Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

German Casualty discussion


Ralph J. Whitehead

Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting that list Jack, as well as giving the explanation of the headings. It is a good example of knowing what the charts are trying to show. In the number of wounded it does not indicate the same number of men as numerous soldiers suffered more than one wound during the war. I doubt the SanB staff or anyone now would have the time to go through each name one by one and follow through with each entry for the entire war and they had the records at hand which we do not even if they all still existed. Still, it provides what it was designed for, the numbers of wounds.

I did some checking on loss numbers for the 26th Reserve Division. The division was on the Somme, in part on both sides of the Ancre until 4 July and until 10 October on the northern bank. Of course the 28th Division that was relieved early on in July did return for the October fighting near Grandcourt and some of the 26th Reserve Division troops fought at Mouquet Farm and Thiepval in September as well. The total losses given by the RA (I believe it is their chart) was 277 officers, 12,930 men for a total of 13,207. They do not however indicate fatal losses, wounds (Severe, slight or those who remained with their units), prisoners, injured, missing, etc.

We can recreate the list of killed for the most part through other sources including post-war regimental rolls of honour. Perhaps one day one of us will have the time to see how many can be determined. Also, some regimentals do indicate losses by category for different periods of fighting but I believe this applies for only a few.

First time on the Somme, 23 June through 3 July. RIR 110 shows 9 officers, 184 OR killed, 12 officers, 385 OR wounded and 8 officers, 491 OR missing. Of the 8 missing officers 4 were found to have been killed or died from wounds. I believe I can supply the fate of many of the 491 OR and will do so shortly.

RIR 110 in the second insertion into the Somme battle, 6-25 October 1916.

7 officers, 183 OR killed, 7 officers, 491 OR wounded, 484 OR missing. Some of the missing men could be determined from lists published before the alphabetical change, the others will require tracing each name on each list until their entries are found. If anyonehas looked at the VL for early August I posted in an earlier thread they can see whay this might be very time consuming as the 30+ pages of names in three columns per page list the losses being reported for a single day.

RIR 109 and RIR 111 did not have similar data.

Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a chart of German casualties during the war, gross numbers on the vertical axis and years by month horizontally. We'd need at least four lines for the casualties: the British Official History, Churchill's figures, the Verlustlisten, and the Sans Bereicht. Then perhaps these discrepancies could be understood and explained in a more understandable way. To me the German conspiracy points of view are silly, but that being said the Germans do indeed screw up now and then, such as starting the two world wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to the SanB Phil. There is a paragraph at the foot of p 13 of Vol III which says that the difference of 508,723 dead and missing are 'easily explained', in that reports for the final four months which produced a great many casualties were not received by the compilers in the normal manner, but that they were gradually made good by the Zentralnachweiseamt as information was received later and was incorporated and once they could count in the number who died in captivity. It goes on to say that this is shown by the fact that the final figures of 31 Dec 33 include a further 279,842 dead and 113,587 PW and missing: 393,429 altogether compared with 31 Dec 18.

Jack

There is a significant discrepancy in the tabulation you were kind enough to post, Jack, and the monthly totals provided by the San B. By the end of 1915, the chart shows us that more than 2.5 million battle casualties had been sustained. But the totals of the San B. for all fronts comes to a good deal less than that figure. The disparity is in the order of a quarter of a million. I can't escape the conclusion that this is due in the main to an understatement of the 1914 casualties in the San B.

The reichsarchiv compilations for the Western Front used by Churchill cite lower casualties than the San B for the entire period of the war except for the first six months, when the figure is estimated at nearly 850,000 compared with the 705,000 tabulated in the San B.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a significant discrepancy in the tabulation you were kind enough to post, Jack, and the monthly totals provided by the San B. By the end of 1915, the chart shows us that more than 2.5 million battle casualties had been sustained. But the totals of the San B. for all fronts comes to a good deal less than that figure. The disparity is in the order of a quarter of a million. I can't escape the conclusion that this is due in the main to an understatement of the 1914 casualties in the San B.

The reichsarchiv compilations for the Western Front used by Churchill cite lower casualties than the San B for the entire period of the war except for the first six months, when the figure is estimated at nearly 850,000 compared with the 705,000 tabulated in the San B.

