German Casualty discussion

[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

You constantly go back to the mechanics of how lists were compiled, Ralph, and seem to fail to grasp, or want to ignore, the more fundamental, somewhat abstract, questions stemming from the sum of their component parts. For example, if the VL was/is all that you're claiming it to be then, surely, the German Institute of Military History would have known that more than anyone?

If this German Institute tells an enquirer (Williams) who is looking for evidence to undermine the British OH that "The uncertainty of the statistics was, of course, always known from the beginning in German quarters" and that the Reichsarchiv repeatedly concedes that point as well as saying that "whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable", then surely this is a fundamental and huge question mark, from an authoritative German source no less, which hangs over everything you are claiming for the VL and your own research?

After all, such an opinion as Dr Zoske's would have been based on research when the 90% of destroyed records were still available? In other words, his opinion stemmed from a checkable data base many times greater than yours (in both quantity and scope) yet "uncertainty over German casualty stats was well known in German quarters from the beginning" - but you want us to accept without question that absolute certainty resides in a certain U.S. research quarter?

Cheers-salesie.

[Ken S.]

If you also feel that these 2 million or so unaccounted for soldiers should be added to a "falsified" figure of c. 2 million German dead, then you need to explain why in most cases village, town, county etc. honor rolls (where they list both) show the WW1 dead to be 1/3 to 1/2 to that of WW2 (5.5 million dead, I believe).

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.

[salesie]

If you also feel that these 2 million or so unaccounted for soldiers should be added to a "falsified" figure of c. 2 million German dead, then you need to explain why in most cases village, town, county etc. honor rolls (where they list both) show the WW1 dead to be 1/3 to 1/2 to that of WW2 (5.5 million dead, I believe).

I don't know were they should be added, mate. That's the whole point, nobody knows - but they sure as hell need to be accounted for. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Cheers-salesie.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

You constantly go back to the mechanics of how lists were compiled, Ralph, and seem to fail to grasp, or want to ignore, the more fundamental, somewhat abstract, questions stemming from the sum of their component parts. For example, if the VL was/is all that you're claiming it to be then, surely, the German Institute of Military History would have known that more than anyone?

If this German Institute tells an enquirer (Williams) who is looking for evidence to undermine the British OH that "The uncertainty of the statistics was, of course, always known from the beginning in German quarters" and that the Reichsarchiv repeatedly concedes that point as well as saying that "whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable", then surely this is a fundamental and huge question mark, from an authoritative German source no less, which hangs over everything you are claiming for the VL and your own research?

After all, such an opinion as Dr Zoske's would have been based on research when the 90% of destroyed records were still available? In other words, his opinion stemmed from a checkable data base many times greater than yours (in both quantity and scope) yet "uncertainty over German casualty stats was well known in German quarters from the beginning" - but you want us to accept without question that absolute certainty resides in a certain U.S. research quarter?

Cheers-salesie.

I fully understand your points and I am not claiming more insight and knowledge than the Germans during or after the war. You apparently believe all lists are useless unless numbers match up, all parts are present, etc. In the text of the quotes used above were these in response to the overall lists, a particular portion or a simple warning that can accompany any accumulated data from any war? Iam providing the members with a look at what we all just toss about and knowing the mechanics of the list as well as the possible concerns simply provides us with more knowledge of what we are using and how we can use it.

I do not believe that you uderstand my original question as to the proper due diligence to the lists. What do you feel they are other than the ones already mentioned over and over. Should we toss the lists? Are they all suspect even though they are used with the full knowledge of any and all limitations? Do they not provide exactly what many researchers are looking for? Information, cross checking, new avenues of research, etc. If the VL somehow fails to pass the due diligence issue then please explain in some detail just how that is and not simply quote the same issues. I repeat my assertion that if any list from any source is found less than perfect then toss them all out.

