German Casualty discussion

[Jack Sheldon]

Phil

Base rats, external to Germany and not in field units. Check your SanB - appears as 'Besatzungsheer'.

Jack

[Jack Sheldon]

Robert

The age profile of the German army tended to be higher, because of the very large number of reservists, men of the Landwehr etc deployed. Contrary to popular belief, it was the British who thrust into battle 18 year old conscripts with barely a qualm. There is clear evidence that, right to the end, the German army did everything possible to avoid exposing men of that age to the pressures of the Western Front. The feeling was that they lacked the strength and maturity for it.

Jack

[SiegeGunner]

Contrary to popular belief, it was the British who thrust into battle 18 year old conscripts with barely a qualm. There is clear evidence that, right to the end, the German army did everything possible to avoid exposing men of that age to the pressures of the Western Front.

Not just very young men, but inexperienced men in general. I have translated several accounts in which men from recruit depots were brought up to assist in the clear-up after major battles, with strict instructions being given that they were not to be deployed further forward than a specified point. Also numbers of instances where units imminently expecting to be attacked sent young and inexperienced soldiers to the rear to fetch something - usually flare cartridges and more hand grenades.

[Pete1052]

I will give you the considered opinion of my former boss, who was the specialist in infectious diseases ...

Ludendorff has a single sentence in his memoirs which states that the flu in 1918 contributed to the weakening of the German army. There was a thread on this about two years ago in which nobody was able to offer any compelling evidence that the flu was what caused Germany to lose the war.

[bmac]

As a matter of interest how many men were thought to be in the German Army in the autumn of 1918. i.e. what proportion of the total would 168,000 fatalities represent? In the previously mentioned article here this is the figure given as en estimate for the Spanish flu deaths within the German Army. This is said to represent 14% of the total under arms, i.e. 1.2 million. Is this number correct? I ask because of the stats given in this paragraph:

"It is said only Haig's Tommys remained unscathed by the Flu in September and October as if the Spring attack had created immunity to resist, though the British from mid October to Mid November had 62000 cases and 3600 deaths. This is compared to the American Expeditionary Force in France, with about 1/3 the number of men, there were 113,000 cases with 9,000 deaths.... The French Army had 132,000 cases with 10,000 deaths. It is difficult to get statistics of the German Army, but one estimate places the number at 14% of the 1.2 million men under arms-about 168000 deaths. Another source states that Germany suffered an estimated 2.75 million cases with 186,000 deaths in the military and 400,000 civilian deaths. The Canadian Army in Canada, Britain, and France had 45,960 cases with 776 deaths."

The disparity in these numbers is startling. Combining the BEF, AEF and French Army totals there were 307,000 cases of Spanish flu resulting in 22,600 deaths, a ratio of 1 death to every 14 cases. Within the entire Canadian Army, home and abroad, the ratio is 1 death to every 59 cases. If one applies the BEF, AEF, French ratio of deaths to cases to the German numbers then 2.35 million German soldiers might have been affected, twice the number of troops apparently available (if 1.2 million is the correct figure). Clearly there is something wrong here but the source given is 'History of the Canadian Forces' by McGinnis.

The article goes on:

"Did it affect the outcome or the length of the War? I could find no military authority who indicated that the Fall of Germany was brought on, even indirectly, by the Spanish Flu. McGinnis suggests that both sides suffered almost to the point of exhaustion"

It is difficult to equate this statement with the numbers given above and I suggest further research is needed into the accuracy of the German figures for the incidence and rate of fatalities amongst German troops. Otherwise, if these numbers are accurate, Spanish flu must have seriously undermined the ability of the German Army to resist effectively in the autumn of 1918. Given another statement that the pandemic brought both the French and German railwaya systems to a standstill then issues of supply to a severely weakened German Army can only have exacerbated the situation.

Is there a reliable/official (not necessarily the same thing) source for the rate of illness and fatalities within the German Army that might resolve this issue?

[phil andrade]

The death rate from flu in the German army was a drop in the ocean compared with the killing that Ludendorff exposed his men to in those 1918 offensives, particularly in March and April.

The statistics of the Reisarchiv, which Edmonds criticised as being too low, show a loss of life against the British front in the spring of 1918 that really does justify the use of the word "incredible".

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

Is there a reliable/official (not necessarily the same thing) source for the rate of illness and fatalities within the German Army that might resolve this issue?

Yes, there is a reliable breakdown of deaths by cause in those very ZN figures that we have commented on throughout this thread.

I hope that I do not appear too cocky in refuting the figure of 168,000 deaths from the influenza, but I think it's a mistake and alludes to all disease deaths in the German army for the entire war.

Here is a running total of confirmed deaths that might throw some light on this :

Confirmed killed/died of wounds ( not including missing) by December 31st 1916 : 914,924. Died from disease or other causes : 57,499.

