German Casualty discussion

[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

Come off it, Ralph, you know as well as I do that I dealt with the problems of Charteris' assessments earlier in the thread - you either have a very short memory or a selective one. The bottom line is that German conscription classes were being called-up earlier and earlier to replace losses, if the war had dragged on the logic of such a trend would be what, primary-school graduates being called-up? The known state of Germany's manpower situation by the end is not in dispute, so why doesn't its casualty stats balance with the end-result?

And for you to claim that said paybook assessments are from too narrow a data base to be of any use is, quite frankly, laughable - the graph Occleshaw used was but for one Company from one battalion and used as an example, there were literally many hundreds of thousands of German paybooks captured by the allies from numerous units; by your own admission your own research is even more restricted in quantity and scope, your own data base is far smaller, almost minuscule in comparison. Do I smell a whiff of hypocrisy and/or desperation?

Cheers-salesie.

PS. Salesie has left the building for a few days, but I'll be back.

[Jack Sheldon]

Ralph, Tom, Ken, Phil, Salesie, Bill and Robert

You appear to be the last men still on your feet in this particular debate. We have been exposed to claim, counter claim and figures for all tastes, but are no closer to a consensus ad idem. Could it be that the reason for this is, as Leo Tolstoy once remarked,

"The simplest concept cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man,if he is firmly persuaded that he knows

already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him'?

Jack

[Steven Broomfield]

Very true, Jack. I wonder if we should acquire a Peace Envoy; is Mr Blair available?

On the subject of the apparent millions of 'missing' (or unaccounted-for) soldiers - those who enlsited but were not dead or in service by November 1918 - I wonder if my paternal grandfather is an example?

He volunteered in February 1915, was enrolled in The Hampshire Regiment, given a Regimental Number, had his photo taken in (probably borrowed) khaki and looked quite the thing.

In March, 1915, he was back home, having been discharged under King's Regs as Unlikely ever to make an efficient soldier. In fine copperplate, the medical offcier has writen a rider: Flat feet and hammer toes. I share this blot on the family escutcheon merely to point out that there must have been a few like my granddad..

[Latze]

Hi all,

the living occupied my time in the last few days so I had to read up but know I am back here in the land of the dead (and missing)

Ralph posted one question that I really think is important but as yet there was no answer and possible it was overlooked: What was the exact question posed to Dr. Zoske?

Besides I have put my scans of SanB on my DropBox account. If anybody still wants to have them just contact me. Also I have got the Prussian statistical year books mentioned in the SanB from the library and will scan them on monday and distribute to interested parties. I am still hunting for the US war department report quoted by McRandle and Quirk but it seems elusive.

regards

Matt

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

I see the question of providing any proofs of the so-called missing millions is lacking once again. Not every soldier captured or killed had his documents with him. We found them in situ on the bodies discovered in archaeological digs a few years back. The paybooks do supply key elements of intelligence but a limited scope as they only relate to knowing the class, service particulars, etc. and cannot be addressed to the wider loss numbers. The issue of replacing classes earlier than normal is a given, the discussion, as I perceive it, is to discuss the so-called casualty debate on the Somme numbers. While this has expanded again, the issue is that we are talking on two different points. If you had already mentioned this portion then I apologize, I am not re-reading the threads for every response. If you had mentioned them then why add the quote without it to the recent response?

I have never suggested that German losses and the drain on manpower was growing worse each year and that if the war did not end when it did the Germans would not have been capable of continuing to supply the field army.

Now, let's discuss the issue recently raised that the German dead number between 3 and 4 million with similar percentage increases of the other categories. Even if we take the lower of the two numbers, 3,000,000 men and then we look at the wounded, missing, etc. and add 50% to these as well then the British government has some explaining. Using the logic that all numbers rise in a similar fashion on the higher death count then the prisoners taken should be 50% higher so where are these men? Were they killed and the bodies hidden to cover up the missing numbers? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. The British statistical book tells us so and for lack of any credible information tothe opposite it is a study I can accept at face value.