While you may feel I am stuck in the mechanics of the list, perhaps I am for that is the focus of my research. I want to know what happened to these men, the efforts used to identify the dead and wounded, the human aspect of the war. I am not here to show this list, over 23,000,000 names most likely, matches up with any particular accounting, post-war list, etc. The question was and is, just how is this list defective in the purpose it was intended and in the issue of due diligence? Do any of your sources mention just how many possible omissions there might be? This can also be factored into any discussion. As long as you know what you are using ahead of time then you can make your assumptions and conclusions accordingly.

I can only repeat that for many years I have seen lists and more lists, numbers and more numbers from many sources on all of the countries in the war and very few match. Some are rounded up, rounded down, etc. If your response is simply to repeat the previous versions then this aspect of the thread between us is obviously over. Perhaps someone else would like to chime in.

Ralph

[Robert Dunlop]

Thank you, Ralph. This is extremely helpful. Nothing like examples to help make more sense of it all.

The example of the changes is presumably in the section entitled 'Berichtigungen zu den Verlustlisten Nr. 1 mit 230 (Vermißte)' [Corrections to Casualty Lists 1 to 230 (Missing in Action)]. These include changes in spelling "Schmid (nicht Schmidt)" for example, as well as changes in status. Is 'bish.' short for 'bisher'? The earlier casualty list is referenced, so presumably you could trace back to that list number and see the original entry.

If I understand correctly, the Germans dropped the details about the units later in the war. Did the Verlustlisten corrections still refer back to earlier VLs, where appropriate?

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

"whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable"

salesie (or George), is the juxtaposition of 'certainties' with Festellungen in the original English quote? It suggests that Festellungen has been translated as 'certainties'. Is the original German quote available?

Robert

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Robert, I have not looked at the later lists for some time but I do believe that the list number was mentioned on corrections, in fact it was. When I was trying to trace the final resolution of the Somme missing it made it easier when the former details were provided so that I knew I had the right man. Dates of birth also help for some later list research but as the earlier ones did not have this you cannot match the two together that easily.

The other thing to know is the dates each list for each state came out. I have been working on a master index for list dates as well as units mentioned in each list so I can trace them easier than I can now. I suspect I will complete that project in a decade or so.

bish is short for bisher as you mentioned. I should also mention that corrections could be made 2-4 times for names, status, etc. If you also look at the main Pruissian listing you see some entries for one unit then following it in parenthesis is s.RIR.... I know it does not look like an s but it is. In these instances the casualty mentioned for one regiment is generally an officer who had been transferred to another regiment so the first number is the old unit, the loss is actually under the regiment in parenthesis. It helps trace officers that were transferred between units as was often the case.

Ralph

[salesie]

I fully understand your points and I am not claiming more insight and knowledge than the Germans during or after the war. You apparently believe all lists are useless unless numbers match up, all parts are present, etc. In the text of the quotes used above were these in response to the overall lists, a particular portion or a simple warning that can accompany any accumulated data from any war? Iam providing the members with a look at what we all just toss about and knowing the mechanics of the list as well as the possible concerns simply provides us with more knowledge of what we are using and how we can use it.

I do not believe that you uderstand my original question as to the proper due diligence to the lists. What do you feel they are other than the ones already mentioned over and over. Should we toss the lists? Are they all suspect even though they are used with the full knowledge of any and all limitations? Do they not provide exactly what many researchers are looking for? Information, cross checking, new avenues of research, etc. If the VL somehow fails to pass the due diligence issue then please explain in some detail just how that is and not simply quote the same issues. I repeat my assertion that if any list from any source is found less than perfect then toss them all out.

While you may feel I am stuck in the mechanics of the list, perhaps I am for that is the focus of my research. I want to know what happened to these men, the efforts used to identify the dead and wounded, the human aspect of the war. I am not here to show this list, over 23,000,000 names most likely, matches up with any particular accounting, post-war list, etc. The question was and is, just how is this list defective in the purpose it was intended and in the issue of due diligence? Do any of your sources mention just how many possible omissions there might be? This can also be factored into any discussion. As long as you know what you are using ahead of time then you can make your assumptions and conclusions accordingly.

