8,842,000 British involved WWI, 1,115,000 died

[Skipman]

Saw this on twitter. Where's he going wrong?

 

Mike

[Ron Clifton]

He is probably using "British" to mean "British Empire". If that is the case, the figures look about right.

Ron

[phil andrade]

That’s the most up to date CWGC figure, covering a period up until mid 1921, for all the British Empire. :  soldiers, sailors - including Merchant Navy  - and airforce personnel .

 

Just to say “ British soldiers” is rather a big error.  Somewhere between three quarters  and four fifths of the British Empire’s dead were ascribed to the United Kingdom, and not all of them were soldiers....although the army did account for ninety five per cent of them.

 

Editing here : a total of about 5.7 million served in the British Army - i.e. UK contingent - in the Great War.

 

Phil

 

 

Edited 5 July , 2021 by phil andrade

[Skipman]

1 hour ago, phil andrade said:

 

 

Just to say “ British soldiers” is rather a big error. 

 

Phil

 

 

 

It just didn't look right to me. So 1 in every 8 British soldiers who served died. That's not right, or is it?

 

Mike

[phil andrade]

4 hours ago, Skipman said:

 

It just didn't look right to me. So 1 in every 8 British soldiers who served died. That's not right, or is it?

 

Mike

 

Pretty close, I would say.

One in eight works, more or less, in most of the different totals ....the proportion is similar, even if the absolute total differs.

 

That proportion was much higher, of course, if it was assessed on the infantry serving in the front line.

 

One in five would be nearer the mark for the PBI in France and Flanders, and that would not take into account the wounded .

 

Phil

[Skipman]

OK thank you all.

 

Mike

[Keith_history_buff]

The following from primary source material, recounted by the late Martin Gillott:

  

On 12/07/2013 at 20:00, Guest said:

I think it is impossible to answer this question. Anyone who has tried to analyse casualty data on this scale will understand immediately that the data simply does not exist. Neither the mighty "Statistics 1914-18" or the "History of the Great War: Medical Services - Casualties and Medical Statistics" recorded the data in this way. Given most of the service records were destroyed, I would argue that it is an impossible question to answer.

To attempt to answer this question from the available data requires just too many assumptions. The more refined the data, the longer the definitions become.

[removed]...

It is worth noting that the OP states "survived" which I assume would imply the question is about the numbers who died of all causes rather than those wounded or injured or gassed. Many survived the War but were not present in their original battalion or unit at the end.

As a reference point, the nearest you will get for the British (all Arms) is this: 5,704,416 men and women from the British Isles were enlisted (out of 8,586,202 British, Dominion, Indian and Colonial Troops) of which 662,083 British troops were killed, died or wounds or died. This implies that 5,042,333 'survived' i.e 88.39% survived. The calculation for the British Empire is 90.09% survived. [source: Statistics 1914-19120 page 756 Tables 1 and 2.]

MG

Edited for typos. Any mistakes are mine.

A useful quote from a thread on the chances of surviving in an infantry battalion, which covers similar ground.

 

[Skipman]

Thanks Keith, that is interesting.

 

Mike

[Alan24]

888,246 commonwealth dead, Tower of London poppies were one for every soldier.

Numbers were discussed here.

 

[phil andrade]

9 hours ago, Alan24 said:

888,246 commonwealth dead, Tower of London poppies were one for every soldier.

Numbers were discussed here.

 

Another error : although it seems horribly pedantic and insensitive to criticise such a powerful and poignant work of art that moved me immensely.

That figure was taken from the CWGC figure cited for the UK only.  To include all the Commonwealth - or the Empire as it was known in the Great War and the inter war years - would require an increase of one quarter.

 

Phil

[Steven Broomfield]

It was on Twitter. It must be right.

Or at least unchallengeable.

[Alan24]

On 06/07/2021 at 07:49, phil andrade said:

Another error : although it seems horribly pedantic and insensitive to criticise such a powerful and poignant work of art that moved me immensely.That figure was taken from the CWGC figure cited for the UK only.  To include all the Commonwealth - or the Empire as it was known in the Great War and the inter war years - would require an increase of one quarter.Phil

I suppose that counting the number of Great War deaths will be like counting Covid deaths - it's all in the criteria, and there is likely to be as many versions as there are historians. 

But...Just for my education...is the statement below correct?

 

 

[ss002d6252]

5 minutes ago, Alan24 said:

I suppose that counting the number of Great War deaths will be like counting Covid deaths - it's all in the criteria, and there is likely to be as many versions as there are historians. 

But...Just for my education...is the statement below correct?

 

 

If you just do a rough search of 'Army' and WW1 on the CWGC you get 997,632. So with a bit of refinement it could probably be brought closer. It also depends on what 'died during the conflict' means date wise.

Craig

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 hour ago, Alan24 said:

I suppose that counting the number of Great War deaths will be like counting Covid deaths - it's all in the criteria, and there is likely to be as many versions as there are historians. 