By October 31st 1917, the figures had risen to 1,138,768 and 85,088 respectively, indicating a total of 27,589 deaths from disease etc. in ten months.

By May 31st 1919, twenty months later, and after the worst ravages of flu, the totals had risen to 1,531,048 and 155,013. In this period then, it is apparent that no more than seventy thousand men had died from all non battle causes. This clearly refutes the statement that 168,000 German soldiers died from the flu.

The only other authoratitive estimate for non battle deaths in the German army is :

Disease : 166,000

Accident : 13,470

Suicide : 5,106

Murder : 294

This does not, I believe, allow for the death of some fifty five thousand German POWs.

I assume that this is from the San B, since it is cited in Whalen's Bitter Wounds, which uses the San B as its source for casualty statistics. The caveat here is that these might not include deaths after July 31st 1918, which opens up scope for a great many more flu deaths.

On the strength of what I have been able to see in various sources, I feel that the figure of 168,000 German soldiers dying from flu is suspect. I would suggest that deaths from disease, for the entire war, did not amount to more than one tenth of the two million soldiers who died in the German army.

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

As a matter of interest how many men were thought to be in the German Army in the autumn of 1918. i.e. what proportion of the total would 168,000 fatalities represent? In the previously mentioned article here this is the figure given as en estimate for the Spanish flu deaths within the German Army. This is said to represent 14% of the total under arms, i.e. 1.2 million. Is this number correct? I ask because of the stats given in this paragraph:

"It is said only Haig's Tommys remained unscathed by the Flu in September and October as if the Spring attack had created immunity to resist, though the British from mid October to Mid November had 62000 cases and 3600 deaths. This is compared to the American Expeditionary Force in France, with about 1/3 the number of men, there were 113,000 cases with 9,000 deaths.... The French Army had 132,000 cases with 10,000 deaths. It is difficult to get statistics of the German Army, but one estimate places the number at 14% of the 1.2 million men under arms-about 168000 deaths. Another source states that Germany suffered an estimated 2.75 million cases with 186,000 deaths in the military and 400,000 civilian deaths. The Canadian Army in Canada, Britain, and France had 45,960 cases with 776 deaths."

The disparity in these numbers is startling. Combining the BEF, AEF and French Army totals there were 307,000 cases of Spanish flu resulting in 22,600 deaths, a ratio of 1 death to every 14 cases. Within the entire Canadian Army, home and abroad, the ratio is 1 death to every 59 cases. If one applies the BEF, AEF, French ratio of deaths to cases to the German numbers then 2.35 million German soldiers might have been affected, twice the number of troops apparently available (if 1.2 million is the correct figure). Clearly there is something wrong here but the source given is 'History of the Canadian Forces' by McGinnis.

The article goes on:

"Did it affect the outcome or the length of the War? I could find no military authority who indicated that the Fall of Germany was brought on, even indirectly, by the Spanish Flu. McGinnis suggests that both sides suffered almost to the point of exhaustion"

It is difficult to equate this statement with the numbers given above and I suggest further research is needed into the accuracy of the German figures for the incidence and rate of fatalities amongst German troops. Otherwise, if these numbers are accurate, Spanish flu must have seriously undermined the ability of the German Army to resist effectively in the autumn of 1918. Given another statement that the pandemic brought both the French and German railwaya systems to a standstill then issues of supply to a severely weakened German Army can only have exacerbated the situation.

Is there a reliable/official (not necessarily the same thing) source for the rate of illness and fatalities within the German Army that might resolve this issue?

The "under arms" total for the German Army is grossly understated, bmac. According to the British Statistical tome mentioned earlier in the thread, the German Army ration strength at 11/11/1918 was 4.2 million all fronts (including 300,000 on the Home Front), plus 800,000 reserves (including the class of 1920 of some 450,000). Some 5 million in total.

Given that no one, so far, has managed to find some 5.25 million unaccounted-for German soldiers (though I've just discovered the whereabouts of 1 million of them, only 4.25 million to go), good luck with finding a few thousand flu fatalities.

That said, is the latest lame excuse for German failure at arms really going to be the flu pandemic? Perhaps Ludendorff believed that the virus had been "delivered" to his troops by civilians at home?

Cheers-salesie.