I can only repeat that for many years I have seen lists and more lists, numbers and more numbers from many sources on all of the countries in the war and very few match. Some are rounded up, rounded down, etc. If your response is simply to repeat the previous versions then this aspect of the thread between us is obviously over. Perhaps someone else would like to chime in.

Ralph

At least you admit that the mechanics of list compilation is the focus of your research, Ralph, that's something I suppose. And, you're right, we're just going around in circles so I'll say one last thing on this matter.

Due-diligence, in this context, has all to do with whether or not anyone being asked to accept something as accurate can check on its veracity, and as I said earlier, due-diligence starts (but does not end) with the balance-sheet. If the balance-sheet doesn't balance then everything is suspect, if it does balance then its component parts are closely examined for veracity - if balance is ignored completely, as you suggest, then the application of due-diligence is not possible.

For example, if these were business accounts and you told the Inland Revenue that a balance-sheet is not available because it's irrelevant because of apples and oranges and dates and things, their agents would be all over your accounts like flies on a turd and, if found in the same state as German casualty lists, there would soon be a big tax bill and/or criminal charges landing on you.

You may be enraptured with your own research, Ralph, I'm certainly not - but hey, good luck to you and your number crunching hobby.

Cheers-salesie.

[Ken S.]

I would be interested in knowing what Dr. Zoske's statement was in German. But whatever the case, I think you're placing way too much importance on merely two sentences in an effort to draw a definite conclusion about what the Reichsarchiv believed about the accuracy of the statistics. Moreover, if you feel that Dr. Zoske's opinions are authoritative ("such an opinion as..."), then certainly you can provide us with reliable information on who he was what he was basing his opinions on. So far I have only been able to find the following publications by him:

*Die Osteologie Vesals: Untersuchgn zur Geschichte d. anatom. Nomenklatur (1951; med. diss. from 1949)

*Das preussische Lazarettwesen von 1866 (1967; 11 page typed manuscript)

As well as being the editor of two indexes for the Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen.

You constantly go back to the mechanics of how lists were compiled, Ralph, and seem to fail to grasp, or want to ignore, the more fundamental, somewhat abstract, questions stemming from the sum of their component parts. For example, if the VL was/is all that you're claiming it to be then, surely, the German Institute of Military History would have known that more than anyone?

If this German Institute tells an enquirer (Williams) who is looking for evidence to undermine the British OH that "The uncertainty of the statistics was, of course, always known from the beginning in German quarters" and that the Reichsarchiv repeatedly concedes that point as well as saying that "whether reliable certainties [feststellungen] are still possible appears questionable", then surely this is a fundamental and huge question mark, from an authoritative German source no less, which hangs over everything you are claiming for the VL and your own research?

After all, such an opinion as Dr Zoske's would have been based on research when the 90% of destroyed records were still available? In other words, his opinion stemmed from a checkable data base many times greater than yours (in both quantity and scope) yet "uncertainty over German casualty stats was well known in German quarters from the beginning" - but you want us to accept without question that absolute certainty resides in a certain U.S. research quarter?

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.

Do you mind if I ask you, salesie, where do you think they are ?

It's about time you ventured an opinion of your own about the scale of these German losses, rather than taking refuge in trying to discredit the opinions of others.

Take a chance, stick your head over the parapet. Seven million, nine million, ten million casualties...three or four million dead...what say you ?

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

salesie (or George), is the juxtaposition of 'certainties' with Festellungen in the original English quote? It suggests that Festellungen has been translated as 'certainties'. Is the original German quote available?

Robert

I'm sure George will answer this, Robert. I've just used it as a source, given its relevance to Williams (he obviously saw Zoske as being worthy to seek an opinion from) and thus its relevance to Ralph's use of Williams' work in this thread.

