German Casualty discussion

[Jack Sheldon]

George

You would not, as a rigorous historian, want me to let you sidestep my actual question, but I shall not press it. I assume that your answer is no, you do not agree with it and this highlights the problem of discussing this issue; namely that two standards are being applied. On the one hand, no matter how carefully Ralph and I make points which stick a stiletto into the weak points of the published British account and give it a twist, the response is always - and I exaggerate of course to make the point - it must be correct. Dammit all, its British! On the other hand, anything produced on the other side must be wrong - because it's German and you can't trust the dodgy Huns who pushed us into two World Wars.

Now just to make it clear, I do not get wrapped around the axle on the question of actual numbers. My published view (see my Passchendaele p 313) is that unsustainable losses were inflicted on the German army in various battles and campaigns, eventually they ran out of manpower and they lost. However, I am and always have been, intrigued about why Edmonds persistently exaggerated German losses. What, as you have mentioned previously, was the point? The British army won. In a long drawn out debate a couple of years ago, which still awaits a conclusion, I pointed out that Edmonds - and Smith Dorrien for that matter - more than trebled the German losses at Le Cateau. Why? What was the point? The delaying action bought time and the BEF lived to fight another day. I might add that, in anticipation of further fencing on the subject, Ralph went through the Verlustlisten of several of the German regiments, whose rolls of honour and casualty figures I quoted and the figures matched to within a handful. But the debate fizzled out and we sat on our hands.

Now, turning to your specific points. In my post 44 the sole point I was making was that, contrary to frequent assertions to the contrary, there could not have been a propaganda-led made up figure for Somme casualties which all authors had to apply, otherwise the disparity would have been inadmissable as far as the censors were concerned.

Your raising of my concern about the loss of Prussian documentation is not germane to this particular discussion, because I was referring to the sad loss of regimental records which would have made my job much easier. The casualty figures were kept elsewhere and destroyed separately. I should add that we all live and learn and one thing I have discovered fairly recently is that the situation is not quite as black as I painted it. Yes, much of what I should like to have worked with went up in smoke but, having denied its existence for years, in fact the Russians did recover quite a lot of good material and returned forty odd tons of it a few years back. It is in Freiburg and I made use of some of it it in my Cambrai book and shall be doing so again in that bit of work we discussed previously.

You clearly have a difficulty with Williams - LH's puppet - or whatever. However you cannot just dismiss his work as though it were of no account. I took the time to re-read what Bill Philpott - a careful historian if ever there was one - had to say about him and indeed Edmonds in Bloody Victory. On p 601 he noted that Edmonds had '... claimed - but with no clear substantiation (my emphasis)- that German casualty returns, which were made only every ten days, did not include lightly wounded men who returned quickly to the front'. Williams built a lot of his case round this , I have quoted you figures from the SanB which show this was not true and Ralph has published an actual example of a Verlustlist which demonstrates the same. Edmonds apparently had access to the same material - I still cannot explain why he effectively denied the existence of the critical Vol III of the San B - Can you? We know he had access to the Verlustlisten, so what was his point? Why was he trying to deny the existence of these figures? Why did he claim they were not published? If we have to struggle to try to reconcile German casualty figures it is at least as incumbent on you to explain the answer to these points.

In Williams' defence it must also be said that he pointed up inter alia a clear example of Edmonds misleadingly quoting the German official history to reinforce a point concerning battle casualty replacements. You do not have to be a puppet to spot things like that. In any case why did Edmonds do that except, perhaps, to attempt to strengthen his case? Finally, because this is getting rather long, let it not be forgotten that in manipulating his figures in the first instance, he actually counted a large one in twice and was forced to amend it after debate with LH in the correspondence columns of The Times. Was he being mischievous? Did he think nobody would notice? Or was he just a man of integrity who was incompetent at arithmetic?

Jack

[phil andrade]

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

That's because you're not looking.

Phil (PJA)

[bill24chev]

First of all thank you to those who have tried to answer the questiohs I posed in my previous post.

One of the points I was tryig to make was that time and the effects of lost records make it now impossible to properly verify any of the various casualty figures lists.

Another point is that debating the accuracy of the casuaty lists and there interpretation by historians does not change the history. No matter what the casualty figures are, the atrition seems to have had a bigger impact on the German army.

