German Casualty discussion

[phil andrade]

Salesie can you say where the 7,000,000 casualties figure comes from? The numbers treated by the German medical services were far higher than that figure. The total number of cases (wounded and ill) was 23,763,218. (San B Vol III p 23). Of this number 22,457,611 were thereby rendered fit for further service of some kind and some length - either immediately (medicine and duties) or after lengthy treatment and convalescence, 407,926 died and 897,681 disappeared off the radar - invalided out, sent on lengthy leave or deserted. Incidentally on p 12 the San B quotes a Reichsarchiv figure stating that the total number mobilised for some form of service with the army was 13,387,000. I am not sure why there is a difference betwen this figure and yours - unless, possibly, the RA figure came later.

Jack

Salesie : Jack probably supplies the best citation from the San B figures if you need to gauge the "general order of magnitude" of the total for wounds and sickness.

These figures - it is crucial to bear in mind - are only up until the end of July 1918.

Roughly 150,000 German soldiers were recorded as actually dying from illness - less than one tenth the number who were killed in battle. I should think that the number who were rendered unfit , through invalidity caused by sickness, rather than wounds, would have amounted to several hundreds of thousands. Guesswork, I'm afraid.

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

That's a pity, Alan - I was looking forward to that particular exchange developing.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Salesie : Jack probably supplies the best citation from the San B figures if you need to gauge the "general order of magnitude" of the total for wounds and sickness.

These figures - it is crucial to bear in mind - are only up until the end of July 1918.

Roughly 150,000 German soldiers were recorded as actually dying from illness - less than one tenth the number who were killed in battle. I should think that the number who were rendered unfit , through invalidity caused by sickness, rather than wounds, would have amounted to several hundreds of thousands. Guesswork, I'm afraid.

Phil (PJA)

That leaves around 2 million, give or take a couple of hundred-thousand, needed to square your circle, Phil. This is beginning to sound like that old Pete Seeger song of my childhood i.e. Where have all those Germans gone, long time passing, long time ago? (Please forgive the poetic licence).

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

So be it, salesie...we will countenance the notion that the bureaucrats who compiled the statistics, and who, year by year, corrected and collated data to the extent of finding an additional half million casualties in the fifteen years after the war, either mistakenly or deliberately overlooked two million more.

I think that I've learned to recognise a dead horse when I see it.

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

So be it, salesie...we will countenance the notion that the bureaucrats who compiled the statistics, and who, year by year, corrected and collated data to the extent of finding an additional half million casualties in the fifteen years after the war, either mistakenly or deliberately overlooked two million more.

I think that I've learned to recognise a dead horse when I see it.

Phil (PJA)

Just trying to gauge why the balance-sheet doesn't balance, Phil, that's all.

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

Perhaps some one on the forum might have numbers for the Germans who were still under arms at war's end.

Maybe the San B itself ?

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

That leaves around 2 million, give or take a couple of hundred-thousand, needed to square your circle, Phil. This is beginning to sound like that old Pete Seeger song of my childhood i.e. Where have all those Germans gone, long time passing, long time ago? (Please forgive the poetic licence).

Cheers-salesie.

You might try the same approach with British statistics, salesie. In very general terms, the armies and navy of Britain and her empire put nine and a half million men under arms. Three million casualties were recorded. Now look at the number under arms at the end of the war : 5.6 million, and ask yourself - reflecting on the one million gap - where have all those Tommies gone, long time passing, long time ago ?

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

You might try the same approach with British statistics, salesie. In very general terms, the armies and navy of Britain and her empire put nine and a half million men under arms. Three million casualties were recorded. Now look at the number under arms at the end of the war : 5.6 million, and ask yourself - reflecting on the one million gap - where have all those Tommies gone, long time passing, long time ago ?

Phil (PJA)

Your answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, your answer is blowing in the wind.

For the British balance-sheet, though, the wind blew the answer you seek straight into the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War (which Skipman kindly gave an online link to in post #186), a mighty tome that gives those of a certain mind-set the ability to apply due-diligence to the British lists (as opposed to a distinct lack of due-diligence material available for said German lists). And seeing as you're the first person I'm aware of who has ever cast doubt on the veracity of British stats, from both sides of this on-going debate, either historically or modern, then perhaps you may wish to peruse said tome for the answer you desperately seek?