[Pete1052]

One of the things I read about the German army during World War II was that it never has considered all personnel or organizations to be equal -- some units receive the best personnel and equipment, and other units are regarded as being of lesser quality. Probably the origin of this policy can be taken back to 1914-18. During WW II the Wehrmacht even had units consisting of men having the same medical conditions who required special medical attention and diets, who nevertheless could perform in a limited duty kind of way. Many of the antiaircraft defenses of Germany during WW II were manned by Hitler Jugend teenagers commanded by overage Great War-veteran NCOs. My point is that Germany tried to find uses for everyone rather than assuming everyone capable of making a contribution to the war effort was fit for service in an elite unit.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

Active regiments would receive the best of the equipment while many of the reserve units made do with the stocks at hand at the outbreak of war. Some received the M88 rifle, I have seen some artillery reserve units with older model carbines. If you look at the old photos reserve and Landwehr units often had a mix of equipment, older model ammunition pouches mixed with some newer, etc. Read Jack's latest book on Ypres 1914 and the difficulty in outfitting the new units being sent to the front as well as the trouble finding qualified NCO's and junior officers.

Reserve artillery units often had less guns than active units, the 10.5cm LFH was lacking in some if I recall correctly. During the war the resupply was made as needed and I have seen many photos where older equipment was still being used well into the war. In the XIV Reserve Corps they often weeded out men who were really unfit for trench duty and these men worked in the rear manufacturing items needed at the front. I suspect they worked even harder than front line troops in that aspect.

Ralph

[Pete1052]

I read that during War II the Wehrmacht combat arms got the best officers and men and those regarded as being less talented were sent to the support branches. When I was stationed there in 1978-81 a German captain told me the same policy was in effect and that he'd been forced into supply because he wasn't good enough for infantry or armor. (He didn't seem like a dummy to me.)

Perversely U.S. Army policy is the other way around and infantry is seen as a dumping ground for the less talented. A diagnosis of frostbite in an American soldier's medical record can be seen as a reason to discharge the guy because those who have had it are more likely to get it again in the future, thus making him non-deployable to cold-weather places like Korea. The U.S. one-size-fits-all personnel policy works during peacetime but not when the country needs all the guys it can get.

[Tom W.]

One of the things I read about the German army during World War II was that it never has considered all personnel or organizations to be equal -- some units receive the best personnel and equipment, and other units are regarded as being of lesser quality. Probably the origin of this policy can be taken back to 1914-18.

In World War I the most effective German units did indeed get the best weaponry and equipment. Also, men unfit for front-line duty were assigned to Landsturm units. Some Landsturm battalions and regiments had so many older and sickly men that the young men were organized into shock troops that carried out the normal patrolling.

[Pete1052]

Within the German army during the world wars the hierarchy of units was not only between the active and reserve components, it was within the divisions and battalions of the regular forces as well. During War II a few units were Panzer or Panzer-Grenadier but most others were foot infantry with horse-drawn field artillery and supply columns.

[phil andrade]

Given that no one, so far, has managed to find some 5.25 million unaccounted-for German soldiers (though I've just discovered the whereabouts of 1 million of them, only 4.25 million to go), good luck with finding a few thousand flu fatalities.

Cheers-salesie.

Why didn't we all think of that blindingly obvious reason to account for those missing two million dead German soldiers ?

Yes...of course ! They were all melted down to make fats and soap in those corpse factories. No wonder only 903,000 of them were buried in France and Belgium.

Seriously, I suspect that the missing millions from your balance sheet stem from your failure to allow for in excess of a million and a half who were invalided out not by wounds, but by sickness; even more so, the number of rear area personel not included in the Field Army - perhaps two million ( see Jack's post about the Wurtemburgers in post 369 : 250,000 in the field army, more than 100,000 in the rear areas, and that was July 1918). Then there were the huge numbers of deserters mentioned by Groener in the final weeks of the war. Your millions are accounted for, salesie.

Bill : I was wrong in suggesting that the San B. returned 166,000 sickness deaths by July 31 1918 ... it gave a precise count of 140,302 deaths from disease or accidental injury up until that date, implying that the 166,000 disease deaths mentioned in my post were for the entire war. This is corroborated by that official figure from the ZN at the end of May 1919.

Phil (PJA)

[Latze]

Hi all,

the number of flu cases - or to be really correct - number of personnel diagnosed with flu is given in the SanB as:

March: 15,037

April: 16,993

May: 28,240

June: 135,002

July: 374,524

These are only western front figures for 1918. More data can be found on p 29* of the SanB.

regards

Matt

[Latze]

Regarding the theory that a huge number of German dead were not reported or are somehow missing there is another aspect I think should be adressed by those subscribing to said theory.

The German government was unable to adequatly care for war graves after the war in the way the British, French or US government could. Therefore several civilian, private organisations came into existence:

For example in Bavaria "Deutscher Kriegsgräber-Schutzbund", in Brunswick the "Verein zur Erforschung und Erhaltung Deutscher Kriegsgräber e. V.", in Saxonia the "Deutsche Kriegsgräber-Interessenten-Vereinigung" und in Westphalia "Bund Heimatdank". All these later merged into "Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge". Involved in this various movements were of course some nationalist, monarchist, reactionary elements but also the SPD, trade unions and for example Walter Rathenau. The question is: if there was an attempt to hide some two million graves how was it done? There was not one state controlled agency that could manipulate numbers but several thousand activists looking for graves...

regards

Matt

[Latze]

As promised earlier the census data from the Prussian yearbook with breakdown according to age. Because I am a lazy guy I just give the difference for male persons between the 1910 and 1919 census and only the 'interesting' stuff. Everybody who wants to have the whole table just contact me and I supply it but I cannot bring it down to 100kB.

