Casualty Lists

[lucycutler]

Hi Guys,

Having spent a few days at the British Library Newspaper Archive, trawling through provincial newspapers and The Times casualty lists, a few observations / questions occured to me. I would very much appreciate your thoughts on them.

I noticed that when large numbers of wounded were listed for say a particular Regiment, there was not necessarily a corresponding large number of killed or missing as you might expect when a sizeable battle had taken place.

Roughly how long would it take from wounding (or being killed) for a name to appear in the lists? I have two Canadian relatives who were wounded and know the actual dates of wounding. In their cases, it was15 days and 18 days respectively before they were listed. Would this have been general or did it depend on many other factors ? i.e. general level of casualties at that time ? British or Empire troops ?

How serious did a wound have to be in order to become an "official" casualty? I have another relative whose wife reported (to the local paper) that he was in hospital with serious wounds and that he had been previously wounded "but not seriously". In his case there was only a listing of the second, more serious wounding. The delay between her receiving the letter and the listing was 27 days.

Much to my dissapointment, The Times stopped publishing the wounded portion of the lists during 1917. I presume this was done on grounds of public morale, but did the list exist all the same even though it was not for public consumption? If so, is the information still available? Another thought, are the lists available on any easily readable database, or is it that the only way is to read The Times for the whole War ?

Lots of thoughts for discussion. Certainly there appears to have been some manipulation of listings to perhaps lessen the impact on the public. (apologies if some of this has been raised before).

Lucy

[KevinBattle]

I can't answer your questions specifically, but obviously there had to be a balance between providing information of use to the enemy, so Casualty Lists would probably only be published some weeks after the event, to allow for the (by modern standards) slower passage of information back from Battalion to Brigade, Division, High Command, The War Office and ultimately the papers.

On far flung battlefields, it might take many weeks, as dispatches might be sent by a ship that was sunk, or delayed by terrain and circumstances such as storm etc

In the confusion of battle, casualties from attacks, counter attacks, advances or retreats would not be immediately known in full, as lightly wounded reported back from Dressing Stations, more seriously wounded being evacuated via the Field Ambulances, isolated troops reported back as no longer missing or others missing presumed captured or killed. If captured, then they may have to wait for German information to be passed to the Red Cross and thence to the War Office.

If you don't accept those reasons, then obviously a conspiracy theory about massaging the casualty figures might be assumed, but I feel that in general, the figures were reported as and when available.

It may not seem acceptable now that it could take over a month for some form of news to be made public about casualties, but taking the difficulties and means of communication available then, I don't see any deliberate massaging.

Now I'll bow out awaiting the arrival of more erudite Pals to answer more specifically.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Not so much a conspiracy but for good reason full casualty lists and numbers weren't published, although this wasn't consistent through the war.

I would guess though bacause the local press was relatively free from interference German intelligence would know the situation. Anyone scanning local papers from the time recognises that there doesn't seem to be any restrictions reporting local casualties.

There are several statements made in parliament about the subject, I have copied one below which gives the position in May 1916.

BRITISH CASUALTIES.

HC Deb 08 May 1916 vol 82 cc290-1290

§44.Mr. HOGGE

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to issue the list of British casualties to date?

§The PRIME MINISTER

If the hon. Member or any other Member of this House cares to see these figures privately I shall be pleased to arrange for this to 291 be done. But I am advised by the military authorities that the periodical publication of these figures is undesirable for military purposes.

§Mr. HOGGE

My right hon. Friend will see that I was not asking for numbers. I only wanted to know whether we had now abandoned the usual practice of issuing monthly lists?

§The PRIME MINISTER

Yes, Sir, we have, for military reasons.

[auchonvillerssomme]

August 1918

CASUALTIES (TOTALS).

HC Deb 07 August 1918 vol 109 c1363W1363W

§Mr. CLOUGH

asked the Prime Minister if he will state the reason why it is in the public interest that the people should not be given the figures of the total casualties sustained in all the various theatres of war since 4th August, 1914?

§Mr. BONAR LAW

I am sure the hon. Member will realise that the enemy would regard the information which these figures would give as of the greatest value to them.

I think this announcement from 14 November 1918 proves that the official position was that accurate casualty figures were kept back.

BRITISH CASUALTIES.

HC Deb 14 November 1918 vol 110 cc2880-12880

§97.Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Armistice has now been concluded, he will state the complete British casualties since the outbreak of war?

§Mr. MACPHERSON

I have arranged to make a statement before the House rises.

[lucycutler]

Hi Guys,

Thank you both, I wasn't trying to suggest that there was any great conspiricy about the figures as there were obviously sound reasons for witholding or omitting certain details. It just seemed to me that there were quite a lot of inconsistances in the reporting of casualties. Incidentally I note that from April 1916 our (then) local paper said that they were no longer allowed to report Battalion or Theatre details in casualty lists. Indeed as the War progressed, less and less info was published other than obituaries, clearly for good reasons. The casualty numbers were mounting .