Cheers-salesie.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Salesie,

Under the concept of due diligence as outlined above then the lists indeed pass muster. These were loss reports filed in nearly real time, only weeks or so after they occurred and were reported. The accuracies can be seen in the constant corrections and updates as new and credible information was received. Due diligence in the manner given canalso be shown that in contemporary accounts the names and dates match, in the memorial cards, the information matches, in the Stammrolle the information matches, post-war publications of rolls of honour, village memorials, church memorials, Truppenkrankenrapport and the like can all verify and be cross referenced to indicate how reliable the materials are.

The lists are not perfect, hence the corrections. If they were considered perfect as is then no further entries would be considered other than the initial one. In the case of my position on due diligence in regard to the end result I am a bit confused, I never indicated it requires a perfect end result nor have I advocated that it should ignore the final numbers and conclusions.

Due diligence is not the absolute perfection of any list or set of data, it is the best possible presentation of that information. If end results are a perfect match then all the better but as we often do in insurance fraud we apply due diligence to our state reports in providing the best possible information and statistics. While not always perfect as some items are simply missing we provide the best information at hand and indicate the efforts involved in confirming or finding that information. This is exactly what the VL provides, a constant review and updating of data until a point is reached and it is no longer required or necessary to continue printing public lists and that went well into 1919 when Germany had far more urgent matters to go over.

In this aspect I would consider the VL a genuine source of information on German losses, from the smallest unit to major campaigns. It provides the most concise detail possible at the time of these events and it is possible to establish loss details in a reasonable fashion for much of the war.

I also note the quotes from a 1960's German figure. I have no other knowledge of him other than recently on this forum. I too would like to see the original details of the conversation/questions and how the answer was applied. If it has already been mentioned then please excuse the inquiry. I am of the opinion that in the entire subject of this thread and similar threads that the person most concerned about the end results and overall numbers and absolute matching is you. Apparently if everything is not perfect then all the source materials are useless. If that is the case as this is my perception of the issue and as I have often been told at work, perception is reality then we will never meet in the middle so to speak.

Ralph

[bill24chev]

As an accountant I get very upset and worried when a balance sheet does not balance. I would also be worried if a balance sheet included items that had not been fully explained.

In the current discussions we have both! the descrepency between listed casualties and the final number for the German army in November 1918 means the balance sheet does not balance. Alternativly we have the note in the OH that the casualty figures should be increased by 2 million apparently suported by the records of individual units within the German army..

The full records that could solve this difference are now, for whatever reason no longer available. therefore all we can realy say is there is a discrepency but we are not sure why.

I suspect that some of the "missing" casualties could have been discharged from the army and returned to work in industry but i do not know if these men would total 2 million or so, If this many men where released in a relativly short time it would in itself greatly affect the ability of the German army to function and would surely have been comented on by British and French intelligence.

At this moment in time both sides of the argument seem to be going over the same ground ironicaly in the same way that the allies and German army fought over the Somme battlfield in 1916 and 1918 at some stage both sides arrived back at the place they started.

[salesie]

Do you mind if I ask you, salesie, where do you think they are ?

It's about time you ventured an opinion of your own about the scale of these German losses, rather than taking refuge in trying to discredit the opinions of others.

Take a chance, stick your head over the parapet. Seven million, nine million, ten million casualties...three or four million dead...what say you ?

Phil (PJA)

The whole point of my stance on this, Phil, is that no one knows for certain the true extent of German casualties, especially if relying solely on German casualty stats - as I told Ralph, if no balance then every figure is suspect.

And, until someone provides viable German accounts, I tend to go with Occleshaw's reasoning when talking about the corroborative evidence from captured German paybooks used by British Military Intelligence i.e. "In human terms they make shocking reading: these cold figures mean that the hundreds of thousands of young German men aged twenty in 1917 had mostly been slaughtered, maimed or imprisoned and that the men of 1918 were undergoing the same fate. They should provide a stock answer to those who glory in the persistent argument that German losses were nearly always far lighter than the British."