Phil (PJA)

Hi Phil,

just shooting from the hip here: the SanB explicitly states that the records for 1914 are incomplete and makes no attempt to fill the lack of records with estimates but a percentage is given for the likely number 'missing casualties' is provided. I think that it is 10% for August and September and 7% to the end of the year. I will look that up.

regards

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Matt, that is very helpful : it would increase the total by the end of 1914 by about fifty to fifty five thousand. Significant indeed, but not enough to account for the apparent two hundred plus thousand that are not included by the end of 1915.

I note that the table provided by Jack includes deaths from disease and all other causes, but this was a surprisingly small proportion, probably less than five per cent of all deaths by that time.

Edit : As an aside, but pertinent to this thread, we might reflect on the fact that by the end of 1915, the French official total of casualties came to 1,962,000, of whom 1,001,000 were killed, died or missing, This makes a striking comparison with the German inventory, which shows that by that time some 2,550,000 casualties had been sustained, of whom about 950,000 were posted as dead or missing. I think Jack alludes to this in his book on the Germans at Vimy The similarity in the numbers of dead/missing stand in contrast to the fact that the Germans reported many more wounded ( more than two thirds in excess) than the French. This must be largely attributable to the fact that the French had lost many more prisoners than the Germans at that point, which was bound to inflate their number of missing, but it also suggests that, in these compilations, it was the French rather than the Germans who failed to report lightly wounded.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a significant discrepancy in the tabulation you were kind enough to post, Jack, and the monthly totals provided by the San B. By the end of 1915, the chart shows us that more than 2.5 million battle casualties had been sustained. But the totals of the San B. for all fronts comes to a good deal less than that figure. The disparity is in the order of a quarter of a million. I can't escape the conclusion that this is due in the main to an understatement of the 1914 casualties in the San B.

The reichsarchiv compilations for the Western Front used by Churchill cite lower casualties than the San B for the entire period of the war except for the first six months, when the figure is estimated at nearly 850,000 compared with the 705,000 tabulated in the San B.

Phil (PJA)

For the sake of clarity, Phil, (I'm not trying to trip you up), are you saying that the twelve monthly SanitatsB totals for 1915 add up to a quarter of a million fewer casualties than the sum of the cumulative total given for 31/12/1915 minus that given for 31/12/1914?

Cheers-salesie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

One of the reasons for the high number of French fatalities at that period was that their medical services were woefully deficient in the early days; literally a bloody disgrace - hence all the efforts of the American volunteer amblance service, who took enormous personal risks to improve the casevac chain, but not before staggering numbers had died unnecessarily.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, indeed, yes, Jack.

And what's more, the nature of the Battle of the Frontiers, with catastrophic French defeats and consequential routs and retreats, meant that the deficiencies of their medical services were compounded. On a single day - August 22 1914, the French are supposed to have lost twenty seven thousand in dead alone. I wonder how many of them were abandoned wounded who might well have survived had the French retained the field in these early battles. The prodigality of French infantry tactics, and the lethal efficiency of German infantry and artillery acting in conjunction ( Zuber influences me here) also account for the very high number of killed suffered by France in those days. Incidentally, there is another striking feature here : the official return of French casualties for September 1914 gives 210,000 casualties, but of these only 18,000 were posted as killed : there were, however, 82,000 missing and the wounded obviously numbered c.110,000. Might this also be a feature of the San B....relatively low numbers returned as killed, but huge numbers of dead concealed among the missing ? It might be instructive here to compare this French September 1914 figure with its counterpart from the San B. For September 1914, Western Front only, the San B. German figure is very close to that of the French ; a total of over 201,000, comprising 25,894 killed in action, 130,430 wounded and 45,587 missing. Significantly, the French killed amount to only one sixth of their wounded, whereas the German figure is one fifth : a reversal of what we had come to expect. And its clear that tens of thousands of the French missing were dead, and then there was the mortality among their 110,000 wounded to taken into account. I reckon that the real total of French battle fatalities that month was three times the figure that was initially posted as confirmed killed. It would be interesting to reflect on how far this disparity is apparent with the figures from the San B,

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of clarity, Phil, (I'm not trying to trip you up), are you saying that the twelve monthly SanitatsB totals for 1915 add up to a quarter of a million fewer casualties than the sum of the cumulative total given for 31/12/1915 minus that given for 31/12/1914?

Cheers-salesie.