Now in looking at several portions of that book it seems the charts all add up. So do the charts in the SanB so if we are to compare the SanB numbers (by those who have never even seen it) to other lists and sources then the same applies to the British statistical works. The size and good math skills of the authors does not make for a credible book, it makes for an accurate book. The numbers presented in the SanB come from credible sources and the authors who took about a decade to complete their work during one of the worst economic periods of time in the country's history, a time when resources should have been put into other areas of need. Under these circumstances the men made every attempt to be accurate with the information they had. They also pointed out any problems or issues in regard to the information for each section. This is what I would expect so that in looking at any charts or numbers you get all the information needed to apply to your conclusions. The fact that not all papers were available or had some periods missing does not negate the entire work as some would have you believe.

Salesie, it would be nice to have an open discussion without sarcastic remarks when a valid argument is called for so in the same vein stop being so obtuse. The call up of classes before their time and the numbers do not add up so all are wrong is simply not answers. Where is the detail behind the assertions? You have accused me of supplying minimal and useless examples of the ideas put forth on this thread and others. Seeing the trees and not the forest. Well, the trees make up the forest and without looking at them you cannot understand the larger picture. Oddly I have yet to see any examples from you at all.

Ralph

P.S. Starting a response with 'Come off it, Ralph' is not something you would expect on a scholarly discussion and not likely to keep an open discussion, or is that the point?

[Robert Dunlop]

...I have got the Prussian statistical year books mentioned in the SanB from the library and will scan them on monday and distribute to interested parties.

Thanks Matt. This is another piece of the jigsaw. I would be interested in some sample pages please. You mentioned in another post that there were regular reports from medical services, such as hospitals (?Krankenhausrapporte). Have you ever seen examples of these?

Robert

[phil andrade]

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.

Thanks for this, Ken. You've worked hard, and that sort of investigation is really what we need,

I take it that you appreciate the significance of the 35-37 per cent total that was cited. This refers to the total number of Germans born between 1892 and 1895, and implies that well over one third of them were killed in the war. It is a staggering figure : indeed, it's so extreme that I'm inclined to doubt its provenance.

Let me play "Devil's Advocate" here...if I was to argue in favour of supporting Edmonds in his calculations of German casualties, that reference to the 1892-1895 male generation would be the one that I would espouse to fight my corner.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

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.

Cheers-salesie.

Salesie,

Your argument is flawed.

The two million dead officially counted were accompanied by 4.2 milion wounded; those wounded include the slight cases that returned to duty. By the same criterion, an incease of fifty per cent in the dead would raise the wounded to 6.3 million, and the total casualties to over ten million, allowing for more than 900,000 prisoners.

If the dead reached four million, then the wounded would be 8.4 million : in fact, all the soldiers in the army would be dead, or be in prisoner of war camps, or would have been wounded more or less severely : and this would not take into account all those invalided out through sickness,

Parlous thought the state of German manpower was, I don't think that even you would suggest it had got that bad.

You're probably on the road now, you mischief making blighter, so you will escape being held to account for such ludicrous statements.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Hi all,

the living occupied my time in the last few days so I had to read up but know I am back here in the land of the dead (and missing)

Ralph posted one question that I really think is important but as yet there was no answer and possible it was overlooked: What was the exact question posed to Dr. Zoske?

Besides I have put my scans of SanB on my DropBox account. If anybody still wants to have them just contact me. Also I have got the Prussian statistical year books mentioned in the SanB from the library and will scan them on monday and distribute to interested parties. I am still hunting for the US war department report quoted by McRandle and Quirk but it seems elusive.

regards

Matt

Great to have you on board, Matt.

Could you find out about German War Graves data, please ?

I try and contact them, but without the ability to speak German it's hard to get the results.