And let's not forget, this was only one part of the corroborative evidence used by BMI. So, at the moment, I tend to loosely go with the estimate that says German dead were no less than 3 million, no more than 4 million, and that total casualties were proportionately higher as a result. But, although happy with this position, I am open to persuasion, so over to you, Phil, have you found the 5.5 million missing from the German balance-sheet yet?

By the way, KenS gave me food for thought earlier i.e. given that large tracts of German land were handed over to their former enemies at Versailles, were the villages, towns, cities etc. in these former German lands allowed by their new "masters" to build war memorials and write rolls of honour, regimental histories etc. and was the ZN et al allowed to update their lists in these areas? If not, could be a clue for you where to look for a good portion of the missing Germans?

But what the hell, you must all be crackers if you think I'm going to buy what you're peddling on such contradictory, incomplete and unbalanced data and rationales. I've said my piece, I'm back on the road tomorrow for a few days, so I'll leave you in peace trying to square the circle of the great German casualty mish-mash.

Cheers-salesie.

[Ken S.]

This whole issue of the unaccounted for 2+ million men was instigated by you after Phil questioned Edmonds' belief that the number of German dead should be "doubled" to 4 million. Given this and several other comments that you have made, it seems to me that you fundamentally agree with Edmonds: there is good reason to be skeptical of the manner in which the Germans calculated their casualties, and figures provided in (some) German regimental histories suggest that the number of German army's dead is somewhat higher than officially reported?

I don't know were they should be added, mate. That's the whole point, nobody knows - but they sure as hell need to be accounted for. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Cheers-salesie.

okay, you answered my question while I was mulling over how to compose this...

Edited 12 February , 2011 by Ken S.

[phil andrade]

So, at the moment, I tend to loosely go with the estimate that says German dead were no less than 3 million, no more than 4 million, and that total casualties were proportionately higher as a result.

Thanks for sticking your neck out a bit, salesie. You didn't seek to evade or equivocate, I must credit you with that.

You're advocating that the German official list understated the total of dead by at least one million, and the other casualties in proportion. That implies a total of at least ten million causalties, in contrast with the seven million officially tabulated. An understatement of at least three million....about as many as the entire casualties of the British Empire, and that was just the understatement,

Do you really believe that ?

Anyway, good luck with your travels.

Phil (PJA)

[Ken S.]

And what convinces you to "loosely go" with such an estimate?

And let's not forget, this was only one part of the corroborative evidence used by BMI. So, at the moment, I tend to loosely go with the estimate that says German dead were no less than 3 million, no more than 4 million, and that total casualties were proportionately higher as a result. But, although happy with this position, I am open to persuasion, so over to you, Phil, have you found the 5.5 million missing from the German balance-sheet yet?

What I'm saying is that these monuments show a general trend that is consistent with overall German dead being somewhat lower in WW1 than in WW2. The loss of territory wouldn't factor into this because we're simply looking at a general trend. But that does raise the issue of the use of foreigner and Volksdeutsch during WW2. I'm not sure just how much this would lower the German dead by, but let's say this makes in 5 million rather than 5.5 million dead during WW2. Given your high estimate of 4 million, there is only supposedly an 1 million difference between the two wars. That would mean in general throughout Germany when memorials list both WW1 and WW2 dead, the number of names for each war on average should be similar.

By the way, KenS gave me food for thought earlier i.e. given that large tracts of German land were handed over to their former enemies at Versailles, were the villages, towns, cities etc. in these former German lands allowed by their new "masters" to build war memorials and write rolls of honour, regimental histories etc. and was the ZN et al allowed to update their lists in these areas? If not, could be a clue for you where to look for a good portion of the missing Germans?