For the entire period August 1st 1914 to December 31st 1915, the ZN tables reveal more than two and a half million German casualties. The San B. figures come to about 2.325 million : there is a difference of about 225,000 and this pertains to the entire period of 1914-1915. San B gives 792,000 for 1914, which I believe to be understated : I wouldn't be surprised if the real total was in excess of one million. The San B total for 1915 is about 1.55 million. The ZN tabulates 840,000 for 1914, and well in excess of 1.7 million for 1915. My belief - and I confess it's only supposition - is that those figures should read, if properly apportioned to time, in excess of one million for 1914 and a million and a half for 1915. Result : 1914 casualties understated; 1915 casualties over stated. It's a tall claim - that so many of the 1914 casualties were not properly tabulated until 1915 - but I think it fits the case.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the entire period August 1st 1914 to December 31st 1915, the ZN tables reveal more than two and a half million German casualties. The San B. figures come to about 2.325 million : there is a difference of about 225,000 and this pertains to the entire period of 1914-1915. San B gives 792,000 for 1914, which I believe to be understated : I wouldn't be surprised if the real total was in excess of one million. The San B total for 1915 is about 1.55 million. The ZN tabulates 840,000 for 1914, and well in excess of 1.7 million for 1915. My belief - and I confess it's only supposition - is that those figures should read, if properly apportioned to time, in excess of one million for 1914 and a million and a half for 1915. Result : 1914 casualties understated; 1915 casualties over stated. It's a tall claim - that so many of the 1914 casualties were not properly tabulated until 1915 - but I think it fits the case.

Phil (PJA)

So, the differences you highlight, Phil, are between the ZN and the SanitatsB, not internal discrepencies in the SanitatsB itself? Which takes us back to non-tallying German lists.

Ive noticed, though, in the SanitatsB table that Jack provided, some interesting figures i.e. the difference between the cumulative total for 31/12/1915 and that for 31/12/1914 is some 1,706,195, and between 31/12/1916 and 31/12/1915 it is some 1,391,908. It appears that the German army suffered more casualties in 1915 than it did in 1916 (some 23% more), according to this SanitatsB table. And even if the 225,00 you allude to is taken away from 1915 and placed in 1914, it would still leave more casualties in 1915 than in 1916.

Cheers-salesie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a chart of German casualties during the war, gross numbers on the vertical axis and years by month horizontally. We'd need at least four lines for the casualties: the British Official History, Churchill's figures, the Verlustlisten, and the Sans Bereicht. Then perhaps these discrepancies could be understood and explained in a more understandable way. To me the German conspiracy points of view are silly, but that being said the Germans do indeed screw up now and then, such as starting the two world wars.

This would be very helpful, indeed.

-Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salesie,

Yes, you make the point that the casualties for 1915 appear to be higher than they were to be in 1916. I admit that is hard to reconcile with how we perceive 1916 : the Somme, Verdun and the Brusilov Offensive all put a terrific strain on Germany. But in 1915, the fighting in the West was also very fierce, and, above all, the Germans made a huge effort in the East. They ahieved spectacular success against the Russians, but at a cost in casualties that is not often mentioned.

I still remain convinced, though, that those figures for 1915 are too high, and the 1914 figures too low. Just a case of time elapsing before the 1914 casualties were tabulated, I think.

I take it that you appreciate that those figures, although cited in the San B., are actually from the ZN. They are not purporting to be San B calculations : they are displayed despite - or maybe because of - the fact that they differ. This is a valuable attribute of the San B : it endeavours to countenance figures that do not tally, and, I hope, to explain why they're different.

Edit : You've inspired me to check how the San B tally 1915 and 1916, salesie.... 1915 : 1,537,000 . 1916 : 1,576,000

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon all.

I have been watching this thread with growing interest and I am amazed at the level and depth of research carried out on this subject. I would like to make a number of observations and ask some questions.

First of all the old truth that there are lies, dammed lies and Statistics.

All the authors in this case seem to have a hidden agenda of their own. For example Churchill needed to discredit the victorious westerners and the BOH needed to refute this and show that the sacrifice was not a waste of precious life. The Germans may all so have had ulterior motives to appease and confirm public opinion. The belief that the German army had been betrayed did not start in 1933 with the election(?) of Hitler

PJA post 148 states When you see a chart as comprehensive and open as that, it makes it hard to accept the argument that the German government sought to conceal the extent of dead casualties

I agree that they are comprehensive but can we be completely certain they are accurate? Also they are updated on a yearly bases so if the updated figures are not post war dead from wounds how can the figures given for the actual war years be accurate.