For example German division started to be reduced to 3 Regiments(9 Bns.) from 1915 with all divisions of this size by 1917. The British divisions had 12 Bns. up to early 1918 then reduced to 9 . Also the losses of so many high quality troops in the spring of 1918 by the German army were not adequatley replaced.

bill

[George Armstrong Custer]

You would not, as a rigorous historian, want me to let you sidestep my actual question, but I shall not press it. I assume that your answer is no, you do not agree with it and this highlights the problem of discussing this issue; namely that two standards are being applied. On the one hand, no matter how carefully Ralph and I make points which stick a stiletto into the weak points of the published British account and give it a twist, the response is always - and I exaggerate of course to make the point - it must be correct. Dammit all, its British! On the other hand, anything produced on the other side must be wrong - because it's German and you can't trust the dodgy Huns who pushed us into two World Wars.

Jack, I will pass over this section as the insubstantial filler which I'm sure you know it to be - I'm not offended by your writing it and I'm sure you won't be at me for writing it off!

1/ Your raising of my concern about the loss of Prussian documentation is not germane to this particular discussion, because I was referring to the sad loss of regimental records which would have made my job much easier. The casualty figures were kept elsewhere and destroyed separately.

I disagree - the fact that regimental records and casualty figures were stored in different locations when destroyed in WWII is surely irrelevant to the central point of their destruction.

2/ You clearly have a difficulty with Williams - LH's puppet - or whatever. However you cannot just dismiss his work as though it were of no account. I took the time to re-read what Bill Philpott - a careful historian if ever there was one - had to say about him and indeed Edmonds in Bloody Victory. On p 601 he noted that Edmonds had '... claimed - but with no clear substantiation (my emphasis)- that German casualty returns, which were made only every ten days, did not include lightly wounded men who returned quickly to the front'. Williams built a lot of his case round this , I have quoted you figures from the SanB which show this was not true and Ralph has published an actual example of a Verlustlist which demonstrates the same. Edmonds apparently had access to the same material - I still cannot explain why he effectively denied the existence of the critical Vol III of the San B - Can you? We know he had access to the Verlustlisten, so what was his point? Why was he trying to deny the existence of these figures? Why did he claim they were not published? If we have to struggle to try to reconcile German casualty figures it is at least as incumbent on you to explain the answer to these points.

My criticisms are more to do with Liddell Hart than Williams, who was a minnow by comparison, though the latter was in thrall to the aims of the former. The relationship between the two regarding the conception and writing of Williams' two papers on German casualty figures is part of a much wider picture which reveals why the arguments over the British OH's treatment of German casualty figures originated and continue as an internal British one, not a German one. On this particular point I note that you do not comment on the observations in the Militärgeschichtliches-Forschungsamt's letter to Williams.

Edmond's only "effectively denied the existence of the 'critical' Vol. III of the San B" in your post, Jack. I'd suggest that in reality he ignored it as an irrelevancy in establishing a reliable total for German figures. As to why he would think that, I direct you to my post # 29, and concessions as to its true purpose in the first paragraph of your post # 34. Not only did Edmonds apparently not find it a vital tool to reconciling British Intelligence on German losses with published German figures, but neither did Richard Holmes, who cites San B Vol 3 in his bibliography but not in his text, where he opines that German losses on the Somme could not have been much below 600,000. Similarly, Bill Philpott in his assessment of the unreliability of German casualty figures makes no mention of San B Vol 3 as a vital source for arriving at true totals, though I'd be extremely surprised if he's not aware of it.

3/ Finally, because this is getting rather long, let it not be forgotten that in manipulating his figures in the first instance, he actually counted a large one in twice and was forced to amend it after debate with LH in the correspondence columns of The Times. Was he being mischievous? Did he think nobody would notice? Or was he just a man of integrity who was incompetent at arithmetic?

I've made the point before, that Edmonds was continually - and openly - revising his thoughts as he struggled with reconciling German sourced casualty figures. He didn't need to be 'forced' to do that. The Liddell Hart correspondence was part of a 30-year campaign by the latter to undermine the OH on that specific issue. Do you think that was because Liddell Hart believed an injustice was being perpetrated upon the Germans? Sustained for over three decades? Or was it, perhaps, because Liddell Hart had based his move from English correspondent for American Lawn Tennis Magazine to self regarding military pundit sans peur upon his case that the British generals were largely Donkeys whose strategy of attrition on the Western Front had been a bloody failure? 'The Captain who taught Generals' and his so-called 'strategy of the indirect approach' and talk of 'soft underbellies' and 'knocking away props' had several axes to grind as he assiduously, obsessively and vitriotically undermined by fair means and foul any account - starting with the OH, but continuing with others until his death in 1970 - which cast doubt on his own version of Britain's role in the Great War as a futile disaster. It was the foundation stone of his career. No-one would have been more cock-a-hoop than Liddell Hart to see his line he established amongst his disciples on German casualties on the Western Front still being regurgitated today in debates amongst British military historians.

