British rifle-fire mistaken for machine-guns

[Latze]

Tom,

Patients were counted. There can be no dubiety as to whether we had 12 or 11 patients in a ward. If there is more than one figure given then different criteria are being applied as to what should be counted. That is exactly the point at issue here. When Churchill quotes a figure for casualties, is he counting the same thing as the Official History? Without a complete description of exactly what was counted, we are wasting our time. We only need to look at DLG's mis-use of figures in his statements to the House in 1918 to see what a politician can do with statistics. I am not being chauvinistic when I insist that as far as I am aware, the best figures available are in the OH. They are listed there for all to see. What was counted, who counted etc. The editors detail their sources and the means employed for acquiring, verifying and correcting information made available to them. Lay me out an equally detailed and comparably referenced set of figures from any other source then I would be more than happy to go over them, contrast and compare and hopefully arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

If you speak here about the British casualties given in the British OH I totally agree with you. As to the figures for German casualties given in the British OH I think you can refer to Jack's post or Robin Prior's book. If you want to have nice and detailed German figures 'equally detailed and comparably referenced' I really invite you to have a look at the Sanitätsbericht. And then draw your own conclusions.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

Hello salesie,

Matt, my patience with you is beginning to wear very thin indeed - either you are deliberately avoiding addressing my main points, or there is a problem with translation, or I have lost the ability to communicate effectively when using the English language. Whichever option is true, your last post is decidedly non sequitur, and, thus, your desperation to defend your "faith" is beginning to show through once more.

1) The MIA figure given in the Sanitats is at odds with McRandle and Quirk's assertion in the paper that: "The source of the Sanitats data is not known with certainty, but strong circumstantial evidence indicates that these data come from the records of the medical units in the field and hospitals, because included in the data is a breakdown between those patients (WIA and sick combined) who were returned to action after treatment, either at the front or at base hospitals, and those who required longer treatment periods at hospitals. These data would not be known at the time by those preparing the Verlustliste reports that provide the basis for Churchill's tables, but would be an essential part of bookkeeping at treatment centres. Thus, it certainly appears that Sanitats provides a separate source of casualty data relative to that underlying Churchill's analysis. In effect, in the jargon of economists, Churchill's data report numbers of casualties from the point of view of the "demanders" for health treatment, and Sanitats is reporting data on casualties from the point of view of the "suppliers" of health treatment. Moreover, the fact that the Sanitats data explicitly include the lightly wounded (unfortunately explicitly identified as such only in data where they are combined with sick patients with similar short-term treatment characteristics) means that there is concrete evidence to support Edmonds's contention of the existence of a second set of statistics of German casualties that include the lightly wounded, a refutation of Williams's claim noted earlier."

In other words, the authors claim that the Sanitats is accurate, and therefore a good basis to validate other lists, because it comes directly from the "suppliers of health treatment", that it is based on counts of medical units in the field and hospitals. So how on earth can "suppliers of health treatment" count the MIA, how can they possibly count those who were never "demanders for health treatment"?

This is the question I posed, not least because, when tied in with other lists, it is evidence of at least two other German lists "feeding" the Sanitats and Nachweiseamt. Now, you can either answer this question or not, Matt, but please stop faffing around with nonsensical, non sequitur replies.

2) In my review of Blood Test Revisited, I deliberately avoided any mention of potential Nazi involvement in the Sanitats publication in 1934. I did this in order to see how quickly others would bring up the issue. As I said earlier in the thread, those with nothing constructive to offer the debate return to the Nazi issue in order to cover-up their own shallowness - you didn't let me down, Matt. An old photograph, accompanied with a few words from you mentioning a nazi, adds nothing to the debate except nonsense.

3) You've already confirmed that the British OH is accompanied by a detailed reference work of its statistical basis and that the German OH is not (due-diligence for the British figures, no-diligence for the German?).

And you ask: "if Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War gives us 908,371 dead and Official Medical History of the War (British) gives just 876,084 is it then valid to ask where the difference comes from and possibly advance arguments why these differences exist or do we have to assume that it is a clear case of false accounting also?"

This is a discrepancy of some 32,287 British dead. I've already covered this in my review when saying, "I would also guess that not every dead German soldier was sent to aid-posts and hospitals to be confirmed as dead (which may account for the much higher number of KIA in the Nachweiseamt when compared with Sanitats), but that is speculation on my part, so I'll stick with the MIA figures which could not possibly be derived from the Sanitats own resources."

I repeat, not every dead soldier would be presented at aid-stations and hospitals to be "counted" by medical staff, and the British figures you quote simply reinforce this view. But, by definition, they also undermine the notion that the Sanitats' dead count is highly accurate.

I've said before, Matt, that I really don't have much time for this, and if you continue to go around in circles, missing key points (deliberately or otherwise) then I will stop contributing, and leave the readers of these posts (if there are any left) to decide for themselves the merits of both arguments.