Also from PJA post 148 And it makes short work of Edmonds's suggestion that an examination of regimental histories indicates that the total officially revealed was barely half the true number.

In Ellis & Cox (WWI Data Book) there is a note that the total German dead is over 4 million, this is based on German Regimental Honour Rolls. Having looked at the bibliography for Ellis & Cox their figures appear to be taken from the BOH. Would the authors of the BOH have been able to verify honour roll losses or did they just accept the figures from some other source?

I believe this has been mentioned already, the casualty figures suggest a correlation of higher ratio of casualties for attacking forces compared to defenders when gains by the attackers are small. For example The Somme in 1916. Higher defensive casualties occur compared to attackers when the attackers make big gains. For example The 1918 German spring offensive. The reason for this is that in a rapid retreat many wounded will be left behind and although there was little mention of deliberate mistreatment of wounded by either side enemy wounded would have a lower priority than the attackers own casualties.

For most of 1915/16/17 The British Army was the attacking army against strong defences with only small gains. Therefore it suggests that Churchills figures are possibly more likely to reflect the situation during this period.

However statistical analysis carried out in the decades after 1918 is irrelevant to the outcome of the war. What may have mattered were the estimates by military intelligence at the time and the decisions of the High Commands based on these estimates.

Also in the crucial last nine months of the war despite serious casualties being inflicted on it the BEF it was, with French & US assistance, able to just hold the line. It was then able to draw on reserves with the training, morale and fighting spirit to defeat the German Army driving them back to where it all started for the BEF at Mons.

NB For casualties please read dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

One of the reasons for the high number of French fatalities at that period was that their medical services were woefully deficient in the early days; literally a bloody disgrace -

Jack

Off topic, know, but I believe their veterinary services were much the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill

The fact that Ellis and Cox have swallowed then regurgitated one of Sir James Edmonds most preposterous assertions is both regrettable and a demonstration of why Edmonds is so often the subject of criticism. The original remark is contained in a lengthy footnote on p xvi of the preface to BOH Vol II, London 1938, a source which should be beyond reproach. It reads 'It is expected in the course of time by the addition of the totals of the nominal rolls given in the Rolls of Honour in the regimental histories to prove conclusively - as a partial examination indicates - that the German losses in dead were about double the number officially stated'.

The polite response to this is: 'How interesting Sir James. With reference to your 'partial examination', would you like to name the regimental rolls you checked and for what period, so we can compare your examples with the published Verlustlisten'?

The rude reply is: 'What complete and utter b-----ks'! Whenever this has been done - and Ralph has run several such checks for me and any number of his own - there is either no difference or a variation of very low single figures.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me start by apologizing for the charts below, they did not come out as entered. The two sets of numbers are for Oman and Der Weltkrieg (1st and 2nd accordingly). Also, this first review does not condone or support either version, it is a simpe review of the numbers from two sources. Oman's source is not explained or I did not see any such explanation so if someone can supplyt a source for these it would be very helpful.

Also, this comparison does not support British Intelligence actions in the war unless the numbers used by Oman were a direct result of the activities at that time. We just need to know a bit more before making any sweeping conclusions.

I have had the opportunity to look over some of the charts provided by Sir Charles Oman in regard to losses suffered by different German divisions on the Somme as well as his statistical chart created after reviewing the published Verlustlisten. I wanted to see several things. Just how accurate Oman ’s numbers are when compared to German figures as published in Volume 10 of Der Weltkrieg 1914-1918.

On pages 45-48 Oman provides a sample of different German divisions that appeared on the Somme in July and August as part of his presentation of loss numbers, averages per battalion, and a general review of the heavy losses also suffered by German units in the fighting. He does provide a great deal of information and conclusions from these charts and his overall review of the losses.

I want to state that I do not know where Oman obtained his loss numbers for the different divisions listed below. This is unfortunate as it prevents any further review of the sources in question and therefore we can only compare the numbers as listed with a known German source.

In regard to the German sources the loss numbers were taken from division returns. In some cases these extended into the first part of December so there cannot be any exact comparison with the British losses. However, there can be a comparison and ratio obtained as long as we understand any limitations as mentioned.