I'm sorry to have had to resort to conflating several of your points and my responses into one quote - it's not ideal, but the forum software is set to a ludicrous restriction of just two quote blocks per post. Useless when trying to most clearly break down and respond to a long post.

I very much look forward to the piece of work which we've discussed off forum - no-one could have foreseen then that it would have a relevance to a continuance of this old debate on the forum. I imagine that we may have more common ground on the subject of where the German army ended up than the arithmetic of how it got there, and I look forward immensely to learning from your sythesis of the German accounts of the experience.

George

[salesie]

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)

Thanks for clarifying, Phil, that the figures Jack posted were quoted ZN figures in the SanitatsB - I did in fact think they were the latter.

Now, I'm not going to call your post "a ludicrous attempt at a convincing fudge" - not at all, I'm going to call it an oxymoron, and a fatuous one at that i.e. you give us a less than convincing narrative of why the ZN figures were right to show less casualties in 1916 than 1915, but then tell us that the SanitatsB shows the reverse (just slightly lower in 1915 than 1916), and, to top it all, you also tell us that the 1915 SanitatsB figures are too high by 225,000, which should be allocated to 1914, (this would, of course, make 1915's figures much less than 1916's in the SanitatsB).

In other words, you tell us that the ZN was right to show lower German casualties in 1916 than 1915, but the SanitatsB, whose veracity you've trumpeted long and hard, shows 1915 as lower than 1916 (the complete reverse), and in reality, because of the "borrowed" 225,000 from 1914, then 1915 should be even lower still.

A completely contradictory argument if I ever saw one. Which is the correct one, Phil, lower or higher casualties in 1916 compared to 1915?

Cheers-salesie.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

"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:”

In reference to the assumption above that I checked two or three Württemberg units to see how the losses matched I did indeed check regiments of artillery, infantry, pioneers and support troops for some 68 units to date. These include Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon, Württemberg and Baden troops. In taking a look at fatal losses identified in these records and cross referencing them to all other available sources that include original Stammrolle books, death cards, newspaper reports, regimental accounts, Verlustlisten, etc. I have yet to locate a major difference in the numbers reported for deaths.

If there was a matter of 100% additional losses then I would expect that some names would start popping out as evidence of this problem. I did find lists where names did not match and then later discovered a VL correction indicating a man was severely wounded or a POW but not killed as once thought. Like any other research you use what is available, understand it and all restrictions and issues and make a reasonable decision based on your findings. I can say that the work by Oman during the war has some points that I have been trying to prove to myself for years, more of this later.

I have looked at 68 regiments and smaller units, can anyone supply me with Edmonds information? One last point. I did make reference to the loss numbers being off and the reasons as outlined in a number of articles from both sides of the debate. In fact this was the basis for the entire thread. I also mentioned that while the math was off in my opinion the rest of the BOH was in fact a great source of information and used by me on a regular basis. I may not be quoting perfectly from a previous post but it is the basic idea I tried to give.

Ralph

[Ken S.]

For what it's worth, I thought I'd add a bit to the discussion making reference to an interesting (and quite hefty) book entitled Hohenzollerisches Gedenkbuch. Published in 1927, it was an attempt to document every resident of the Hohenzollern territory in southern Germany who served in the war. According to it, out of a population of c. 70,000 residents, c. 14,000 served in the war; of these 60% served in the infantry, 25% the artillery, 5% the cavalry, and 10% in other branches; about 1/2 served with units from Baden. In terms of casualties, the books states that 19.7% (2766) died, 27% were wounded, and 7% were pow.

[phil andrade]

Thanks for clarifying, Phil, that the figures Jack posted were quoted ZN figures in the SanitatsB - I did in fact think they were the latter.

Now, I'm not going to call your post "a ludicrous attempt at a convincing fudge" - not at all, I'm going to call it an oxymoron, and a fatuous one at that i.e. you give us a less than convincing narrative of why the ZN figures were right to show less casualties in 1916 than 1915, but then tell us that the SanitatsB shows the reverse (just slightly lower in 1915 than 1916), and, to top it all, you also tell us that the 1915 SanitatsB figures are too high by 225,000, which should be allocated to 1914, (this would, of course, make 1915's figures much less than 1916's in the SanitatsB).