Cheers-salesie.

I really would like to keep this civil in tone and spirit - we managed so far so let us keep that up.

1)

As to your question about MIA figures in the Sanitätsbericht: we have a statement in McRandle and Quirk about the possible source of the data and the fact that we have a breakdown between sick and wounded. I offered to look up the book itself to see if anything more is mentioned - these might as well come from the records of combat units as far as we know. I also said that this will take time because it is interlibrary loan (and yes, I have seen the book before while I was studying in another town). So I can just ask your patience right now. And just to round that off: there is a Sanitätsbericht for the Franco-German war of 1870/71. If this does include MIA figures could we then conclude that somehow this was a standard format in the German army and not evidence of something else? So what I really do not get what other 'lists' you have in mind feeding SanB and Nachweisamt. I do not see any evidence of secret lists but I think these two drew on the original records.

Furthermore: the British medical history includes missing persons presumed death and prisoners died - these were never in contact with the British medical service either (please see your post #112).

2)

As to the picture: You asked the leading question: "Convenient for whom?" I was at loss what else than the Nazi-angle (that you brought up in the first place) you could mean. It was in no way mean-spirited, but not altogether serious as you could see by the sign. So, sorry if that offended you; and the sincere question who or what you had in mind when asking?

3)

I think that you misunderstood me here. The German OH includes as much statistical basis as the British. It is just arranged differently. 'statistical effort' has all data. In the German OH it is split into SanB and the armaments volumes.

regards

Matt

[salesie]

Hello salesie,

...I offered to look up the book itself to see if anything more is mentioned - these might as well come from the records of combat units as far as we know. I also said that this will take time because it is interlibrary loan (and yes, I have seen the book before while I was studying in another town). So I can just ask your patience right now... regards

Matt

Over to you then, Matt - let's see what you eventually come up with.

Cheers-salesie.

[Pete1052]

As to the differences in German casualty returns. I think that these should be adressed as this topic crops up again and again. Because of that I made the proposal to open another thread on this.

That would probably make an interesting thread but I fear it would take a level of scholarship much higher than that which we usually see on the forum. There would need to be a high level of archival research to resolve these issues of methodologies and procedures used in compiling these records to resolve what 99.9 percent of the world regards as being a very boring subject indeed. This is the sort of subject one might see in dueling articles in quarterly military journals, complete with detailed endnotes and citations. Any discussion of German casualty figures -- or any other nation's, for that matter -- would have to be without reference to any particular engagements or battles in the war, like Mons or Le Cateau. We've seen in this thread how casualty statistics and historical accounts of events become inextricably intertwined and hard to separate from each other.

[salesie]

Whilst we await Matt's further insights, thought I'd bring this thread back to the top by posting a few words to keep it on the boil:

In my opinion, casualty figures per se, whether accurate or not, are an extremely poor guide in giving us a greater understanding of the war as a whole, and individual battles in particular. It is the consequences of battle casualties, the effect they had on the bigger picture (because individual battles were not conducted in a vacuum), that are far more important than raw casualty stats (especially when laid out as "football scores").

There are many who play around almost ad-infinitum with casualty stats (some would say ad-nauseum), especially German ones. They seem to think that the more complex their assessment the more reasoned their argument, the more detailed the minutia the better their understanding. They often quote several "reliable" German sources in great detail but whose total-counts only almost balance (but not too closely) even after decidedly iffy adjustments, and whose individual components vary wildly (never ever to balance) - and then claim their decidedly iffy balancing act is proof of probity.

In the Blood Test Revisited paper, the authors go to great lengths to "prove" Churchill's apparent conclusion that the "best team" lost in the field, but fail to mention at all that even he seemed to recognise the shallowness of his own "football-score" figures. I quote from part of Churchill’s analysis of the Somme:

"Although the Germans used and risked at almost every stage much smaller numbers of men than the British, the experiences of defence for these smaller numbers were probably even more terrible than for the attack, and the moral effect upon the German Army of seeing position after position, trench after trench captured and its defenders slaughtered or made prisoners was undoubtedly deeply depressing. While the British, in spite of their far greater losses, felt themselves to be constantly advancing, and were cheered by captures of trophies and prisoners, the steadfast German soldiery could not escape the impression that they were being devoured piecemeal by the stronger foe. The effect was lasting."

Methinks a slightly different perspective to casualty-scores alone?

Cheers-salesie.

[Latze]

Hi all,

I managed today to go the library to pick up the books. Unfortunately what I found was not the all important volume III but only volume II (see attached photo of cover page). There are three possibilities:

1) I ordered the wrong volume

2) the catalogue entry is wrong because the book has no ISBN and all

3) the good women and men in the sending library sent the wrong book

Everybody can pick the explanation they like. Anyway, I just ordered vol III again. But of course patience is required again. Sigh.