Everyone seems to accept that the British figures balance, including Liddle-Hart, Williams, Churchill et al, otherwise you can be sure any imbalance would have formed a vital part of their attacks on Edmonds and others - but hey, what the hell, have a look and make a name for yourself.

Cheers-salesie.

[SiegeGunner]

Post #1 on this thread seems to suggest what became of about a million men who were originally in the German army — http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159747&pid=1547342&st=0entry1547342

[salesie]

Post #1 on this thread seems to suggest what became of about a million men who were originally in the German army — http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=159747&pid=1547342&st=0entry1547342

Mick, I wouldn't fundamentally disagree with the rationale that Wiking lays out in the post you linked to, there is plenty of sense in such a scenario. He has raised a similar thread before http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=131838&view=findpost&p=1253073 and my take on it, from reading I did a few years ago now, can be found in posts #9 & #13.

I would seriously doubt, though, that one million soldiers were transported from the German army in the west in order to fill the manpower shortages of German industry, simply because there was a forced labour policy (a pre-cursor for the next war) which forcibly imported labour into Germany from the occupied territories and there would have been no need at all to strip the Germany army of that many soldiers. Some troops were "transferred" to industry, but the vast majority from the army in the west were moved to the Eastern Front for the plans that Hindenburg & Ludendorff had for that front. This action was, of course, a major strategic mistake on the German High Command's part in my opinion, the reasons for which I briefly lay out in my posts in the thread I've linked to.

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

And seeing as you're the first person I'm aware of who has ever cast doubt on the veracity of British stats, from both sides of this on-going debate, either historically or modern, then perhaps you may wish to peruse said tome for the answer you desperately seek?

Everyone seems to accept that the British figures balance, including Liddle-Hart, Williams, Churchill et al, otherwise you can be sure any imbalance would have formed a vital part of their attacks on Edmonds and others - but hey, what the hell, have a look and make a name for yourself.

Cheers-salesie.

No, far from casting doubt on the veracity of British stats, I make that point to expose the absurdity of your argument about the German figures.

The British figure of three million battle casualties is sound, So, I maintain, is the German figure of seven million.

Did you really expect that the total number of troops mobilised during the war, less the total number posted as casualties, should equate to the number counted under arms at the end of the conflict ?

You know better than that, surely ?

Phil (PJA)

[Ken S.]

Wrong yet again...

the total scope of the employment of industrial forced labor between 1914 and 1918 was far smaller than that after 1939... the German policy of forced labor in World War I was, both politically and economically, an evident failure. (Ulrich Herbert. Hitler's Foreign Workers, p. 26)

the manpower shortages of German industry, simply because there was a forced labour policy (a pre-cursor for the next war) which forcibly imported labour into Germany from the occupied territories and there would have been no need at all to strip the Germany army of that many soldiers.

[Robert Dunlop]

For a change of pace I thought the forum members would like to see a complete Verlustlisten covering a single day of printing.

Ralph, thank you very much for taking the trouble to publish this set of examples. If I understand correctly, the list on a single day might contain corrections to information about that status of one or more individuals that had been published in an earlier list/s. For example, a soldier reported as 'missing' in the VL of 1st July might turn up as 'killed' in the 1st August list that you kindly posted. Have I got this right? Do you know if there are any such examples in the 1st August VL?

Robert

[salesie]

No, far from casting doubt on the veracity of British stats, I make that point to expose the absurdity of your argument about the German figures.

The British figure of three million battle casualties is sound, So, I maintain, is the German figure of seven million.

Did you really expect that the total number of troops mobilised during the war, less the total number posted as casualties, should equate to the number counted under arms at the end of the conflict ?

You know better than that, surely ?

Phil (PJA)

And there's me thinking, Phil, that your posts #s, 213, 221, 226, 231 & 232 were attempts to address and reconcile what you now call an absurdity? Did your enlightenment come progressively as a result of writing said posts, or as a flash of incisive inspiration? Please elaborate?