I do know that 900,000 German dead are interred in military cemeteries in France and Belgium from 1914-1918. We need to address the size of the number of those who were never recovered for burial. We know that in the most intensely fought over sectors on the British front, one quarter of the British Empire dead were lost entirely i.e, a number that equates to roughly one third of the number who were buried, whether identified or not. By the same criterion, we might expect an additional 300,000 German dead remain urecovered, implying a total of 1.2 million. I would think that the proportion of unrecovered German dead would be higher, equating to more than half the total of bodies that were found. By any reckoning, it's hard to imagine that more than 1.5 million German dead remain there, buried or not. Note that Churchill estimates the total at 1,494,000 - a figure that suggests he was trying hard to ensure that he did not understate the German loss.

If we accept this maximum of 1.5 million German dead for the Western Front, bearing in mind the great preponderance of the German loss that occurred there compared with the other theatres, how can we reconcile this with a total much in excess of the two million official total, let alone the three or four million estimates ?

Where are the bodies ?

Phil (PJA)

[Robert Dunlop]

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.

bill24chev, you have raised a very interesting analogy. It triggered some interesting thoughts. Please forgive any mistakes in the following.

From an accounting perspective, it is as if each country was a company. Any audit process should be applied equally to Great Britain PLC and Germany GmbH. The enormous tragedy is that the trading currency was human lives. Each company started with an enormous pool of human reserves. The human capital was divided into a current account, a 90-day fund, and then a sets of funds that fell due at different periods of time - 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc.

There was no income, only expenditure. The expenses fell into two categories: temporary loans (ie a soldier was wounded but returned after a time - perhaps there is a better term than 'loan') and permanent spend (soldiers who died, were too injuried to continue, or transferred to other roles). The only way to generate 'revenue' was to form consortia with other similar companies. This did not change the fundamental business process.

The goal of each company was to put the other company out of business. In the absence of any revenue, each company had to destroy the assets of the other. In essence, the enemy company would only go out of business when the human capital was reduced beyond a critical threshold. To destroy assets, a company had to spend from its current savings account and draw down from its reserves.

Each company needed to understand what was happening to its capital. Transactions (wounding, KIA, return to the line, etc) were recorded on a regular basis. Transaction data was aggregated into a range of reports. The range of reports included: a cashflow (to ensure there was enough resource in the front lines); profit and loss (well, loss really); balance sheet; and management accounts. As you know, each report serves a different purpose. Comparing one type of report with a different type can lead to serious problems from an accounting perspective.

Each company needed to understand what was happening to its competitors. At the very least, the information could inform how and how much internal resources were to be 'spent'.

In Germany GmbH, raw transaction data was aggregated into the Verlustlisten. I am not sure what the accounting equivalent would be. VL were published in the public domain. Britain PLC based their understanding of the German 'spend' on VL. Other data (and inferences) were used to work out what was happening to the level of reserves.

Throughout a series of threads, there has been an accusation that employees and/or directors of Germany GmbH cooked the books (or used 'creative' accounting). This accusation has been directed at two areas. Firstly, the accuracy of the transaction aggregates (VL). More specifically, perhaps, that the transaction data was incomplete compared with Britain PLC, who included the category of lightly wounded. Secondly, the final balance sheet (after all accruals had been factored in - no deferred income) was deliberately cooked.

Robert

[phil andrade]

To coin that saying, in a most tasteless way ..SHOW ME THE MONEY !

Where are the bodies ?

If German War Graves data indicate three or four million dead from 1914-1918, either buried or recorded as missing, then I'll accept that Edmonds was right.

In the meantime, I'll stick with the two million.

Phil (PJA)

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Just some more details for those who would like to see the examples of losses and statistics. These relate to the Württemberg contingent and were prepared from data from the Württemberg Zentralnachweiseamts from the files of the Württemberg Kriegsministeriums. I am not sure if this was already mentioned but the VL were published from data sent in by the different Zentralnachweiseamts of the German states and combined to form the VL publications. I hope these lists are large enough to read, if not I will try something completely different.