What is cause for hope: contained in vol II (out of convenience) is the index for all three volumes. Vermisste (= missing) has three entries in vol III. The pesky Verlustlisten also has one (in vol III that is).

Further: there are tables with casualty numbers in this volume. Those that are titled to be compiled from Lazarett-Monatsrapporten (monthly reports from military hospitals) do NOT contain the category missing. Other are complied from Truppenrapporten (reports of troops) do...

Happy new Year everybody!

Matt

[Latze]

Ah well, I forgot:

Sanitätsbericht for 1870/71 will be available next week. Can only be looked at in the special library of the university hospital and must be hauled from their basement. I have made corresponding arrangements....

so long

Matt

[Latze]

Friends, romans and countrymen,

so yesterday I was able to have a look at the Sanitätsbericht from the Franco-German of 1870/71. Fascinating reading in 7 volumes. Includes for example a lengthy table detailing all amputations performed by military hospitals or case histories for everybody who went legally insane after suffering wounds or illness. Also has color graphics where in the siege troops before Paris dysentery and such illnesses broke out (Edward Tufte would love these). More to the point of our discussion:

The SanB includes figures for missing personnel. See attached sample page and please excuse the quality. I think that this is strong circumstantial evidence that the inclusion of figures for missing in the SanB for 14/18 is nothing suspicious.

Also now here: vol III of Sanitätsbericht. It states quite clearly on p.13 that the basis for all casualty figures are the ten-day unit strength returns which include the missing. It also states that the Zentralnachweisamt figures were never intended for statistical purpose, give only a running total and thus do not reflect actual conditions on the front line. There is a lengthy discussion of this that I will give later 'cause I have to go to the office now.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

Hi all,

so, here is my overview and translation the discussion of how the numbers were compiled and the relation between SanB and ZN figures as given in vol. III of SanB, page numbers are given:

1. Units of army reported if a casualty was suffered to the Zentralnachweisamt. This was a report concerning the individual and included the name. These are the Verlustlisten. These lists included for example soldiers brought to civilian hospitals in enemy territory, etc. So these were intended to allow the next of kin to know the fate of military personnel. (p. 1 and p. 11)

2. Within the Sanitätsdienst (the army's medical service) on the 1st, 11th and 21st of each month a comprehensive Truppenkrankenrapport was made. This did include missing soldiers and reflected the difference between nominal and actual strength of the unit. This reports ultimatly went to the Prussian War Ministry. To be precise to the Sanitätsstatistische Abteilung bei der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Akademie für das militärärztliche Bildungswesen. (p. 1). This procedure was regulated by the Kriegs-Sanitätsordnung (regulation for the medical service in war-time) from 1907.

3. SanB was compiled from the reports mentioned in #2. Additionally the reports of the hospitals in Germany were used who reported soldiers died or discharged. (p. 6)

4. It was planned before the war (in the Kriegs-Sanitätsordnung) that all troops should publish final reports based on “corrected' Verlustlisten and other reports of the Sanitätsdienst. Based on these the SanB for this war was to be published. This was impossible due to revolution, lack of funds, dissolution of the army and the splitting of the Versorgungswesen (the body paying pensions etc) from the armed forces. After 1871 the various bodies had needed one year to do this, while major combat operations had been six months only. So this whole time-table was unrealistic anyway. (p. 6) Funds were only available in 1927 to start writing SanB, which puts the publication date in perspective.

5. In 1922 in the western press numbers of veneral diseases in the German army were published. The Heeres-Sanitätsinspektion (successor to the Sanitätsstatistische Abteilung) in their attempt to refute these numbers checked their own special reports of veneral dieseas cases against the Truppenkrankenrapporte. These numbers matched, this is given as proof that these reports are accurate. (p. 7)

6. Because the reports are missing or incomplete the SanB does only consider the timeframe from 2nd August 1914 to 31st of July 1918. (p. 7)

7. Compiling the report showed that in the first two month of the war people (especially reserve personnel) struggled with the correct forms of reporting and/or units had no access to their archives during rapid movements. All due care was used to find errors and correct them. (p. 10) Notably missing are the reports of II. AK. (which was not engaged at Mons btw). The nominal strength of the troops whose reports are missing amount to 10%. Because their combat activity is not out of the line an error of 10% could be assumed for the first to month, of 7% for the rest of the year. After that the reports are complete. (p. 10)

8. A comparison and check between Zentralnachweisamt figures and figures compiled from Truppenkrankenrapporte is possible and even necessary to verify them. (p. 11)

9. Zentralnachweisamt gives 1.939.897 war dead. Included here are navy personnel, colonial forces and Freikorps troops killed in the frontier battles post armistice. This should be increased by 100.000 for the still missing. (p. 12). To me this 100.000 looks like a fudge number... It is said that it for example includes 97.385 prisoners about whom the allies could not give data. (p 13)