The German sources provided a number of details for each insertion into the battle. The chart lists the unit identity and commanding officer. It goes on to show where the division came from (what army), which army it was assigned to on the Somme (these divisions include both French and British fronts), which division it relieved, where it was inserted into the line, the dates the infantry took over their sector of the front, which division relieved it, when the division staff was changed, where the division was sent after relief, the losses in total by officers and OR and further employment of the division.

It should be noted that in some cases the loss numbers from Der Weltkrieg include divisions that appeared on the Somme during several different periods.

Oman chart (P. 46) Der Weltkrieg chart

2nd Guard Res. Division 5,982 6,208

11th and 12th Divisions (VI Corps) 16,688 20,453

11th Res. and 12th Res. (VI Res. Corps) 14,811 14,952

26th and 28th Res. Div. (XIV Res. Corps) 16,488 22,005

36th Division 4,027 3,236

52nd Division 5,906 5,834

111th Reconstituted Div. 4,002 4,992 (to 10 Dec. 1916 )

121st Reconstituted Div. 6,278 5,148

10 Bavarian Div. 5,644 8,625

5th Bav. Res. Div. 4,036 4,740 (to 10 Dec. 1916 )

Total 83,872 96,193

If my math is correct (worth double checking from other members) then the Oman estimates or sources are 14.7% lower than those reported by the divisions during their time on the Somme . I should also pint out that in the case of the 5th Bav. Res. Div. The losses suffered in the second deployment; with the infantry taking over the line as of 3 December 1916 was 152 officers and men (1 & 151 respectively).

Oman chart 2 (P. 47) Der Weltkrieg chart

3rd Guard Res. Div. 5,010 4,508

7th & 8th Div. (IV Corps) 17,147 17,381

5th Division 7,794 4,350

44th Res. Div. 8,625 7,252

183rd Division 6,833 7,697

17th & 18th Div. (IX Corps) 17,289 15,481

Total 62,698 56,669

From this chart it appears the losses reported by Oman are higher by slightly over 10% than the German numbers.

Oman does indicate that the losses he lists for the second chart were probably the highest recorded and there were 11 other divisions that did not report such high losses but none less than 4,000. These were divisions that arrived later than 5 July and were in the line before the end of July per Oman .

Oman ’s final chart for this section lists German divisions that arrived on the Somme in August.

Oman chart 3 (P. 48) Der Weltkrieg chart

17th & 18th Res. Div. (IX Res. Corps) 16,114 18,751

26th & 27th Div. (XIII Corps)*** 10,100 7,915 (to 10 December 1916 )

Guard Corps (1st & 2nd Div) 11,480 11,777 (to 10 Dec.1916)

4th Guard Division 6,298 8,842 +++

23rd & 32nd Res. Div. (XII Res. Corps) 15,543 11,379 ###

8th Bav. Div. 6,429 6,792 @@@

3rd & 4th Bav. Div. (Bav. Corps) 12,307 11,573

Total 78,271 77,029

*** Note: There was a mention of the fighting by Guillemont by these divisions and how they were actively fighting against heavy attacks for the entire time in line. I believe Jack mentioned that while suffering heavy losses there were still men who marched away once relieved. Of the number in the 3rd chart for these divisions; 7,915 casualties, 532 occurred in the second deployment that began on 29 November and 17 November respectively.

+++: The losses reported in the last deployment that added 2,690 to the overall figure also included the losses from the Marine Infantry Brigade.

###: While Oman mentions the 32nd Reserve Division I could not find any listing for this division in the Der Weltkrieg charts. I do recall seeing any reference to a reserve division with this number but I will need to check my reference sources. In the meantime I will add the 32nd Division to these numbers for the time being. When adding the 32nd Division numbers there is a reference that they should include the losses for Division Francke. I will need to check this out later tonight if possible.

@@@: I could find no reference to the 8th Bav. Division but did find the 8th Bavarian Reserve Division. I will need to look at my other sources at home to see if it is simple error where the reserve unit was supposed to be listed and not the active division.

Since I cannot finalize the comparison without additional resources I will leave my review at this point. I wish I knew more about the source for Oman ’s numbers as it would make more sense when comparing the details.