In other words, you tell us that the ZN was right to show lower German casualties in 1916 than 1915, but the SanitatsB, whose veracity you've trumpeted long and hard, shows 1915 as lower than 1916 (the complete reverse), and in reality, because of the "borrowed" 225,000 from 1914, then 1915 should be even lower still.

A completely contradictory argument if I ever saw one. Which is the correct one, Phil, lower or higher casualties in 1916 compared to 1915?

Cheers-salesie.

What are you trying to do, salesie ?

Where did I state that the ZN was right to show lower German casualties in 1916 than 1915 ? The Somme and Verdun - and the Brusilov Offensive - dominate popular perceptions of 1916 so much that people tend to forget the scale and intensity of the 1915 fighting in both East and West. That said, the preponderance of casualties tabulated for 1915 in the ZN seems excessive to me, and I really do believe that this might be because more than 200,000 of those 1.7 million casualties it tabulates for 1915 were, indeed, "borrowed" from 1914.

In your haste to pour scorn on my posts, and deploy your favourite word - "oxymoron" - you have become confused and fail to discern the differences between the ZN and the San B.

I do not think that any of the 1.5 million plus 1915 casualties in the San B were borrowed from 1914 . I think that they were, though, in the ZN.

It's my belief that, in the San B , a large part of the 1914 casualties were ommitted altogether. The extent of the ommission is moot : I doubt whether experts like Ralph will agree with my contention that the figure ommmitted was as high as two hundred thousand. Whatever the number, I do not think that the San B restored them by inflating the casualties it returns for 1915.

I certainly do not think that this ommission was the result of deliberate falsification.

You write that I've "trumpeted long and hard" about the veracity of the San B. I believe it to be the best source we have regarding the incidence of wounds and illness, but I've been at pains to point out that I think it understates the number of killed. I hope that's not an oxymoron.

As for your challenge to answer which year had the higher casualties, I would suggest that each year cost Germany a million and a half battle casualties : I would go further, and venture the following guestimates for the separate years ....1914 : 1 million; 1915 : 1.5 million; 1916 : 1.5 million; 1917 : 1.2 million; 1918 : 1.8 million.

Very rough and ready, but that's my best shot at trying to asses the "general order of magnitude" ( one of my favourite phrases) of German casualties in the Great War.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Interesting figures for total German losses, Phil. Could you now estimate the proportion of these estimates covered by the hyper accurate SB data?

[phil andrade]

Interesting figures for total German losses, Phil. Could you now estimate the proportion of these estimates covered by the hyper accurate SB data?

Tom,

From SB (Rounded figures) in thousands

1914 : 793

1915 : 1,537

1916 : 1,576

1917 1,286

1918 ( up to July 31st only) : 1,044

My reservations about these

1. Number for 1914 far too low

2. Number posted as killed too low

3. Number of wounded inflated by inclusion of non battle casualties ( sick and accidental injuries)

More to say later.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

I'm sure many of you are well aware of statistics and tables of German casualties available in; Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War

Available to download (very large file) HERE

between pages 348-355

Some of the pages are upside down/sideways. In adobe reader, click 'view' and a rotate function is available.

Hope this is of use.

Mike

Edit 11:37am Link hopefully works now

[SteveMarsdin]

Good morning All,

I don't want to disrupt the flow of the main protagonists in this interesting discussion but just to elaborate on earlier points made by Jack and Phil.

The German medical service appear to have got it right from the very start, in the Battle of the Frontiers. Bastin ("Un Samedi sanglant") quotes Belgian witnesses to a steady flow of German casualties returning from the front in field ambulances, accompanied by nurses and doctors and being transferred to waiting hospital trains at Arlon, for repatriation to Germany. Simonin ("de Verdun a Mannhein") the chief medical officer of the French 7e Division, captured at Ethe, recounts the valiant efforts of the medical staff on the frontline but the disorganisation and poor support from the main divisional and medical operation (which he had been separated from).This contrast with the excellent medical treatment he receives from the Germans both in Belgium and at Mannheim.

When looking at the early French losses in August 1914, we should remember that it was still a war of movement and thousands of troops, initially "missing", found their way back to their units days (and even weeks) later. As all participants to this thread have acknowledged, statistics don't paint the whole picture; the story of the 103RI and 104RI of the earlier mentioned French 7e Division demonstrate this: they suffered substantial casualties (killed, wounded and missing) at Ethe on 22 August but sufficent troops subsequently rejoined their units, reinforced by reserves, to allow both regiments to particpate effectively in the Battle of the Marne not 3 weeks later. indeed it was the same two regiments that were transported by the iconic "taxis of the Marne".