10. Zentralnachweisamt only gives a running total, if we want to know the casualties suffered on a monthly basis or per unit we need to take the Truppenkrankenrapporte. Still one has to consider that all numbers are due to corrections (missing turning up later, suppoesdly dead alive and kicking in enemy hands). p. 12

11. Truppenkrankenrapporte give us

Killed in the field: 857.137 (that is without coming in touch with the Sanitätsdienst per se)

Died in hospital: 344.905

Missing: 771.659

The difference of 508.723 between Zentralnachweisamt and Truppenkrankenrapporte is explained by looses suffered in the last four months of the war, counting in deaths in captivity etc. Stuff that is by definition not contained in the Truppenkrankenrapporte. (p.13)

regards

Matt

[salesie]

I assume, Matt, that this is an interim post, to be followed up by conclusions/answers from you that address key points made earlier in the thread?

I ask this because, although I can see in your long-awaited latest post the usual ambiguity, contradictions and red-herrings that marked your earlier posts, I cannot see anything that will further this discussion; I see no due-diligence only smoke and mirrors. Indeed, if your last post is an accurate reflection given by the Sanitats' for its statistical basis then I have to conclude that it simply "proves" the points I made earlier i.e. not least, it undermines further the assertion made by McRandle and Quirk in Blood Test Revisited that the Sanitats' figures are a true and accurate account of German casualties because Sanitats is based on actual counts carried out by medical units, and therefore the perfect yardstick with which to measure the veracity of other lists against.

I look forward to seeing your conclusions, and thus your answers, to the points made earlier in this thread.

Cheers-salesie.

[Pete1052]

Latze, thanks for taking the time to obtain those books through inter-library loan and sharing the information on us.

[Latze]

In other words, the authors claim that the Sanitats is accurate, and therefore a good basis to validate other lists, because it comes directly from the "suppliers of health treatment", that it is based on counts of medical units in the field and hospitals. So how on earth can "suppliers of health treatment" count the MIA, how can they possibly count those who were never "demanders for health treatment"?

This is the question I posed, not least because, when tied in with other lists, it is evidence of at least two other German lists "feeding" the Sanitats and Nachweiseamt. Now, you can either answer this question or not, Matt, but please stop faffing around with nonsensical, non sequitur replies.

...

I repeat, not every dead soldier would be presented at aid-stations and hospitals to be "counted" by medical staff, and the British figures you quote simply reinforce this view. But, by definition, they also undermine the notion that the Sanitats' dead count is highly accurate.

I've said before, Matt, that I really don't have much time for this, and if you continue to go around in circles, missing key points (deliberately or otherwise) then I will stop contributing, and leave the readers of these posts (if there are any left) to decide for themselves the merits of both arguments.

Cheers-salesie.

Good morning salesie,

I think that the questions you asked - or at least some of them are indeed answered:

1) How and why did suppliers of health care count missing soldiers? They did by counting them and putting that count into a report. They were required by their service regulation (Kriegs-Sanitätsordung).

2) How and why were they aware of soldiers killed outside hospitals? Same as first question. Please note that accordingly SanB contains data differentiating between those two categories.

3) Are there 'at least two other list feeding this'? No. Why should there. The Truppenkrankenrapporte are the basis of the figures. I have already said that I cannot see why there should be 'two other lists', and what evidence is there that they are the 'real' source and not the original reports.

regards

Matt

[salesie]

Good morning salesie,

I think that the questions you asked - or at least some of them are indeed answered:

1) How and why did suppliers of health care count missing soldiers? They did by counting them and putting that count into a report. They were required by their service regulation (Kriegs-Sanitätsordung).

2) How and why were they aware of soldiers killed outside hospitals? Same as first question. Please note that accordingly SanB contains data differentiating between those two categories.

3) Are there 'at least two other list feeding this'? No. Why should there. The Truppenkrankenrapporte are the basis of the figures. I have already said that I cannot see why there should be 'two other lists', and what evidence is there that they are the 'real' source and not the original reports.

regards

Matt

Matt, are you seriously suggesting, because regulations ordered them to do so, that personnel serving within German medical units were able to physically count men, missing and/or dead, that they never saw and were never going to see?

Cheers-salesie.

[Latze]

Matt, are you seriously suggesting, because regulations ordered them to do so, that personnel serving within German medical units were able to physically count men, missing and/or dead, that they never saw and were never going to see?