As a final comparison the total of all the numbers above at present are:

Oman Der Weltkrieg

224,821 229,891

Remarkably close especially if it was the case that Oman was using wartime calculations. It would less significant if he was relying on any post-war numbers derived from other sources. I would appreciate it if any members have more details on how Oman arrived at these numbers as it would help in the final analysis. Also interesting that the German sources provide larger loss numbers if I am correct in replacing the 32nd Reserve Division with the 32nd Division (still to be checked). It also illustrates that whenever doing this kind of study you really need all the facts and sources at hand in order to reach a reasonable conclusion on known facts and a correct identification of unit designations.

Ralph

In checking further it looks as if the 24th Reserve Div. should replace the 32nd listed above. I will check the stats listed by Oman for this one and see what I find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Ellis and Cox have swallowed then regurgitated one of Sir James Edmonds most preposterous assertions is both regrettable and a demonstration of why Edmonds is so often the subject of criticism. The original remark is contained in a lengthy footnote on p xvi of the preface to BOH Vol II, London 1938, a source which should be beyond reproach. It reads 'It is expected in the course of time by the addition of the totals of the nominal rolls given in the Rolls of Honour in the regimental histories to prove conclusively - as a partial examination indicates - that the German losses in dead were about double the number officially stated'.

The polite response to this is: 'How interesting Sir James. With reference to your 'partial examination', would you like to name the regimental rolls you checked and for what period, so we can compare your examples with the published Verlustlisten'?

The rude reply is: 'What complete and utter b-----ks'! Whenever this has been done - and Ralph has run several such checks for me and any number of his own - there is either no difference or a variation of very low single figures.

Sorry Jack, but I'd apply your own rude reply to the content of your attempt to imply that in this post you've provided proof to support the attacks on the British OH which have comprised the bulk of the many posts on this thread by yourself, Ralph, and PJA. I invite anyone to look back over these posts and wonder why this obsession with vilifying the British OH over his treatment of German casualties. After all, you have told us in post # 34 that "German historians with whom I have discussed this subject are baffled why others cannot accept that the record keeping and statistical analysis of a country which practically invented bureaucracy - think Weber! - is highly likely to be accurate." Well, if German record keeping and statistical analysis is so brilliant in respect of their Great War losses, it ought to render Edmonds' books an 80 year old irrelevance simply by reproducing it. As this entire thread has demonstrated, however, the German casualty figures which were published for the Great War are so dispersed amongst various and clearly contradictory sources that it is impossible for their advocates to set out a single coherent set of figures for specific phases of the war which, in total, tally with what is known of the German manpower situation by 1918. In post # 41 you yourself give us two differing German totals for the Somme from works produced in the 1930's - one says "about 437,500" and the other that "the German casualties can be estimated at 500,000". "About"? "Can be estimated?" Is that the best that could be culled from the records of the world's greatest national practitioner of bookkeeping and statistical analysis? And this in the decade before the records of 90% of the Great War German army were destroyed by bombing! Not forgetting the unexplained anomaly in Williams - whose articles you've told us you "buy completely into" - where he tells us successively that the German casualty total for the entire Western Front during the period of the Somme was 537,919 but that the German Official total for the Somme alone was 500,000. The implication is that the German totals July - October for the Western Front, excluding the Somme, were therefore under 38,000. Ludicrous, of course, but symptomatic of the German sourced figures which are being bandied about as if they were verified productions of the greatest record keepers the world has seen. Leading directly on from this, we currently have the ludicrous spectacle of PJA attempting to construct a convincing fudge to explain away why some of these meticulous German records are suggesting that the German army suffered higher casualties in 1915 than 1916, the year of Verdun and the Somme. Look at the German manpower situation at the end of 1918 and you begin to realise that it was not so much Edmonds who overestimated German losses during the preceding four years, but the various German figures which minimise them.

What I haven't seen any advocates of the veracity of the myriad figures which came out of Germany during and after the war do here is to square the numerous figures from German sources which they are playing with with the massive scale of depletion of German reserves by 1918. They have attempted to direct most of their posts to date to pillorying Edmonds for trying to resolve that conundrum 90 years ago. Yet Edmonds knew from British Intelligence sources what the overall scale of German loss had been by November 1918 and was over many years openly working through various attempts to reconcile German produced figures with that. What those criticising Edmonds for excessively inflating those figures for specific phases of the war have signally failed to do on this thread is to give any evidence of their own which produces figures for individual phases of the war commensurate with the dried up pool of German reserves of 1918. As I say, if what they say is true about German super efficient records then Edmonds ought to be an irrelevance who is easily discredited by reference to a sustainable and coherent set of German figures.

