 1915, when a huge effort was made against the Russians, more German soldiers were killed in the West than in the East, and, of course, the war on the Western Front lasted a lot longer than it did in the East,

If four million German soldiers died in the war, then perhaps three million of them would have died in France and Belgium. This cannot be reconciled with 903,000 burials there, even allowing for a high proportion of unrecovered dead. A million and a half, perhaps ..... maximum.

A million and a half German dead on the Western Front accords with a total of two million for all fronts.

Phil (PJA)

[Robert Dunlop]

I am hoping that Robert or someone will come along and help us understand this, because it is well outside my comfort zone.

Thanks Jack (I think...). I will give you the considered opinion of my former boss, who was the specialist in infectious diseases:

"I know nothing about this but, in the true tradition of the [Medical] Grand Round, I will say something anyway".

I don't know of any evidence about the reason for the W shape graph. When the genomic profile of the 1918 virus was identified, there was nothing that predicted the middle peak. If it was just a case of people not having been exposed to the virus before then it should still have been a U shape. The bottom of the U would have been higher up but younger and older age groups would still have been more prominent.

Eye-balling the graph, it looks as though hormonal factors may have played a role in mediating the immune response. But that is pure guess.

Robert

[Jack Sheldon]

Thank you for that Robert. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence that soldiers who had survived right up to the final battles succumbed to the disease. I included one such example in my Somme book. Perhaps their immune systems had been worn down by poor diet and prolonged physical privation?

My translation of the Ehrenbuch now follows:

It is, however, a comfort that troops from Wuerttemberg were regarded as especially skilful and in demand for deployment on all fronts where a strong performance was required. One outcome of this is the fact that in offensive operations, Wurttemberg divisions often pushed so far ahead that, when the advances came to a halt, they found themselves occupying salients in close proximity to the enemy and so took increased casualties. Much the same applied to defensive operations where 'Schwabian Guts' was a byword amongst the other contingents. Proportionately, the number of prisoners, deserters and suicides was lowest amongst the Wuerttembergers. The Supreme Army Command finally began to make an honest effort to shield the Wuerttmbergers more, but it was to no avail: they did not want special protection when the fate of Germany itself was at stake.

The greatest relative sacrifices were made by the foot soldiers - infantry and engineers. As far as the majority of the active pre-war Wuerttemberg regiments were concerned, fatal casaulties amounted to between 4,000 and 4,600 officers and OR - in every case far higher than their original total mobilised strengths when they marched away.

The losses were very high in comparison with those of 1870/71. Then, of the 30,000 men who crosed the French frontier, altogether only 38 officers and and 819 men, most of who were members of Stuttgart regiments, remained there.

On the other hand, the losses compared with those of the 1812 campaign in Russia were low. Of 15,800 men involved, only 500 returned to the homeland in 1813! High casualties do not definitively bear witness to great heroism; they can also be the result of deficient leadership or insufficient training.

However in this case, the high casualties are a [physical] expression of courage of the highest order and self-sacrificial devotion to duty!

So there it is. Make of it what you will ... I read into it no attempt to minimise casualties, or to disguise anything. The comments concerning earlier campaigns are also interesting, in that they indicate careful record keeping in the Stuttgart archives and pride in a long local military tradition.

Jack

[Robert Dunlop]

Certainly there is anecdotal evidence that soldiers who had survived right up to the final battles succumbed to the disease. I included one such example in my Somme book. Perhaps their immune systems had been worn down by poor diet and prolonged physical privation?

Jack, from my limited understanding, this was a problem that affected the German army more. The reactions of German soldiers to the ample stocks of captured British (and French) supplies bears out your comment. With respect to the epidemic though, the Allied forces did not have the same problems with poor diet. I have seen it suggested that the German losses to influenza were proportionately higher but have not seen any proof of that. There were huge stresses on German soliders in the final months. The rations were poor and there was little opportunity for any respite. Once in the line, the constant harassing fire, etc was stressful, even when there wasn't an Allied push on in that sector. For all that, the disease had pretty much the same impact wherever it struck. There was definitely something about the virus that was different, in more ways than just the W.

The other problem is that the centre peak in the W (which is age adjusted) suggests an age profile that is different from my sense of the age profile of serving forces. But I am happy to be corrected on that.

Robert

[phil andrade]

8,300 officers and 240,000 OR - i.e approaching 250,000 men

Of the Army of Occupation, including 4,900 officers, 100,000 men

Jack

Thank you for this info. Jack.

Sorry to be thick, but please explain what the "Army of Occupation" means.

Phil (PJA)