[George Armstrong Custer]

In reference to the assumption above that I checked two or three Württemberg units to see how the losses matched

I made no such assumption, Ralph. What I said was "[...] 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 [...]" From what you've now told us regarding the detail of your research, you've looked at the records of 68 regiments. In the context of the numbers of Imperial German regiments which served on the Western Front 1914-18, I'd say my assessment of that sampling as "relatively small" was fair and accurate. I also noted that the records you will have looked at will have come from states outwith the 90% of the Imperial Army not under the ageis of Prussia. You tell us that these include Bavarian, Saxon, Württemberg and Baden. You also say Prussian - how many original regimental records out of the 68 you've looked at were Prussian? And are you suggesting that it would be possible, time and inclination permitting, to examine all of the original regimental records for the Prussian units which made up nearly 90% of the German army in the Great War? If not, are you suggesting that the figures from your sampling of 68 regiments, which I assume are predominantly not Prussian, could be extrapolated to cover the lost Prussian records? If you were to do so based upon the low figures your research has produced to date, you'd have an enormous shortfall between your projected total and what we know the state of German manpower to have been by 1918. Which is a familiar story, of course.

I understand from what you've said on this and other related threads that the primary object of your own research has not been an investigation and reconciliation of published German casualty totals for the Great War. From what you say in the introduction to this thread, you've only just come to look at the five pieces of literature on German casualty totals which your initial posts here are essentially a first impressions review of. All of which is fair enough. But whilst saying in your earlier posts that your intention is not to persuade people to accept your conclusions as definitive, you go on to suggest that those who don't haven't done any research - "Sorry if it comes across that I am annoyed but after doing years of research into numerous areas of the war it would be nice to see some of the very same effort when an opposing view comes along. Put something solid behind the argument,not just the word - because..." Well, I've spent over the past year researching the papers of the protagonists, including Edmonds, Liddell Hart, Williams, Wynne, Oman, etc, in what I've noted is largely an internal British historiographical debate about German figures and how far these can be reconciled to the known outcome of the war in terms of German manpower. Quite apart from your mistake in saying that no-one criticising your conclusions had done any research, however, since when was the right to critique restricted to those who'd done archival research? The researcher chooses to present his material to the public, and whether the sources he sets out and the conclusions he draws from them persuade the reader has nothing to do with any requirement that the reader be a fellow researcher. Otherwise all we'd have are researchers talking to researchers with no-one having to produce anything convincing to a wider audience of reasonably well read laypersons. On the authors of the historiographical debate on German casualty totals, I have looked at their correspondence, the construction of articles as they were being written and amended by third parties (the finished products of which you have reviewed in this thread), and what is revealed in these archival records of the motives of the protagonists for pursuing a particular line. Some of the evidence from that research I've posted on this thread as an indication of where grave doubt can be cast on some of what's being claimed. It will be published in its entirety in due course. It's not clear what research you've done specific to the question of the arguments on German casualty totals beyond a recent reading of five pieces of the published literature, alongside extrapolations from your comparatively limited sampling of original German regimental records.

George

[phil andrade]

Looking at samples of regimental casualty statistics, offered in abundance by Ralph, and also extant in Jack's work ( see some of the terrible statistics of German losses in his excellent new book about Ypres), I still find myself fixating on the problem of the ratio of fatalities to other casualties. I really do need to find out why the San B returns such low proportions of fatalities. Here's another example, from Middlebrook's research ino the fighting of March 21st 1918. In his book The Kaiser's battle, he analyses on page311, the question of German casualties :

Thirty-two German divisions were in the first wave of the attack on 21 March 1918 and, of the ninety- six regiments in these divisions, forty histories, of regiments spread evenly down the battle front, contain detailed casualty figures. These forty regiments suffered the following average casualties during the first day of the battle....

The figures he gives are :

Killed : 70.6 men

Wounded : 262.7 men

Missing : 31.3 men

Total : 364.6 men.

The killed comprise 19.36%; the wounded, 72.05%; and the missing ,8.58%. The killed equate to about 27% of the wounded.

Now compare this with the sanitatsbericht casualty compilation for the three german armies directly participating in the offensives of March 21- April 10 1918 :

Killed : 35,163

Wounded : 181,694

Missing : 22,701

Total : 239,558

The killed herein comprise only 14.67% of the total casualties, and, more tellingly, equate to only 19.35% of the wounded.

This is my principal reservation about the SB. Both the regimental histories and the ZN indicate a much higher ratio of fatalites among the casualties, and I am intrigued as to why this is so.