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

Wrong yet again...

the total scope of the employment of industrial forced labor between 1914 and 1918 was far smaller than that after 1939... the German policy of forced labor in World War I was, both politically and economically, an evident failure. (Ulrich Herbert. Hitler's Foreign Workers, p. 26)

I agree entirely that the forced labour from the occupied territories of WW1 was not as large as that of WW2, and that German political & economic policies, 1914-18, were complete failures.

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

And there's me thinking, Phil, that your posts #s, 213, 221, 226, 231 & 232 were attempts to address and reconcile what you now call an absurdity? Did your enlightenment come progressively as a result of writing said posts, or as a flash of incisive inspiration? Please elaborate?

Cheers-salesie.

Salesie,

It would be aburd to suggest that, because thirteen and a quarter million Germans donned uniform, and four and a half million were on the strength at the end of the conflict, the casualties must have accounted for the entirety of the difference. There were seven millon battle casualties in the German army 1914-1918, and there were four and half million under arms at the end of the war. The balance, a million and three quarters, to use Jack's phrase, disapppeared from the radar. In the same way, the nine and half million British Empire personel susutained three million battle casualties, yet there were only five and a half million left in uniform on November 11th 1918. Where were the missing million ? They were not battle casualties : a multiplicity of reasons accounts for them not being on the strength. Discharged for invalidity, deserted....who knows ? This in itself might merit a lot of study, perhaps a thread. Another thing to consider is that, among the two million British wounded, and their four million plus German counterparts, the vast majority - four fifths in the British case, three quarters in the German, were able to resume some kind of duty. This is "where I'm coming from" in my remonstration about your method and the statistical assumptions you make : you imply that reported battle casualties should account for the difference between the number of men who served and the number left under arms at the end of the war. Oh, dear, no, chum, no ! The numbers will never "click" just like that.

There is an interesting and rather controversial set of figures in John Terraine's The Smoke and the Fire which throws light on this. The experience of a regular British battalion that served on the Western Front from August 1914 to the Armistice is chronicled in terms of numbers served and how they could be accounted for. A total of 8,313 served at one time or another, , of whom 1,462 were killed or died from wounds, and 3,648 were wounded or gassed. The number invalided to the UK sick was 2,066 : virtually a quarter of those who served. I would not for a moment suggest that such a high figure of invalidity should be applied across the board, but I reckon it might go some way towards squaring the circle.

Edit : sorry, salesie, my reply hasn't done justice to your challenge, has it ?

No, I did not come into this discussion with "all my ducks lined up". I seek to gain enlightennment as I go along, Avoidance of excessive adversial conduct is something I strive for : failing now and then, I fear.

All I have seen in perusing the official German casualty lists tends me to the view that Edmonds' assertions stand discredited. In this I am even more convinced than I was at the start of the thread. Where is the evidence to support Edmonds ? Are you going to tell me about the parlous state of German manpower by 1918 ? The official returns provide ample evidence - well over five million casualties reported by the end of 1917 alone. Let's not forget Occleshaw...well, I do hope that I won't be counted as one of those "glorying" in the notion of British losses being far heavier than those of the Germans.. The official German return is bad enough. Does it accord with the numbers of prisoners claimed by the Allies ?

Yes it does. Does the evidence of German War Graves bear out Churchill's estimate of nearly 1.5 million German dead on the Western Front ? Yes, it does...indeed, if anything, it implies that he was being a little excessive. Can you find me anything to convince me that German losses were officially understated ? Shall I hold my breath ?

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

Salesie,

It would be aburd to suggest that, because thirteen and a quarter million Germans donned uniform, and four and a half million were on the strength at the end of the conflict, the casualties must have accounted for the entirety of the difference. There were seven millon battle casualties in the German army 1914-1918, and there were four and half million under arms at the end of the war. The balance, a million and three quarters, to use Jack's phrase, disapppeared from the radar. In the same way, the nine and half million British Empire personel susutained three million battle casualties, yet there were only five and a half million left in uniform on November 11th 1918. Where were the missing million ? They were not battle casualties : a multiplicity of reasons accounts for them not being on the strength. Discharged for invalidity, deserted....who knows ? This in itself might merit a lot of study, perhaps a thread. Another thing to consider is that, among the two million British wounded, and their four million plus German counterparts, the vast majority - four fifths in the British case, three quarters in the German, were able to resume some kind of duty. This is "where I'm coming from" in my remonstration about your method and the statistical assumptions you make : you imply that reported battle casualties should account for the difference between the number of men who served and the number left under arms at the end of the war. Oh, dear, no, chum, no ! The numbers will never "click" just like that.