Cheers-salesie.

salesie,

is it unresonable to suppose that a military body given a function by its own service regulation is organized and has funding to fulfill it? As they obviously did already in 1870? In the German army medical doctors were officiers and had functions in the unit staffs, they were not 'somewhere else'. What indication do we have that the Kriegs-Sanitätsordnung was just a scrap of paper and that reports were filled with numbers from thin air? Of course we could look up the regulation and see what it does say about the 'how' - would that statisfy you?

regards

Matt

[salesie]

salesie,

is it unresonable to suppose that a military body given a function by its own service regulation is organized and has funding to fulfill it? As they obviously did already in 1870? In the German army medical doctors were officiers and had functions in the unit staffs, they were not 'somewhere else'. What indication do we have that the Kriegs-Sanitätsordnung was just a scrap of paper and that reports were filled with numbers from thin air? Of course we could look up the regulation and see what it does say about the 'how' - would that statisfy you?

regards

Matt

I would love to see the exact wording of said regulation, Matt. Because, if those medical officers did physically count the missing then they must have been "somewhere else" - they must have been enabled by said regulation to transcend dimensions in time and space in order to carry out a "put your hands up if you're not here" count. It would be interesting to see how said regulation enabled men to perform feats of magic.

Now, seriously, even you must realise that such feats of witch-doctery are impossible (whatever the regulations say) and, therefore, the "count" of missing in the Sanitats came from other sources, and was not a count conducted by medical staff per se.

This, of course, seriously undermines the whole basis of McRandle and Quirk's paper - and should show those who champion the Sanitats as being the definitive answer to any criticism of the veracity of German lists that it is no such thing. And, that's without mentioning the fact that not every dead German soldier would have presented himself to the medical services for counting, a fact which surely sheds light on the gross underreporting of dead in the Sanitats when compared to other lists, a discrepancy much greater than the 10% allowance given by McRandle and Quirk for those who died after being discharged from army medical treatment.

Edmonds' arithmetic may still be open to question, but his deep suspicions about the veracity of German casualty lists have certainly not been satisfied by the Sanitats in general, and Blood Test Revisited in particular.

Cheers-salesie.

[Pete1052]

How does any army account for those who are Missing in Action?

[truthergw]

That will depend on when the figures are presented. In the immediate aftermath of a battle, it is simply the difference between those who went into battle and those whose whereabouts is known. Present at roll call, wounded, and dead. As time passes, certain uncertainties disappear. Wounded die, prisoners are reported, more bodies are found, missing turn up in hospitals. There may even be a deserter discovered, charged and dealt with. By the end of the war, most uncertainty should have been resolved but never all of them. Humans did the counting. Humans made notes in ledgers with pen and ink. Humans did the collating and final tallying. Where figures were at variance, someone decided which set to use.

[Pete1052]

That's my point -- MIAs are those involved in an engagement who are not accounted for in another category of those who not present for duty. In the U.S. we have "MIA, Presumed Dead," but the main reason for having it is so survivors' benefits can be awarded to the next of kin after a specified period of time has elapsed. Germans are assiduous record-keepers, probably even more so than the British, Americans, French or Russians; for that reason German casualty statistics should not be dismissed out of hand.

[salesie]

That's my point -- MIAs are those involved in an engagement who are not accounted for in another category of those who not present for duty. In the U.S. we have "MIA, Presumed Dead," but the main reason for having it is so survivors' benefits can be awarded to the next of kin after a specified period of time has elapsed. Germans are assiduous record-keepers, probably even more so than the British, Americans, French or Russians; for that reason German casualty statistics should not be dismissed out of hand.

Dismissed out of hand, Pete? Hardly!

And, surely, the more assiduous the record-keepers' reputation the greater the suspicion when those records don't tally?

Cheers-salesie.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I have recently been made aware of this thread by a friend and I have looked over the recent activity. It all appears to be Déjà vu or in some cases something similar to a Merry Go Round. It would also seem that part of the overall issue at hand is the methods used to count men who were missing and the reliability of these sources.

This subject has been covered in some detail earlier in this thread or a similar one about a year ago if I recall. Simply speaking there are a number of sources for figures on the war, each one was created in a different manner than the other, it is just the methods used at the time to collect data from the war. There are a few points that I am confused by, primarily the source of reports and their acuracy.

Counting missing men seems to be a major issue. If a man was missing it is quite simple to explain how they were accounted for; they were reported as such on the 1st, 11th and 21st of each month by the individual units in their 10 day reporting requirement. Physical roll calls were made and recorded by each unit and kept throughout the war. If a man was not present and there were no records of him being at another location, other duties, then he was shown as missing. This was especially true after a period of heavy fighting where men simply disappeared and could not be accounted for. These reports were sent up the chain of command and correlated by division and army, etc.