I suspect that this might have something to do with the fact that, for some reason, the returns made by the several armies tended to return low numbers of killed compared with the regimetal surveys, and the general government comuniques. I note the same difference applies to the French returns, especially in that of September 1914, when an official total of 210,000 casualties, compiled by the armies, posted only 18,000 killed. I feel as if I'm clutching at straws here, and confess to being non plussed.

Incidentally, these German regimental histories do appear to offer very high ratios of killed in their casualty returns....I wonder if that's why Edmonds felt emboldened to suggest that extrapolating from them might provide him with the vastly greater German mortality rates that he needed to make his casualty estimates plausible.

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

What are you trying to do, salesie ?

Where did I state that the ZN was right to show lower German casualties in 1916 than 1915 ? The Somme and Verdun - and the Brusilov Offensive - dominate popular perceptions of 1916 so much that people tend to forget the scale and intensity of the 1915 fighting in both East and West. That said, the preponderance of casualties tabulated for 1915 in the ZN seems excessive to me, and I really do believe that this might be because more than 200,000 of those 1.7 million casualties it tabulates for 1915 were, indeed, "borrowed" from 1914.

In your haste to pour scorn on my posts, and deploy your favourite word - "oxymoron" - you have become confused and fail to discern the differences between the ZN and the San B.

I do not think that any of the 1.5 million plus 1915 casualties in the San B were borrowed from 1914 . I think that they were, though, in the ZN.

It's my belief that, in the San B , a large part of the 1914 casualties were ommitted altogether. The extent of the ommission is moot : I doubt whether experts like Ralph will agree with my contention that the figure ommmitted was as high as two hundred thousand. Whatever the number, I do not think that the San B restored them by inflating the casualties it returns for 1915.

I certainly do not think that this ommission was the result of deliberate falsification.

You write that I've "trumpeted long and hard" about the veracity of the San B. I believe it to be the best source we have regarding the incidence of wounds and illness, but I've been at pains to point out that I think it understates the number of killed. I hope that's not an oxymoron.

As for your challenge to answer which year had the higher casualties, I would suggest that each year cost Germany a million and a half battle casualties : I would go further, and venture the following guestimates for the separate years ....1914 : 1 million; 1915 : 1.5 million; 1916 : 1.5 million; 1917 : 1.2 million; 1918 : 1.8 million.

Very rough and ready, but that's my best shot at trying to asses the "general order of magnitude" ( one of my favourite phrases) of German casualties in the Great War.

Phil (PJA)

I'm trying to show, Phil, the complete and utter mess that German casualty lists are (in and of themselves as well as between individual lists), and thus show the almost delirious thought processes of those obsessed with the minutiae of percentages and "football-score" ratios. You know the ones, those who jump on the merest snippets of figures to convert into ratios and percentages and then claim they're highly meaningful, but only offer complexity and apples and oranges and dates and fudge in reply to any challenge.

As George has hinted at, and I've banged on about in other threads but so far not mentioned in this one, I will introduce the paradox that said lists create with the end-result. Not just the known parlous state of German manpower at the end of the war (none of the German lists square that particular circle), but sometimes with individual battles as well, such as Mons, Le Cateau etc. where an extremely large, and remarkably consistent, body of British eye-witness accounts are poo-pooed as being at best mistaken and at worse lying propaganda by those who claim that "accurate" German casualties lists show the impossibility of German casualties being as high as those British (and the odd German) who were there say they were. What strikes me about your 225,000 being "borrowed" from 1914, is that, if true, there would then probably be, at last, a German casualty stat that shows the Old Contemptibles were just as destructive as the mass of eye-witness evidence says they were.

Cheers-salesie.

PS. Is it really surprising to you that the SanitatsB should have lower killed/died counts than other lists? If based on actual physical counts of those being seen by the medical services, as we have been constantly told was the case and therefore herein lies the "proof" of the SanitatsB's veracity, then it seems logical to me that not every German soldier killed in action would have been seen and counted by medical staff. The British version of the SanitatsB also shows a lower killed/died count than the final published tally, but, I might add, nowhere near as big a discrepancy as between certain German lists and the SanitatsB. It is, though, the MIA figure I find most interesting in the SanitatsB, how on earth could German medical staff physically count those they never saw and were never ever going to see? If actual physical counts are in fact "proof" of veracity then the SanitatsB's veracity takes a big knock indeed.

[Ralph J. Whitehead]

In many instances it does not take a sampling of 50% or 100% to see patterns emerging. Of the regiments I have reviewed for other projects approximately 16 were Prussian, the rest from the other German states. Even with such a small sampling of the much larger number of regiments that served in the war it would be expected to see some indication of this very issue, the larger number of killed than reported in other sources.