[phil andrade]

Throughout this thread I have been eager to emphasise that I would welcome being proved wrong. <BR><BR>The only statement that I have encountered that has challenged my belief in the essential soundness of the ZN compilation and the total of seven million casualties, including two million dead, is a reference to a census that indicated that between thirty five and thirty seven per cent of all German males born between 1892 and 1895 were killed in the war. This was cited in a book by Whalen,<B> Biiter Wounds, </B>that examines the effects of the Great War on German society in the inter war period. If that figure is correct, then I would have to think again.<BR><BR>Edit : Here's the passage, from Whalen's Bitter Wounds, page 41:<BR><BR>Between 1870 and 1899, about 16 million boys were born; all but a few served in the military, and some 13 per cent were killed. Certain year groups were devestated. A comparison of 1910 and 1919 census figures reveals a demographic catastrophe. Year groups 1892 - 1895, men who were between 19 and 22 when the war broke out were reduced by 35-37 per cent.<BR><BR>Note that the first statistic of 13% of the sixteen million boys endorses a total of two million deaths, but the figure cited for the 1892-95 group is way beyond that in its implications. Such an anomaly would be apparent in the verlust compilations, surely ? I suspect error here, but I must keep an open mind.<BR><BR>Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Something wrong with my editing format there, folks, sorry !

Phil (PJA)

[Ken S.]

Here are the numbers from a quick survey of an honor roll on the Denkmalprojekt:

The unit in question is I. Bataillon/Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 55

I count 1129 dead.

By year...

1870-1879: 15

1880: 8

1881: 6

1882: 15

1883: 16

1884: 27

1885: 31

1886: 33

1887: 41

1888: 46

1889: 77

1890: 67

1891: 74

1892: 126

1893: 116

1894: 120

1895: 71

1896: 86

1897: 69

1898: 48

1899: 36

1900: 1

I calculate 433 dead for the 1892 to 1895 birth years, so roughly 38% from this sample.

[salesie]

Thanks for sticking your neck out a bit, salesie. You didn't seek to evade or equivocate, I must credit you with that.

You're advocating that the German official list understated the total of dead by at least one million, and the other casualties in proportion. That implies a total of at least ten million causalties, in contrast with the seven million officially tabulated. An understatement of at least three million....about as many as the entire casualties of the British Empire, and that was just the understatement,

Do you really believe that ?

Anyway, good luck with your travels.

Phil (PJA)

No, Phil, no. Think balance-sheet i.e. three quarters of the proportionate wounded would have returned to service, so the total casualties (on the balance-sheet) if 3 million dead would be around 4.5 million, leaving an unaccounted-for number of around 4 million (down from 5.5 million). And if 4 million dead then the unaccounted-for would drop proportionately but still be considerable.

The figures still don't balance, so where are those unaccounted-for? Without an explanation for their disappearance, each and everyone of you who "preach the gospel" of German casualty stats being accurate are "worshipping craven images"; the figures you and others "preach" don't balance, why?

The $64.000 dollar question is, will Ralph find them in the VL? The £1,000,000 question is, will anyone find them anywhere in the German lists?

Cheers-salesie.

[Ken S.]

By comparison Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 78

sample: 3688

1869-1879: 356

1880: 108

1881: 140

1882: 188

1883: 195

1884: 231

1885: 242

1886: 230

1887: 163

1888: 174

1889: 154

1890: 142

1891: 140

1892: 103

1893: 114

1894: 148

1895: 187

1896: 372

1897: 139

1898: 35

1899: 21

1900: 2

1892 to 1895 birth years: 552/3688 = 15%

Edited 13 February , 2011 by Ken S.

[Ken S.]

Needless to say you have absolutely no basis for claiming that German war dead should be anywhere near four million, so that puts you in not position to be criticizing or taunting anyone.

No, Phil, no. Think balance-sheet i.e. three quarters of the proportionate wounded would have returned to service, so the total casualties (on the balance-sheet) if 3 million dead would be around 4.5 million, leaving an unaccounted-for number of around 4 million (down from 5.5 million). And if 4 million dead then the unaccounted-for would drop proportionately but still be considerable.

The figures still don't balance, so where are those unaccounted-for? Without an explanation for their disappearance, each and everyone of you who "preach the gospel" of German casualty stats being accurate are "worshipping craven images"; the figures you and others "preach" don't balance, why?