If a man was killed and this was known he was shown as being killed, if wounded (seriously or slightly) it was also indicated or in cases where the man was missing, no one knew of his fate, location etc. he was shown as missing. The individual reports from the units were quite detailed and in some cases have very specific details on the injuries, the time of day, etc. These can clearly be seen in the surviving Stammrolle books from the Bavarian Army that can be accessed digitally over the Internet these days. These books were kept by every German state and recorded every man who served in a particular unit and had all details on his life including parents names, if they were dead or alive, addresses, married or single, children, a full record of service including leave dates, hospital stays anbd diagnosis of illness and injuries, medals, transfers, etc. In fact each manhas a small capsule record of his life and in some cases death while in the army. These reports were created from the 5 day, 10 day and 30 day reports among other things and as a man went through service his record was updated accordingly.

I have one example of such a record that was mailed to the widow after her husband had been killed in action. It even described the service at his funeral, the wreath and the minister attending among other items.

In the case of missing men as additional information came to light; reports from the field indicating a body was discovered and if a name could be attached to it, reports from the enemy through the Red Cross, hospital reports, private letters sent from POW camps etc. all provided new information on missing men. As such their status would change over time.

The 10 day reports simply provided the raw data sent in from company commanders and clerks throughout the army. By looking at the data eventually published in the public Verlustlisten it is clear to see that on one entry a man was MIA, on another, perhaps months later he was mentioned again and given a new designation (KIA, POW, etc.). These corrections could be made within a short time period of a few weeks or possibly months or years later as new details were found. When a man’s status was corrected they were separated from the current portion of the particular Verlustlisten in a category indicating they had previously been reported.

It should also be noted that while the army sent in the 10 day reports on losses these only formed the basis for the publicly published Verlustlisten. These lists were for the public and provided some details about their relatives who were serving. In some periods the lists that were printed showed losses that had occurred a few weeks earlier, in some cases 4-6 weeks and in a few several months. It all depended upon the number of names being sent in, how the lists were correlated, etc.

Some Verlustlisten show a single company and then the remainder of the regiment, others have one battalion listed in three separate lists while a few were not published until the entire casualty list was compiled and placed down on paper.

The methods used and the manner in which the lists were published relied upon how they were being forwarded to the publisher. The publicly printed Verlustlisten is a representation of the 10 day casualty reports, not a similar method of statistical collection.

The discussion of each source of numbers must be looked at and the methods used to create the lists and numbers needs to be compared as these were all different in their set up. In regard to the Sanitäts Bericht volume on losses keep inmind that the men who created it took years of review over the existing reports and loss details. The report itself needs careful reading by anyone not familiar with the German language. Each chart is not the same as the last, they are explained in detail in the text and in many cases they used a representative portion of information to show a specific result, sickness, wounds, etc. Without knowing what the list contains, how it was prepared and not comparing how each source used the details then it is impossible to make every source fit a neat set of rules.

In my recent research I came across a note regarding the Stammrolle (Roster) of the 2nd Coy IR 23. The regimental account mentioned that it was destroyed on 30 August 1918 by a direct hit on the company transport wagon. A partial reconstruction was possible using information from the Stammrolle des Zentralnachweiseamtes für Kriegsverluste in Spandau. Just how much is partial I do not know but apparently the informationpassed through channels was still in existence and could be used to re-create the original.

I also noted the question of hidden sources, or mystery lists that no one has seen. Considering the time that has passed since the war, the detailed review of German records in the inter war period by the U.S. at least and possibly others and the detailed information supplied by the field units if such lists existed then they could be considered the greatest conspiracy ever devised as no one has ever seen or heard of them.

Ralph

P.S. Much of this was covered previously on this thread:

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=129974&st=75

[salesie]

Ralph, your contribution is welcome but I have to point out that it does miss the point somewhat i.e. the methods used to collate said lists make interesting reading but so far the many over-lengthy and complex posts about method (in this and other threads) have palpably failed to explain why the various German casualty lists don't tally.

McRandle & Quirk's Blood Test Revisited, put forward in this thread as the definitive answer to critics of the veracity of German casualty lists, uses the Sanitats as the control model to verify other German lists on the grounds that the Sanitats comes from actual counts made by medical staff. I say, that McRandle & Quirk's whole premise is seriously flawed for the reasons I gave earlier (mostly in my post #165) - and I cannot see how descriptions of compilation methods, or wholly self-evident definitions of what "missing" means, serves any purpose but to muddy the waters.

Method of compilation is one thing but balance is quite another, and until someone rationally explains the gross imbalances between the varying German casualty lists that purport to measure the same thing (McRandle & Quirk do recognise the vital importance of this imbalance, hence their paper, but fail to rationally explain it) then German casualty lists need to be treated with strong suspicion.

Cheers-salesie.

[Latze]

It is the MIA figures that I find to be so informative. The medical services would have accurate counts of those using their services, but could not possibly have their own count of the missing; if you rang the local hospital and asked how many had gone through A&E in the last calendar month, and they replied 20,000 attended A&E and 2,000 didn't, then you would be in order asking if they'd conducted a put your hand up if you're not here count. The missing figures could not, by definition, be derived from the medical services own count – I would also guess that not every dead German soldier was sent to aid-posts and hospitals to be confirmed as dead (which may account for the much higher number of KIA in the Nachweiseamt when compared with Sanitats), but that is speculation on my part, so I'll stick with the MIA figures which could not possibly be derived from the Sanitats own resources.