The problem is, I have not come across anything that remotely confirms such a claim. Even in my sampling that is basically random as each regiment or unit was chosen for a specific piece of research that was unrelated to this particular issue. However I see no problems with using completed research and applying it to other questions.

Following your line of thinking it would seem that either I missed any regiment or unit that fudged the number of men killed or, in my view, my evidence points to it being a false claim that so far I have not seen any particulars other than the original claim to refute my opinion. It could also seem it is a Prussian issue possibly but I also have no supporting evidence to show this. All I can say is whether you feel the sample is small, insufficient to cover all of the different states, my current conclusions are that it was an unsupported claim and nothing to date has provided any indication otherwise. I am simply following much of the information I was provided in a class many years back on probability and statistics, a very interesting look at numbers and predictive models, something we are using quite extensively in the insurance field at my job.

If I do come across anything that would support claims such as Edmonds or if other information comes to light that would drastically alter my views and opinions, Ok. I come to certain conclusions based on what I am looking at for a particular project. As time passes and more information comes in I have had to change my views or come up with new avenues to look at that I had never considered before. Research results and new books on subjects often overlooked often bring up more questions than they answer in my case. It is always the need to know more, the why and wherefore.

German manpower in 1918 was dismal. The heavy losses from the numerous offensives drained the youngest and best trained men. Food shortages, equipment shortages, exhaustion and a slew of other issues, not the least of all was the influence of a new way of thinking brought back from troops that had been in Russia. Add it all together with the heavy losses and I am not surprised about the conditions in Germany and the army in 1918.

However, my areas of research are simply something I enjoy doing, they have no relationship to overall losses, changing historic facts or the condition of the army. I am more interested in the human aspect and this is just a portion of what I do for personal satisfaction. My comments on lack of research were not directed toward a larger audience on the forum, and not toward you in any way. I know very little about you and I see no reason to question your opinions or efforts accordingly.

Forum posts are like e-mail, one dimensional. When talking to each other we can see facial expressions or hear the tone of voice. We can interact to questions instead of waiting for the time difference between the U.S. and Europe that I deal with when looking at posts, responding, etc.

I started this thread after fellow forum members were kind enough to send over copies of these articles. Since then several other names have popped up and it would be great to be able to see theirs as well. I went through them and provided a recap and my opinions on what I came away with. I emphasize the word ‘my’ as that is all it is, an opinion. Obviously there are other opinions and hence the discussion that ensued.

You have evidently done much more research into the underlying reasons for each position or article. All I did was to set forth a few guesses as to what each side may be trying to present and why. Was I correct in any of them? Who knows, possibly you do. I can accept that and look forward to anything that you might produce. What I do object to is when anyone on the forum takes a discussion and takes on a ‘snarky’ attitude. Personal attacks, innuendo, sarcasm (not in a good way) are things that cheapen the forum.

I am happy to listen to your side of the issue and take on any of the items brought up. I am still unconvinced that the numbers and allegations made on loss ratios and total losses were correctly used by Edmonds . What his reasons might have been, why he used certain numbers, I cannot say, I can only offer my views of what I had read. What I can see is that the numbers used and the methods applied to indicate overall German losses on the Somme in the BOH were incorrect in my opinion. This does not cheapen the overall work as it is a wonderful source to own and use. I only wish I had all the volumes of the maps, etc. I have the basic volumes through the end of the war.

If the methods used by Edmonds are proven to be true then I would gladly retract my opinion and conclusions. Yes, there is and always will be a debate over numbers and losses. What is not helping are the so-called documentaries that spout off statistics such as ’60,000 British soldiers were killed on 1 July, the worst day in the history of the British army’. You should have heard my wife when that appeared on a recent Somme documentary (Sorry, the name eludes me). She must have thought I went mad as I yelled at the commentator as if he could actually hear me. When did casualty equate to killed?

As an aside, Phil, I am a bit confused about your recent post where you mention that ‘the regimental histories appear to offer very high ratios of killed in their casualty returns’. Are you referring to the actual regimental histories? I have found these to be erratic in their approach to loss information. Some are very detailed and offer charts, names of men killed, number of associated wounded for each period, etc. Others such as Württemberg histories might contain a total number of men killed and then list officer casualties only and others provide even less detail. Only one Bavarian FAR history provided all killed, wounded and injured men, something that really stood out. Of course many never produced any sort of history at all. Could you elaborate on your thoughts here? Thanks.