The $64.000 dollar question is, will Ralph find them in the VL? The £1,000,000 question is, will anyone find them anywhere in the German lists?

Cheers-salesie.

[Tom W.]

The figures still don't balance, so where are those unaccounted-for? Without an explanation for their disappearance, each and everyone of you who "preach the gospel" of German casualty stats being accurate are "worshipping craven images"; the figures you and others "preach" don't balance, why?

Cheers-salesie.

Here's a "craven" image for everyone to worship. Reminds me of my former boss, who would say, "Let me give you a pacific example."

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

And, until someone provides viable German accounts, I tend to go with Occleshaw's reasoning when talking about the corroborative evidence from captured German paybooks used by British Military Intelligence i.e. "In human terms they make shocking reading: these cold figures mean that the hundreds of thousands of young German men aged twenty in 1917 had mostly been slaughtered, maimed or imprisoned and that the men of 1918 were undergoing the same fate. They should provide a stock answer to those who glory in the persistent argument that German losses were nearly always far lighter than the British."

And let's not forget, this was only one part of the corroborative evidence used by BMI. So, at the moment, I tend to loosely go with the estimate that says German dead were no less than 3 million, no more than 4 million, and that total casualties were proportionately higher as a result. But, although happy with this position, I am open to persuasion, so over to you, Phil, have you found the 5.5 million missing from the German balance-sheet yet?

Cheers-salesie.

I was waiting for the Occleshaw moment. However, your argument is somewhat incomplete along these lines. I have voiced my opinions on the use of Paybooks as a means of tracking losses. It is simply to inexact and incomplete at best. Even if thousands of such documents were taken it only provides a bit of the overall intelligence picture.

Two items come to mind. In the Occleshaw section on losses and means of identifying them, etc. he mentions paybooks as being an excellent source and the basis for the quote above. However, the numbers of paybooks shown in a chart used in the book falls far short of the number of men actually captured so the big question is? Where were the rest of these valuable sources of information?

Second; it would seem that you have failed to read through the entire book or you would have found an additional section on this very issue. In the Evaluation section at the end of the book (something that appears to have been written by another person or Occleshaw's alter ego) there is a section relating to this very issue.

Now, taking the Evaluation section where the different methods of evaluating German losses was discussed. ‘By contrast GHQ arrived at its estimates of German losses through the study of captured paybooks. Although these provided a sound record of wastage of conscription classes they were by no means precise enough to render a sufficiently detailed guide to losses in a specific engagement: for that they needed to be regarded with a healthy degree of caution.’

The discussion continues for some length providing details on opinions of their usefulness, pro and con. Apparently Charteris was using these sources to provide evaluations on losses and the eventual German collapse. ‘Nevertheless, Charteris’s figures could give no indication of how many of the ‘missing’ men had been transferred to other formations or were on leave or absent for any other reason.’

On page 360 the following appeared: GHQ was persuaded to think again about the reliance on German paybooks, the shortcomings of which were bluntly underlined in the debates surrounding Haig's proposals for an offensive from Ypres that summer.'

The initial use of this source in the book was sensationalized at best. The presence of the later classes and higher Stammrolle numbers did not become equated with men being slaughtered or lost gy the hundreds of thousands, it simply gave a unique snapshotof that soldier and other details that could be used in an intelligence briefing, not to estimate all German losses. Why Occleshaw presented these two views in different sections does his work an injustice. Oddly enough the very concerns I voiced in earlier posts and threads seems to have been the same as the British during the war, how odd.

You may be quite pleased with your understanding of having so many more German dead as you seem to state if no one can balance the books then they must be dead. This would appear to be the basis of the argument as I read it. Sadly, nothing behind it other than a single statement. Oddly enough I believe I will present my points as I see them, you prove the extra dead existed and not by simply stating the numbers don't match so they must be dead.

I wonder if we were to look at the loss numbers for everyone else and see if all of the numbers match?

Ralph