This begs the question, why did the Sanitats feel the need to include the MIA/POW figures. What possible use could these figures be to the medical services in planning for a future war, why plan for men that you're never going to see? And, where did the Sanitats get its MIA data from?

Hi salesie,

it were your questions of how the SanB got its MIA data and why they were included prompted me to go to the library and supply you with answers. If you now say that the answer given is so obviously unsatisfactory I think you might help explain some questions your assertion raises:

- do we have to doubt the MIA count for 1870/71 also?

- why was the Kriegs-Sanitätsordung published if it was plainly obvious that it couldn't be followed?

- why and how did all relevant units wrote their Truppenkrankenraporte ? Did they just invent MIA figures to put something in?

I hope that this does not come across as aggressive but I really am a bit baffled by the way you declare that said counting is impossible without any supporting evidence.

regards

Matt

Edited 14 January , 2011 by Latze

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

It seems I am guilty of over-lengthy and complex postings. Please be warned this is no different and if you feel that these are a waste of time I would recommend going to another thread. I see no reason to reduce my opinions to sound bites when I feel there is more to add to this discussion.

It seems that the issue of the different German casualty numbers from different sources that do not match is the overriding issue here or at least for a few members from what I can tell. I have not attempted to explain why one set of numbers is different from another except to point out in my over-lengthy and complex posts that you cannot take apples and oranges and come to a single answer. You cannot take a square peg, a round peg and a triangle peg and hammer them all into a single opening designed to take only one.

I doubt anyone on this forum at present has the resources or the time to evaluate all of the lists, sources and reasons why one set of numbers does not match another.

In this issue I have some concerns about the basis for the claims being bandied about. Everyone seems to take all of the sources for granted, in that I mean the articles and books from the past 70 or so years taking numbers from different sources. Are these correct? Were they taken out of a larger set of numbers? Are they representative of what the author was trying to get across? Were they picked specifically to prove one point of view over another? Do you trust everything presented to you or is there the possibility of errors and misrepresentations, accidental or otherwise, in the book or article? What was the political reason for using one set of statistics over another? This needs to be considered as the author always has a point of view or idea to get across to his readers and in the case of politicians, the need to create a mindset that will support the future position of the particular politician.

Before any further comparison of sources can be made the actual reports from the primary source must be reviewed for accuracy, method of collection, etc. and then they can be compared to see why they either match or do not as the case may be.

The last part, the different reports that used different methods and criteria to provide their statistical figures needs to be looked at and compared. If you do not use exactly the same methods to produce results then the results will most likely be different. How did one report collect data? What time frames were used? The SanB indicates the 1st year of the war ran from August 1914 through July 1915. Others could very well be a fiscal year so 1914 ended in December and these numbers were used. Now if I said that the numbers for the first year of the war were X. (Did I mean up to the end of 1914 or the actual 12 months). I cannot tell you how these sources were set up other than the SanB as I have not been able to review all of the primary sources fully due to other commitments.

When looking at the total loss numbers for the war do you take the ones published in November/December 1918 or wait until the early 1920s when the final figures were presented based upon years of examination of documents, pension requests, etc.

The early 1920s saw a number of investigations into the fate of missing men. All of the available data was reviewed and letters were issued to explain the position of the government regarding a particular soldier.

In reading several of these letters it was clear that not only were the official reports scrutinized but all other possible sources including personal contact with surviving members of the particular unit were questioned as well. If all of the evidence pointed to the fact that after a particular date in time no other contact or reference to a particular soldier was found in any known source of information then the official conclusion was made that the individual had been killed on the date in question.

'I say, that McRandle & Quirk's whole premise is seriously flawed for the reasons I gave earlier (mostly in my post #165) - and I cannot see how descriptions of compilation methods, or wholly self-evident definitions of what "missing" means, serves any purpose but to muddy the waters.

In regard to my earlier post on this thread I did not miss the mark in my opinion. I made the comment exactly as I had planned to. I do not consider it muddying the water. It seemed to me that one misunderstanding of the German reporting system is that only hospitals or medical staff reported statistics. While the individual regimental medical staff may have submitted the 10 day reports they were created from information provided by individual infantry companies and artillery batteries and similar organizations within the units. If methods and sources are going to be discussed then the readers should know where these came from, not an opinion or assumption on the part of any author.

The idea that we do not know exactly how the missing were identified or reported is nonsense to me. These same reports were extremely detailed and as they were created by each company or unit, correlated by regiment, brigade, division, etc. and then combined with the additional reports filed by hospitals in the field and at home (5 day and 30 day reporting requirements to name a few).