I note your references to Ralph having run several checks for you in Regimental rolls "and any number of his own - there is either no difference or a variation of very low single figures." This all sounds very comprehensive indeed, and worthy of the accolade from PJA to 'Herculean labours' in the archives. But I think this needs to be once again clarified and put in context by what you yourself concede in The German Army on the Somme, p. 407:

"A major obstacle to the study of any aspect of the Imperial German army is the fact that a bombing raid on Potsdam by the Royal Air Force, on 14th April 1945, completely destroyed the Prussian archives. Because Prussian formations and regiments accounted for almost 90 per cent of the army during the First World War, the seriousness of the loss of these documents cannot be overstated. In some cases copies of Prussian documents still survive in other archives, but their presence in these places is a matter of chance. As a result, although information related to army units from Saxony, Bavaria, Baden and Wurttemberg is generally readily available in original form, the use of secondary sources is essential and unavoidable in relation to the Prussians."

The corollary to the above is that we are being asked to accept that Ralph's relatively small sampling of complete original records, from states whose contingents anyway represented only some 10% of the German army in the Great War, can be taken as sufficient evidence to castigate the assertions of Edmonds regarding casualty totals for the whole of the Imperial German army as "complete and utter b-----ks'!" And this despite the fact that Edmonds indisputably had access to and used sources in the 90% of German army Great War records which were destroyed in 1945 - sources which, clearly, no-one castigating the British OH on this thread have been anywhere near. 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.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George

I shall, of course, provide a considered reply but, just so I am quite clear about this, are you telling me that you believe Edmonds when he suggests that the German fatal casualties were +/- 4,000,000?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I am telling you that I believe that total German casualties were considerably in excess of the aggregate of any of the various combinations of German produced figures which have been posted on this thread.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a six hundred and fifty thousand man, then, and not a four hundred and fifty thousand one, George ?

Do you endorse Edmonds' estimate of German casualties in the Battle of the Somme ?

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a six hundred and fifty thousand man, then, and not a four hundred and fifty thousand one, George ?

Am I.

Do you endorse Edmonds' estimate of German casualties in the Battle of the Somme ?

Like Holmes and Philpott, I incline to the idea that German casualties on the Somme lie somewhere within the figures postulated by Edmonds.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher defensive casualties occur compared to attackers when the attackers make big gains. For example The 1918 German spring offensive.

Forgive me if I contradict you immediately on this, Bill.

The Germans, in their official count of casualties during March and April 1918 admitted to a far higher loss in killed than they inflicted on the British. The reichsarchiv, for example, acknowledge 348,300 casualties against the British front during that period, of whom more than 56,000 were confirmed as killed and 40,000 were posted as missing. Most of the lattter were killed. The British, in the meantime, reported just over 300,000 casualties, of whom only 28,000 were posted as killed. No doubt the actual total of dead was higher, but even if we allow for the many missing who were dead, the fatality exchange rate was heavily against the Germans, and that by their own admission.

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I am telling you that I believe that total German casualties were considerably in excess of the aggregate of any of the various combinations of German produced figures which have been posted on this thread.

George

Ehhh?

I've followed the thread so far, but the above quote is baffling. Can you define the bits enboldened?

Ciao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Holmes and Philpott, I incline to the idea that German casualties on the Somme lie somewhere within the figures postulated by Edmonds.

George

And you state that I am the one making a ludicrous attempt to create a convincing fudge !

Phil (PJA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you state that I am the one making a ludicrous attempt to create a convincing fudge !

You will find that, unlike the supporters of allegedly precise German figures on this thread, Edmonds - who had access to those German figures - never pretended that gauging the true level of German casualties was ever other than difficult. No more does Philpott - "The complex, often incomplete and contradictory nature of German statistical returns is not in dispute. An accurate figure for German casualties on the Somme will never be established, but undoubtedly it lies somewhere between the lower and higher figures." You obviously think you know better, and can be precise based upon German figures which belie the state of German manpower by 1918. I've seen nothing on this thread to convince me of that.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...