With ref to the House of Commons mentions, does that mean that the casualty info would be available still?

[Chris_Baker]

The full published War Office lists are available, but not online. They are on microfilm at the National Newspaper Library. As far as their accuracy goes, I don't think you could reasonably describe them as being manipulated.

For example ... a battalion goes into action ... twelve men are reported killed, thirty wounded and six are unaccounted for at roll-call ... five of the wounded subsequently die of their injuries at four different places over a one month interval ... two of the "killed" reappear, having got lost and made their way back via another unit, one of whom had to go to a CCS to have a wound dressed and subsequently died at a hospital in England ... three of the "missing" are reported at roll call as having been taken prisoner and this eventually is proven correct but only after six months of enquiries, two never turn up and their deaths are later officially accepted, one is found to be a POW after a report is received through official channels ...

I ask, on how many different casualty lists, over what spread of time, could we reasonably expect these men to be reported as casualties? The compilation of the lists must have been one enormous and complex task: not one I would fancy even with a computer available.

[lucycutler]

Thank you Chris,

I take your point. I don't suppose you happen to have the Newspaper Archive references to hand by any chance ?

Lucy

[Chris_Baker]

According to the British Library online catalogue the references are (for the WO weekly casualty lists)

1917

====

System number 013912401

UIN: BLL01013912401

1918

====

System number 013912402

UIN: BLL01013912402

I have a feeling that the "dates" above are a little misleading as it appears that the second item begins in August 1917 and the first in July 1918!

[lucycutler]

Excellent, thank you Chris.

When I was there last week, the only thing they could suggest was that I went through each copy of the Times day by day. After the first couple of hours or so ones eyes tend to get very crossed!!!

Lucy

[auchonvillerssomme]

Lucy

There is a reference I have somewhere relating to the accuracy of the losses published by the Germans which were taken with a pinch of salt.

I'm not sure whether anyone can confirm but I believe the French did not publish casualty numbers.

Hansard is an excellent tool and quite easy to search.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/

[archangel9]

Roughly how long would it take from wounding (or being killed) for a name to appear in the lists? I have two Canadian relatives who were wounded and know the actual dates of wounding. In their cases, it was15 days and 18 days respectively before they were listed.

Hi Lucy,

My experience with casualty lists is limited to 1914 and early 1915, and to those lists published in the Times. For officers the report was normally published within a few days, for OR's at least a month and in some cases a lot more than that. The example Chris gives above is very good in terms of the various circumstances which could prevail over the timing of publication.

John

[lucycutler]

Hi Guys,

John I think that you're right in Chris's explanation, particularly from say 1916 onwards when there was so much going on. In modern times, we perhaps tend to forget the difficulties of communication in those days. I was sort of trying to see how accurately one could tie down specific actions to casualty lists, but clearly it is more complex than that. Auchonvillerssomme, thanks for the Hansard info, you're right, it is quite eay to follow and a useful tool.

Thanks to all,

Lucy

[lucycutler]

Hi Chris,

Re your British library refs, we couldn't find them before as we didn't put in "War Office weekly" as well as "Casualty List" in the search engine, still we got there thanks to your help! I presume that that is a full list, including wounded and not just KIA?

Lucy.

[auchonvillerssomme]

I wonder when those lists were released for view and who would have had access to them at the time?

[kildaremark]

.... these lists must be one of the last great sources that the main genealogy websites havent got to yet. Wish they would get digitising or transcribing.

Mark

[phil andrade]

One of the most striking examples I have seen of the delay in posting casualties can be found in the last chapter of one of those volumes of the History of the War that was being published and distributed at the time. Sorry for my failure to be specific about details, - I'm writing this while away from home - but I'm sure the Pals will know the volumes I mean ; they're still widely available in second hand book shops.....I've even seen them adorning the shelves of pubs in a pretentious display of literary enthusiasm.

The volume in question deals - in its final chapter - with the British casualties of the Somme fighting of 1916, and enumerates the casualties for the month of August as well over 130,000 : that might not be the exact figure, because I write this from memory. The crucial thing is that the same source gives the figure for July as very much lower, which, of course, was utterly wrong......the July casualties being nearly three times those of August..

I attribute this to the delay in the posting of the casualty lists, which inflated the toll of August by the inclusion therein of vast numbers of the troops who were victims of the July fighting.

Phil (PJA)

[carolm]

".... these lists must be one of the last great sources that the main genealogy websites havent got to yet. Wish they would get digitising or transcribing."