Ralph

[Jack Sheldon]

Phil

Please do not bring the Deutsche Kriegsgraeberfuersorge into the debate. They are meant to be neutral and concerned solely with issues such as (Deutsche Kriegsgraeberstaetten im Westen p 9), 'What became of the almost two million German war dead, who fell on the Western, Eastern or Southern Fronts - in Belgium, France, Italy, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Russia and in the far reaches of the Ottoman Empire, as well as in the former German colonies in Africa'? The remainder of the book goes on to explain, so please do not suggest to them that they have been tackling only half the job for the past 92 years; they are busy enough as it is.

Jack

[phil andrade]

They obviously haven't read Edmonds, then.

Phil (PJA)

[Jack Sheldon]

As you say, mon ami.

Jack

[Latze]

Thanks Matt. This is another piece of the jigsaw. I would be interested in some sample pages please. You mentioned in another post that there were regular reports from medical services, such as hospitals (?Krankenhausrapporte). Have you ever seen examples of these?

Robert

Robert,

the reports you are thinking of are the Truppenkrankenrapporte. I do not have the opportunity to do research in the archives. So, no, I haven't seen those. As far as I understand these records are the ones destroyed in WW2. Maybe Jack knows if there are some extant in the Munich, Stuttgart or Dresden archives. If you just want to know how these looked: the form is supplied in sanB, Vol III, p. 2.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

Great to have you on board, Matt.

Could you find out about German War Graves data, please ?

I try and contact them, but without the ability to speak German it's hard to get the results.

I do know that 900,000 German dead are interred in military cemeteries in France and Belgium from 1914-1918. We need to address the size of the number of those who were never recovered for burial. We know that in the most intensely fought over sectors on the British front, one quarter of the British Empire dead were lost entirely i.e, a number that equates to roughly one third of the number who were buried, whether identified or not. By the same criterion, we might expect an additional 300,000 German dead remain urecovered, implying a total of 1.2 million. I would think that the proportion of unrecovered German dead would be higher, equating to more than half the total of bodies that were found. By any reckoning, it's hard to imagine that more than 1.5 million German dead remain there, buried or not. Note that Churchill estimates the total at 1,494,000 - a figure that suggests he was trying hard to ensure that he did not understate the German loss.

If we accept this maximum of 1.5 million German dead for the Western Front, bearing in mind the great preponderance of the German loss that occurred there compared with the other theatres, how can we reconcile this with a total much in excess of the two million official total, let alone the three or four million estimates ?

Where are the bodies ?

Phil (PJA)

Phil,

sure, if you send me the questions in plain English I will translate and forward them. No problem.

regards

Matt

edit: I just read what Jack had to say on this, if you want to go ahead I am still willing to help but please frame your questions carefully.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

A last thought for today. If one reads the preface of vol XV part 2 of the US medical history one gets the impression that not only the German army was struggling with the task of record keeping.

good night and good luck

Matt

[Ken S.]

Indeed it is quite high. I have done a little more investigating in this respect. I consulted my Hohenzollerisches Gedenkbuch (HG) to see whether or not if there is any inclination of this possibly being the case. Again, it's only a very limited sample from a specific region.

The HG presumably lists every (male ?) individual with ties (?) to the region who saw service in the war (c. 14,000); entries usually include birth date, birthplace, unit, medals, casualty (in terms of wounded, how many times in some cases). Sometimes birth date or unit information is not given, more likely the latter than the former. The information was apparently derived (in part) from surveys sent to the individual communities. (In the forward it does mention that some were not returned, but that this "missing" information would only alter the numbers "very slightly".) In terms of how accurate the information contained in the books is, I can't say yet (I intend at some point to compare the dead indentifed as members of Fusilier Regiment Nr. 40 with that of the honor roll in the regimental history), so for what it's worth:

community, total names, names w/ birth year, men from 1892-95, of those dead

Ablach 85, 78, 12, 2

Achberg 142, 141, 16, 6

Berenthal 71, 71, 16, 6

Beuren (?) 138, 138, 27, 8

Billasingen 34, 34, 5, 3

Bingen 205, 205, 38, 8

Bittelschiess 34, 34, 5, 1

Burgau 7, 6, 3, 2

Deutwang 36, 36, 7, 4

Dietershofen 28, 28, 4, 2

Einhart 42, 42, 9, 6

Ettisweiler 23, 23, 3, 2

Gaisweiler 24, 21, 1, 0

Glashuette 31, 31, 12, 5

Habstal 39, 38, 8, 5

total names: 939

with birth year given: 926

from 1892 - 95: 166

died: 60 = 36%

So 36% of the 1892 - 95 males who enlisted in this sample died due to their service. Question is what percentage of the 1892 - 95 males do these 166 represent from the communities listed?