McRandle & Quirk's Blood Test Revisited, put forward in this thread as the definitive answer to critics of the veracity of German casualty lists, uses the Sanitats as the control model to verify other German lists on the grounds that the Sanitats comes from actual counts made by medical staff.

I have some issues on how well they actually understand the German reporting system or the structure that was being used during the war based on this comment. I will need to review their work thoroughly in order to understand their position and reasoning.

These authors apparently tried to make sense of the numbers and make adjustments in order to get matches between lists. Why? We go right back to the issue of comparing apples to oranges. Each list needs to be reviewed alone. The reasons they were created, the methods used, the categories, etc. need to be reviewed and then a comment can be made on what the researcher feels about the lists and their numbers.

I disagree with their findings as described on this thread. I wonder how far they went in their research and why they felt a need to have everything match up so nice and pretty.

If you use the same logic being applied to this thread by many people then I need to wonder what dastardly conspiracy exists on why I have seen 4-5 or more sets of numbers on British losses for 1 July 1916. Surely there is only one number that is correct so then where did the others come from?

Method of compilation is one thing but balance is quite another, and until someone rationally explains the gross imbalances between the varying German casualty lists that purport to measure the same thing (McRandle & Quirk do recognise the vital importance of this imbalance, hence their paper, but fail to rationally explain it) then German casualty lists need to be treated with strong suspicion.

They are not measuring the same information in the same manner. It all goes back to the methods, purpose, time frames, etc. for each source as described above and this will require direct research. The failure of numbers matching is not a basis to treat anything with strong suspicion other than the methods and opinions made by various authors in their attempt to tidy everything up. The level of accuracy, the minute details and the reporting of everything down to suicides in the public reports only indicate that these were statistics as reported at the time and without any need for secrecy or any conspiracy.

One final observation I would like to make. I doubt the issue of balancing all the numbers was a consideration for the Germans in the post-war years. The reports were made by different people at different times with different methods and I have never seen any indication from any source that the objective was to have everything match up in a tidy package.

If a perfect match was the goal then someone or some group after the war would have been given this task accordingly and we would not even be considering this matter as they would have made sure everything matched up neatly. If the numbers matched perfectly I would then probably consider conspiracy and fraud a possibility.

Ralph

[salesie]

Hi salesie,

it were your questions of how the SanB got its MIA data and why they were included prompted me to go to the library and supply you with answers. If you now say that the answer given is so obviously unsatisfactory I think you might help explain some questions your assertion raises:

- do we have to doubt the MIA count for 1870/71 also?

- why was the Kriegs-Sanitätsordung published if it was plainly obvious that it couldn't be followed?

- why and how did all relevant units wrote their Truppenkrankenraporte ? Did they just invent MIA figures to put something in?

I hope that this does not come across as aggressive but I really am a bit baffled by the way you declare that said counting is impossible without any supporting evidence.

regards

Matt

Not aggressive, Matt, just frustrating. I can only assume that language differences are at the root of your last post with its blatantly obvious inability to grasp the points I've made. Consequently, seeing as I'm now at a loss to see how I can make my main points any clearer, you have me pretty much lost for words (hooray goes the cheer).

That said, perhaps some kind soul will attempt a different way to say that German Army medical staff couldn't possibly have physically counted men who they never saw and were never going to see (whether in 1870/71 or 1914-18, whether ordered to or not), which means a sizeable portion of the figures in the Sanitats came from sources other than physical counts made by medical staff, and, therefore, this undermines the whole basis of the argument put forward in Blood Test Revisited, a paper proposed in this thread (by Matt) to be the definitive answer to the on-going criticism of the veracity of German casualty lists.

I honestly can't see, Matt, what else I can say.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

It seems I am guilty of over-lengthy and complex postings. Please be warned this is no different and if you feel that these are a waste of time I would recommend going to another thread. I see no reason to reduce my opinions to sound bites when I feel there is more to add to this discussion...

Ralph

I've cut your post, Ralph, to save bandwidth. I would never suggest that you should reduce your posts to soundbites; my criticism was not aimed at their length and/or complexity per se, but at their context and overall tone.

As you say, we've been here before, the two of us, debating a very similar topic - but this thread, though related, is a little different; its focus has shifted to be mainly on the paper Blood Test Revisited. Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't accept your assertions about the different methods employed i.e. the square-peg, round-peg etc. I don't accept your view that we shouldn't debate such things and/or criticise German casualty stats/lists because of the complexities/difficulties involved in compiling those lists at the time. Don't get me wrong, I do understand everything you say, I just don't agree with most of it (for the reasons I've previously given you, some in this thread some in others). All in all, I see your posts as being comprised mostly of excuses aimed at deflecting criticism away from said lists.

Cheers-salesie.