The genealogical company "The Genealogist" has digitised some of these lists - August 1917 to April 1918. They are available on-line for a fee (Gold or Diamond subscription). I've found their search facility to be good. See: http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/ Hopefully they'll extend their collection soon.

Carolyn

[ss002d6252]

They are available on-line for a fee (Gold or Diamond subscription). I've found their search facility to be good. See: http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/ Hopefully they'll extend their collection soon.

Any site that doesn't offer a monthly subscription puts me off as it tends to suggest they are worried their content isn't enough to keep you and so they grab as much as they can upfront from you.

[lucycutler]

Hi all,

Thanks for all your input, it's good to stimulate a bit of a discussion on something. I'm back off to the BL again this week to check out the 1917 & 1918 lists, I'll report back if I find anything of general interest!

Lucy

[dyoung]

Lucy

I have used the Casualty Lists from mid 1917 onwards extensively. They are held in 3 bound volumes at all the major libraries across the UK ( I have used both the British Library and National Library of Scotland).

They were published by HMSO which seems to be the key to referencing. The reference you might want to try with the enquiry desk as follows:

HMSO War Office Weekly Casualty List, No 1-48, 7 Aug 1917 - 2 July 1918

then continued as:

Weekly Casualty List, No 49-83 (War Office and Air Ministry), 9 July 1918 - 4 March 1919

I have done an analysis of all KOYLI casualties posted during late 1917 (Sept 17 - end Feb 18) and there is a remarkable consistency in elapse time between date of casualty and date of posting on the lists in the majority of cases where it is possible to cross reference against CWGC for those killed or surviving service records for those wounded Spikes in casualties can fairly easily be attributed to attacks, with men killed usually posted on different days to those wounded in the same action

Men killed were usually posted first with an average delay of around 1 month

Those wounded were usually posted with an average delay of 1 month and 4 days

Those missing, often considerably longer at 1 and a half months plus

(caveat: do consider that there are many exceptions to these general rules of thumb)

Hope this helps

David

[Hywyn]

I have used the Casualty Lists from mid 1917 onwards extensively. They are held in 3 bound volumes at all the major libraries across the UK ( I have used both the British Library and National Library of Scotland).

David

I have done/am doing similar work Royal Welsh Fusiliers ones (categories other than Killed/DoW) and agree with Davids' comments about the elapsed times between event and listing.

Having gone to Colindale quite a few times to view them I'd be interested to know where the other Libraries are that have them. IWM London have them but when I queried if they would send them up to the Manchester Branch whilst the London one was being refurbished for some months to give us Northerners a chance to study them I was told it was not possible.

Hywyn

Hywyn

[Hywyn]

Much to my dissapointment, The Times stopped publishing the wounded portion of the lists during 1917. I presume this was done on grounds of public morale, but did the list exist all the same even though it was not for public consumption? If so, is the information still available? Another thought, are the lists available on any easily readable database, or is it that the only way is to read The Times for the whole War ?

Lucy

Lucy

The Times Archives is available on line and may be accessable via your Library Card depending on where you live. Here in Gods Country we can access via National Library of Wales merely by registering with them.

Frustatingly, as you point out, the Times ones stopped the wounded etc and I find that there is a gap of some weeks between the Times Lists and the WO Weekly lists for the categories other than Killed/DoW/Died

I have seen lists in local papers in late 1917 that can only have been extracted from the WO Weekly Lists. The lists provide a next of kin placename against each casualty (the placename that would show as residence if they died) and these papers I refer to extracted those whose lived within an area of interest to the paper but these dried up in early 1918.

Hywyn

[lucycutler]

Hi all,

Went back to Colindale to check the unpublished (at the time) casualty lists (very many thanks Chris and others for putting me back on the right track). For those of you who don't know, the three lists were published by HMSO just after the end of the War. Presumably that means that anyone could have gone and bought a copy? If these three lists were then available for aug 1917 onwards, that of course begs the question, Could one obtain the lists for all the previous years through HMSO? If that was the case, are they still available? That would indeed create a very valuable archive!

For info, the lists are published as collections of War Office weekly casualty lists, which are themselves made up of daily lists. The daily lists are then made up of various smaller lists starting with Officer casualties, then comes the NCO's and men. carrying on down to lists of prisoners and ending with Dominion Officers & men. After the main list of killed, wounded etc there is often a smaller list of the same categories, but I couldn't work out why they were not incorporated in the "main" list. Any ideas anybody? Shell shock and even concussion, which was previously listed in Times lists seems to have now been omitted, unless that is the answer to my previous question!

Finally, as David & Hywyn notice, there does seem to be a difference in the delay in listing of wounded and killed. You would think that when there is a large number of killed from a particular regiment, there would be a corresponding amount of wounded or missing, but that does not seem to follow.

Lucy

P.S. Hywyn, I always thought that God came from the Forest of Dean?