There is an interesting and rather controversial set of figures in John Terraine's The Smoke and the Fire which throws light on this. The experience of a regular British battalion that served on the Western Front from August 1914 to the Armistice is chronicled in terms of numbers served and how they could be accounted for. A total of 8,313 served at one time or another, , of whom 1,462 were killed or died from wounds, and 3,648 were wounded or gassed. The number invalided to the UK sick was 2,066 : virtually a quarter of those who served. I would not for a moment suggest that such a high figure of invalidity should be applied across the board, but I reckon it might go some way towards squaring the circle.

Phil (PJA)

I'm afraid you're the victim of your own intensity, Phil. I never said it was as simple as adding casualties to those left standing and taking that sum away from the total mobilised, but you assumed that's what I was saying and made a few posts trying to reconcile it before stating that such a simplistic assertion is absurd. What I actually asked in post #210 was, "..some 13,250,000 Germans mobilised in total, some 7,000,000 reported casualties, some 4,000,000 left standing in 1918 (on the verge of imminent collapse with no reserves), one has to ask where were the 2,250,000 not accounted for in your list?" You see, I made no reference to simplicity or not, no reference as to whether the answer would be simple or not, but I did ask a simple question.

What I'm doing is forming a balance-sheet from your own figures, this being a crucial tool in applying due-diligence. Now, as the debate developed you highlighted a similar simplistic discrepancy in the British figures (figures again provided by you), to which I showed you a link to where the answers could be readily found in order to balance those British figures, and pointed out that no one has ever challenged the veracity of those British stats (almost certainly because, although complex, they do in fact balance).

Now back to your assertion that to ask such a simple question is absurd. The whole point is that, in balance-sheet terms, you have given us total assets (the total mobilised), total liabilities (casualties so far), and current assets (those left standing) - so it doesn't take much thought to realise that this balance sheet doesn't balance (so far) because it is in fact incomplete. The answer to this could be either fairly simple, pretty complex, maze-like, or impossible to answer. There could be numerous categories brought in to make it balance or just a few, it could be a simple or complex balance-sheet, but until those missing numbers are brought in then none of the totals given so far can be confidently said to be accurate.

The simple question I asked is far from being absurd, the absurdity lies in the fact that, as far as I can see, no one has those missing German figures, no one has the breakdown of the some two and a quarter million Germans needed to be accounted for in order to balance the sheet (some 17% of the total assets no less). And, perhaps an even greater absurdity is that, in all of these debates I have never seen a reference to a German tome equivalent to the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War, yet you and others continually preach the gospel of the veracity of German casualty lists.

Is it not totally absurd to expect us to buy the "business" that you and others are touting around, with figures that don't balance, and without any opportunity at all to apply due-diligence? You may not like my simple question, Phil, but it still stands - where are those 2.25 million?

Cheers- salesie.

[phil andrade]

Is it not totally absurd to expect us to buy the "business" that you and others are touting around, with figures that don't balance, and without any opportunity at all to apply due-diligence? You may not like my simple question, Phil, but it still stands - where are those 2.25 million?

Cheers- salesie.

Edmonds implies that most - nearly all - of them were dead.

My guess is that a large proportion of them were discharged on account of long term sickness. There were probably significant numbers of deserters.

But, if we really want to confound the reckoning, we must allow for the fact that three million of the four million or so wounded were apparently restored to some form of duty, so now we must account for over five million.

Where to now ?

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

Edmonds implies that most - nearly all of them - of them were dead.

My guess is that a large proportion of them were discharged on account of long term sickness. There were probably significant numbers of deserters.

But, if we really want to confound the reckoning, we must allow for the fact that three million of the four million or so wounded were apparently restored to some form of duty, so now we must account for over five million.

Where to now ?