I take it that you appreciate the significance of the 35-37 per cent total that was cited. This refers to the total number of Germans born between 1892 and 1895, and implies that well over one third of them were killed in the war. It is a staggering figure : indeed, it's so extreme that I'm inclined to doubt its provenance.

[Jack Sheldon]

Ken raises an important cautionary note. The liklihood of a man's death depended also on where he served and with what type of unit. There were quiet parts of all fronts where weeks might go by without a single fatal casualty and, even as far as active units were concerned, from an examination of some of those which include a roll of honour linked to regimental actions, it can often be seen that losses were concentrated into quite short periods of the war. So luck came into it as well.

Interesting to relate, the history of 26th Res Div Part 1 by General der Inf von Soden (p173) comments that, ' ... the figures show that, in general,fatal loses in the reserve regiments were lower than those of the actve regiments. This may be because they tended to be used more in the ground holding role, than were the active ones ... '

Jack

[Robert Dunlop]

...the reports you are thinking of are the Truppenkrankenrapporte.

Ah, thanks for that correction Matt. For some reason I had thought these were returns from front line units. Do you happen to know what those reports were called? I am thinking of the regular reports that were sent in by the various levels of headquarters.

Robert

[phil andrade]

So 36% of the 1892 - 95 males who enlisted in this sample died due to their service. Question is what percentage of the 1892 - 95 males do these 166 represent from the communities listed?

What excellent research, Ken, and what a startling result !

We must be wary how much we extrapolate from this one sample.

This could be grist to the Edmonds mill.

Thanks, effort much appreciated !

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Phil,

sure, if you send me the questions in plain English I will translate and forward them. No problem.

regards

Matt

edit: I just read what Jack had to say on this, if you want to go ahead I am still willing to help but please frame your questions carefully.

regards

Matt

A kind offer, Matt, appreciated and gratefully accepted.

Please find out :

How many German military dead from 1914-18 buried in the theatres of war :

1. Western Front : France and Belgium ?

2. Eastern Front : Poland, Russia, Baltic Republics, Ukraine ?

3. Balkan Front : Romania, Serbia ?

4. Italy ?

5. Middle East : Turkey and Palestine ?

6. Africa ?

7. China?

8. Germany itself ?

This is a tall order, so I hope you do not think me presumptuous.

I expect that a large number of wounded soldiers were evacuated back to Germany and died in hospitals there.

This will not address the number of dead who were never recovered for burial, and we must allow for naval personel, too.

The trauma of WW2, division and reunification might make the excercise difficult, perhaps impossible.

Whatever the figures, they might throw light on the claims made by some on this forum.

Phil (PJA)

[Jack Sheldon]

Very interesting tables, Ralph. It inspired me to look at the Wuerttemberg official history and I see that Moser, on p 105 states that, 'of a total population of 2.5 million, more than 20%,about 550,000, were called up. It lost in fallen about 2,500 officers and over 80,000 men, 300 of whom served with the air force. The Wuerttembergers also suffered almost 200,000 wounded, amongst whom, certain courageous individuals were wounded up to eight times'.

Of course these are approximations, but they bear out what you have posted and also enable more to be said about proportions of served, killed&missing and wounded, because this is a fairly large sample and Wuerttemberg formations and units served in a wide variety of situations.

Jack

[phil andrade]

Thanks for that, Jack. A very rough extrapolative excercise, applying the per capita death rate cited above to the overall German population of circa 65 million conforms to the two million figure for deaths that official inventories published. Anything comparable citing population and death rolls for Bavaria ?

Phil (PJA)