There is a huge birth gap due to the war:

0-1 year: -178,100

1-2 years: -218,293

2-3 years: -227,305

3-4 years: -179,432

15-16 years: +50,364

16-17 years: +46,948

17-18 years: +53,846

18-19 years: +53,821

19-20 years: +35,606

20-21 years: +6,345

21-22 years: -922

22-23 years: -23,001

23-24 years: -32,649

24-25 years: -44,437

25-30 years: -161,486

30-35 years: -106,189

35-40 years: +18,369

40-45 years: +181,995

regards

Matt

[bmac]

the number of flu cases - or to be really correct - number of personnel diagnosed with flu is given in the SanB as:

March: 15,037

April: 16,993

May: 28,240

June: 135,002

July: 374,524

These are only western front figures for 1918. More data can be found on p 29* of the SanB.

Matt,

Do the numbers run out in July? I ask as the peak of the pandemic seems to have been October-November and, at 569,000, the numbers you give here already exceed the Allied total from my previous post. In fact, the July figure alone does that (unless, of course, these figures are cumulative rather than reports of new cases for each month).

Bill

[phil andrade]

Well done, Matt !

No doubt about it, there is corroboration of the inordinate loss of males born in the years 1892 to 1895.

I am very intrigued at Jack's sugestion that the Germans husbanded their youngsters more diligently than their British counterparts. It makes me feel that there was a welfare agenda extant in Germany that was reflected in the military, and was practiced more conspicuously than was the case in British armies. Perhaps continental warfare from the days of Frederick the Great through the Napoleonic era and into the times of Bismark and beyond had taught German people to nurture their young males. A bit controversial of me..shall I head for the door ?

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

It might not necessarily have been a welfare agenda. it could quite simply be that they felt youngsters wouldn't stand the strain too well and become a liability.

[Latze]

Matt,

Do the numbers run out in July? I ask as the peak of the pandemic seems to have been October-November and, at 569,000, the numbers you give here already exceed the Allied total from my previous post. In fact, the July figure alone does that (unless, of course, these figures are cumulative rather than reports of new cases for each month).

Bill

Hi Bill,

yes, the numbers in SanB are only given for those months for which records exist. There are no estimates given for later months. I think that the numbers are 'new cases' as the table is headed with Krankenzugang = influx or addition.

regards

Matt

[bmac]

A 1 in 5 death rate as suggested in my previous post amongst the German Army and population (i.e. 586,000 deaths out of 2.75 million cases) suggest an overall level of illness within the German Army of c. 930,000, i.e. three times the level of Allies. It also suggests at least another 360,000 cases from August to the end of the pandemic.

[phil andrade]

Bill,

That figure of 166,000 disease deaths in the German army was taken from the research of Boris Urlanis, who wrote an elaborate compendium of mortality rates in warfare, published as Bilanz der Kreige in Berlin in 1965.

Furthermore, the same authority gave figures for deaths from the various diseases that afflicted the German army in the Great War. The biggest killer was lung disease ( 47,000 deaths) , followed by influenza with 14,000 deaths. Here is a huge disparity : a statement that the flu killed fewer than one tenth the number of German soldiers than the figure cited in your post. It does seem rather low, doesn't it ? But it is also born out by the ZN return of May 31 1919.

Editing : those successive ZN figures that I cited earleir indicate a death rate from disease etc averaging 2,750 per month in the ten months between January 1st and October 31st 1917. The twenty months between that date and the compilation of May 31st 1919 indicates an increase to an average of 3,500 per month, which produces an increase of fifteen thousand : a figure which lends strength to the Urlanis figure of 14,000 influenza deaths.

Phil (PJA)

[Robert Dunlop]

The age profile of the German army tended to be higher, because of the very large number of reservists, men of the Landwehr etc deployed.

Thank you, Jack. Anecdotally, there are accounts from British soldiers and officers commenting on the increasing youthfulness of captured German soldiers in the final months of the war. Your point, backed up by Mick's comment, is very helpful in putting this into perspective.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

...the peak of the pandemic seems to have been October-November and, at 569,000, the numbers you give here already exceed the Allied total from my previous post.

Bill, Matt answered your other questions. On the 'peak', it seems as if there were different 'peaks'. The German army may have been affected earlier, from what I have read. If so then the numbers would have tailed off rather than continue to increase in parallel with the cases in the Allied armies.

Robert