Phil (PJA)

You tell me, Phil. They're your figures, I'm playing the role of auditor and telling you that they don't balance, telling you that until they do then Edmonds may be right and so may you, or you may both be wrong, telling you that until a German balance-sheet that balances is produced then it's all pure supposition, pure and simple. Telling you that not only has a balance-sheet that balances not been produced, but that several profit & loss accounts (showing only losses, of course; there was no profit for Germany or any army in this context) that purport to count the same thing don't tally either (and all from what we’re told were super-efficient administrators, the best in the world).

Hence my reference to Pete Seeger earlier, "Where have all those Germans gone, long time passing, long time ago?"

Cheers-salesie.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Ralph, thank you very much for taking the trouble to publish this set of examples. If I understand correctly, the list on a single day might contain corrections to information about that status of one or more individuals that had been published in an earlier list/s. For example, a soldier reported as 'missing' in the VL of 1st July might turn up as 'killed' in the 1st August list that you kindly posted. Have I got this right? Do you know if there are any such examples in the 1st August VL?

Robert

Hello Robert, I am sorry that the lists are not of the size I would have liked, each one is a very large TIF or JPEG image. In response to your question the list is full of examples of corrections or updates to earlier lists. The Prussian lists often added these to the end of a current list. The Bavarian and Württemberg lists generally had a full section of corrections where lists were placed in numerical order, the regiment/unit identified and then the full particulars of the entry from company to the original listing and the corrections being made, wrong name, mispelled names, towns, status, etc. Lists this late could even contain entries for men in 1914 through just a short time before the particular list was created. This is especially true following any major action such as the Somme or Verdun to name several. The MIA count was initially high as the returns reflected the current knowledge of the status and whereabouts of a soldier. As lists were received from the Red Cross and from the enemy reports then a status was changed.

The officials also listed details they received through private letters and in the case of the 6th Bavarian RIR that suffered badly in the opening day of battle many of the enties indicate a man was a POW and the information was obtained through personal correspondence when one or more prisoners listed the men from their unit that were in captivity with them.

I will try to enlarge various sections in order to provide examples from this list later tonight or tomorrow.

Ralph

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

The following stastement was taken from a post further up the page by Salesie. I have just started a review of the British statistical book and without any other compelling relevations I can accept it as a very detailed and honest presentation of the different sets of statistical detail.

"For the British balance-sheet, though, the wind blew the answer you seek straight into the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War (which Skipman kindly gave an online link to in post #186), a mighty tome that gives those of a certain mind-set the ability to apply due-diligence to the British lists (as opposed to a distinct lack of due-diligence material available for said German lists)."

As to the statement I am very interested in hearing why the different German lists do not have so-called due diligence material. Only a few lists are truly original such as the VL that is as close to real time reporting of losses as you can get during a war. Let's start with this one and work through the various sources.

I would very much like to know why their is a perception of lack of due diligence in regard to the VL or a lack of supporting material. Could anyone currently watching or participating in this thread give me their opinions and details that could support this statement? I am not trying to trick anyone, I amvery interested in knowing what people believe or accept or question on the VL, thanks.

Ralph

[salesie]

The following stastement was taken from a post further up the page by Salesie. I have just started a review of the British statistical book and without any other compelling relevations I can accept it as a very detailed and honest presentation of the different sets of statistical detail.

"For the British balance-sheet, though, the wind blew the answer you seek straight into the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War (which Skipman kindly gave an online link to in post #186), a mighty tome that gives those of a certain mind-set the ability to apply due-diligence to the British lists (as opposed to a distinct lack of due-diligence material available for said German lists)."

As to the statement I am very interested in hearing why the different German lists do not have so-called due diligence material. Only a few lists are truly original such as the VL that is as close to real time reporting of losses as you can get during a war. Let's start with this one and work through the various sources.

I would very much like to know why their is a perception of lack of due diligence in regard to the VL or a lack of supporting material. Could anyone currently watching or participating in this thread give me their opinions and details that could support this statement? I am not trying to trick anyone, I amvery interested in knowing what people believe or accept or question on the VL, thanks.