Ralph

[Jack Sheldon]

Just a small point of clarification concerning Prussian records. The fact that the Prussian archives were burnt does not impact on what Ralph is able to do because copies of the Verlustlisten, which were produced in large numbers on wide distribution, covered all contingents of the old German army. I believe that Ralph has invested a great deal of money buying microfilmed copies of those held in the Library of Congress. I am sure that he can confirm that. If you check the sample which Ralph posted, I seem to remember that one of the first regiments covered was one of the Garde Grenadier Regiments which were, of course, all Prussian. Furthermore virtually all the regiments of First German Army engaged at Le Cateau were Prussian and Ralph had no problem working the casualties of those hardest hit back through the Verlustlisten for me.

Jack

[phil andrade]

As an aside, Phil, I am a bit confused about your recent post where you mention that 'the regimental histories appear to offer very high ratios of killed in their casualty returns'. Are you referring to the actual regimental histories? I have found these to be erratic in their approach to loss information. Some are very detailed and offer charts, names of men killed, number of associated wounded for each period, etc. Others such as Württemberg histories might contain a total number of men killed and then list officer casualties only and others provide even less detail. Only one Bavarian FAR history provided all killed, wounded and injured men, something that really stood out. Of course many never produced any sort of history at all. Could you elaborate on your thoughts here? Thanks.

Ralph

Sorry if I failed to clarify, Ralph.

You have posted a lot of information about the losses of German regiments on the Somme, and there are some references made by Jack in his Ypres book, too.

Then there was that passge from Middlebrook that I cited in a recent post. The impression I carry away from these samples is that the figure for killed, expressed as a ratio of the numbers posted as wounded, is so very much higher than the ratio in the San B, that I wanted to comment, and seek answers as to why this is so.

Phil (PJA)

[phil andrade]

It is, though, the MIA figure I find most interesting in the SanitatsB, how on earth could German medical staff physically count those they never saw and were never ever going to see? If actual physical counts are in fact "proof" of veracity then the SanitatsB's veracity takes a big knock indeed.

The SB did compile figures for the MIA : about 771,000 in all, very close ineed to the number they posted as killed. The British Medical Statistics also posted the figure for missing. If German medical staff were not in a position to deal with the numbers of their missing comrades in arms, then it would follow that neither were their British counterparts.

But the British Medical History did compile a final list of the MIA, with an accounting of those missing who were taken prisoner, and of those who were subsequently added to the count of the dead.

I am hoping to survey my downloaded Volume III of the San B, and find a reference to this, and see if some of the pals can help me understand what it says.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Looking at samples of regimental casualty statistics, offered in abundance by Ralph,

..................................

Incidentally, these German regimental histories do appear to offer very high ratios of killed in their casualty returns....I wonder if that's why Edmonds felt emboldened to suggest that extrapolating from them might provide him with the vastly greater German mortality rates that he needed to make his casualty estimates plausible.

Phil (PJA)

Plausible to whom?

[phil andrade]

Plausible to whom?

To the readership of the BOH.

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

He had no reason to mislead them in the first place and there is no evidence to indicate he tried. Quite the reverse.

[Jack Sheldon]

Tom

You are right; he had no reason to but, as I have pointed out in this thread several times, he did in fact make some dubious points along the way. Just to home in on one, because George does not seem to wish to answer the question directly. Do you agree with Edmonds when he asserted that the total of German KIA after scrutiny of the German regimental histories would prove to be be approximately 4 million? If you do, perhaps you will explain what persuaded you. If you do not then I assume you would agree with Ralph and me that not everything he said or wrote was scrupulously evidentially based.

Jack

[MelPack]

Ralph, Phil & Jack

Like many others, I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest and would like to thank you for the scholarly and erudite tenor of your contributions.

It appears that certain of your opponents are incapable of moving beyond ad hominem slights on the sources that you are exploring and the authors of the same. When that has repeatedly failed then it seems that you are fair game to be traduced and your motives impugned.

The only contra position that has been presented to your analysis hitherto is little more than a cringeworthy deference to official British sources precisely because they are 'official' and 'British'.

It would seem that It is about time that the opponents adduced evidence and analysis to support their contra position (whatever that may be).

Mel

[phil andrade]

He had no reason to mislead them in the first place and there is no evidence to indicate he tried. Quite the reverse.

So you're another six hundred and fifty thousand man, are you ?

If you are, I hope you'll have the courage to stand up and be counted, and not keep your head below the parapet, like George.

Phil (PJA)