Ralph

I won't bore you by repeating my own opinions of German lists, Ralph, you should be well-aware by now of my opinion, and the detail to support them. But I will give you the opinion of another, an opinion introduced by George in a couple of earlier threads, an opinion that you either missed or chose to ignore.

George tells us in post #167, "Finally, lest anyone think that I am suggesting that if the 90% of German records had survived they would have provided an archival magic bullet to resolve the conundrum of German casualty figures, bear in mind the earlier quoted admonition of Dr Zoske of the Militärgeschichtliches-Forschungsamt in his letter to M J Williams as long ago as 1963:

"The uncertainty of the statistics was, of course, always known from the beginning in German quarters. The Reichsarchiv emphasises in its work 'Der Weltkrieg' repeatedly that, "the loss accounts...generally require reservations." and "whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable."

This isn't the British OH having a gratuitous or fraudulent pop at the credibility of the German casualty figures, but the opinion of the Germans own Military History Research Institute."

Is Dr Zoske's opinion the kind of thing you were looking for?

Cheers-salesie.

[JimSmithson]

Jim, I have spent much of the past year and more in, amongst other archives, those of the LHC, doing precisely that. As I've said, though, the results of that work will be published elsewhere before appearing here. In the meantime, however, everything I've said here about the literature on the German casualty debate is based upon the conclusions I've drawn from that research.

George

Whilst not wanting to pre-empt any work you may be publishing can you at least say whether the article was a result of any pressure he was feeling over the topic. I do recall seeing a reference somewhere to a letter in The Times much later (1938 I think), again on the topic of German casualties. Was he under contemporary pressure of any kind or are the references in another direction? In the work I have done I have often come across pressures from all kinds of direction, including one from Winston Churchill who said they would be better simply publishing all the actual orders, papers, diaries etc. and let historians work out for themselves what to make of them than bothering to write histories. Wasn't the famous Fortescue sacked after getting into bother over an early issue of the OH and some article he wrote.

Jim

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I won't bore you by repeating my own opinions of German lists, Ralph, you should be well-aware by now of my opinion, and the detail to support them. But I will give you the opinion of another, an opinion introduced by George in a couple of earlier threads, an opinion that you either missed or chose to ignore.

George tells us in post #167, "Finally, lest anyone think that I am suggesting that if the 90% of German records had survived they would have provided an archival magic bullet to resolve the conundrum of German casualty figures, bear in mind the earlier quoted admonition of Dr Zoske of the Militärgeschichtliches-Forschungsamt in his letter to M J Williams as long ago as 1963:

"The uncertainty of the statistics was, of course, always known from the beginning in German quarters. The Reichsarchiv emphasises in its work 'Der Weltkrieg' repeatedly that, "the loss accounts...generally require reservations." and "whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable."

This isn't the British OH having a gratuitous or fraudulent pop at the credibility of the German casualty figures, but the opinion of the Germans own Military History Research Institute."

Is Dr Zoske's opinion the kind of thing you were looking for?

Cheers-salesie.

Not really. I am aware of the possible omissions of such lists simply from the times they were accumulated. I doubt any such list from any source in any country can safely assume 100% accuracy or full compliance with all such reporting methods.

In regard to the VL, knowing full well that there can be missing lists, especially from the earliest fighting and of course the 1918 period when things began to fall apart, just what about the lists that were prepared and published lacks any due diligence. Keep in mind that some of the missing materials, and these are not quantified, were eventually added in at later times as information was recovered.

Knowing that this list or any other similar list does not have 100% of the original documents currently or possibly during the war does not detract from the information provided in the tens of millions of names and entries it contains. So, along these lines, how is the actual list either poorly prepared, presented, not presented carefully, etc. at the time it was published.

If we are to go on the issue that if not all reports are present now or available at the time of the war then we throw out all such lists and start from scratch.

Ralph

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Robert, and any other interested party, here are samples of the lists from 1 August 1916. The scans include the index for the list, the Prussian units mentioned in this list, a sample of one regimental loss report showing the corrections section at the bottom, a selection from the Bavarian list also showing corrections to previous lists, a sample of corrections and the index and one unit from the two Württemberg lists from this date.

I hope this helps illustrate some of the materials I have mentioned and provide a better idea of just what these lists contain.

Ralph

#2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1