Indeed, and cut off dates.
I see on the other thread that the cut off date for the plaque was 30/4/20, after which date, you got no plaque, but still got CWGC commemoration until 31/8/21.

[phil andrade]

So much depends on who - and how - you count.

 

Just to get a feel for the magnitude of the Great War’s toll it’s enough to say that , by the time the Armistice was signed, the British Empire had lost one million dead, and that very close to three quarters of them were from the British Isles, of whom all but forty thousand were in the Army.

 

Another one hundred thousand or so succumbed to illness, wounds and accidents in the following two years or so.

 

Phil

 

 

 

[Keith_history_buff]

5 hours ago, Alan24 said:

I suppose that counting the number of Great War deaths will be like counting Covid deaths - it's all in the criteria, and there is likely to be as many versions as there are historians. 

But...Just for my education...is the statement below correct?

 

 

 

I think the one thing that is correct is that 886,246 ceramic poppies were placed at the Tower of London in 2015.

[JMB1943]

Also, don't forget that ca. 50% of both the AIF and CEF were British-born.

Regards,

JMB

[Steven Broomfield]

22 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Also, don't forget that ca. 50% of both the AIF and CEF were British-born.

Regards,

JMB

As, presumably, were quite a few of the NZ and SA contingents, not to mention small numbers of Bermudans, Rhodesians and so on.. And would officers of the Indian Army count as 'Indian' or 'British'?

[Terry_Reeves]

Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire gives total Empire casualties in and through , the Great War,  for Army personnel  (all theatres) 1914-1920 as:

Killed (all ranks)  908, 371 which included Regular and Territorial Forces and Royal Naval Division.

Wounded (all ranks) 2,090,212.

Since the question has been asked (above) These  include British Indian Army and Indian Army. Other smaller Empire casualties are under the heading "Other Colonies."

The final corrected figures appeared in the General Annual Report of the British Army 1913-1919, published 1921 which I do not have. 

TR

 

 

 

Edited 7 July , 2021 by Terry_Reeves

[JMB1943]

Are comparable figures for RAF, RN and Merchant Marine available somewhere?

Regards,

JMB

 

[phil andrade]

1 hour ago, Steven Broomfield said:

As, presumably, were quite a few of the NZ and SA contingents, not to mention small numbers of Bermudans, Rhodesians and so on.. And would officers of the Indian Army count as 'Indian' or 'British'?

Things do get a bit confusing.  Crown Colonies were included in the UK figures.  I stipulated “ British Isles” in my attempt to answer questions....but now I’m wondering about the status of Ireland, which was part of the British Empire in 1914 but rather different in 1921.....Lord knows , that problem still wrangles today !

In regard  to JMB’s question, if my memory’s not too flawed, there were 744,000 British ( UK) dead in the armed services, of whom 704,000 were soldiers, 32,000 sailors and 8,000 airmen.   God forgive me, I must mention women, too !  It gets a bit tricky when we separate RAF from RNAS etc, so I thought it better to describe them as soldiers, sailors and airmen ( and women).

There were an additional 14,000 dead in the Merchant Marine, and there might have been another category for fishermen ( and women !) who were used on minesweeping duties etc.

This 744,000 figures is cited in SMEBE, which gives total military deaths( excluding merchant marine) for the Empire as the figure of 947,000, including the figure of 908,000 army deaths that Terry cites. Incidentally, the caption “ killed” is perhaps a bit misleading, since deaths from all causes are included. It’s significant that the 704,000 UK army dead were overwhelmingly attributable ( 88%) to enemy action : killed or died from wounds.  This marked a huge change from previous conflicts, where deaths from enemy action were in the minority.The CWGC figure of 1,115,000 is compiled by different criteria : a longer time period, and with a wider remit for personnel , including, for example, scores of thousands in the Native Carrier Corps, and all the merchant mariners, who are excluded from the SMEBE figure of 947,000.

In the Tower of London poppy display, it was a feature that names were read out on a speaker, and sometimes there were Anzacs and Canadians cited.....these were additional to the 880,000 + represented by the poppies.

So, for a pedantic number cruncher, it was a flawed representation ; for the world at large, and those seeking an emotional evocation, it was a superb piece of work and deserves all the credit it gets.

 

Phil

Edited 7 July , 2021 by phil andrade

[Andrew Upton]

6 hours ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

...I see on the other thread that the cut off date for the plaque was 30/4/20, after which date, you got no plaque, but still got CWGC commemoration until 31/8/21.

One I've posted a few times before - Plaques were still being issued to some casualties who died of causes attributable to the war but still well after the 1921 CWGC cut-off date (possibly as late as 1930). The website linked below actually has details on two post-1921 British casualty plaques one after the other, about two thirds of the way down the page. The first is named to G/18434 Pte. Malcolm Douglas Crawfurth-Smith, 2nd Bn. Royal Sussex Regt, who died in the USA on the 1st March 1922. The second is named to 4/3282 AB Ernest Lawrence Cooke RNVR, Late of the Collingwood Bn., who died on the 13th April 1926:

http://www.jackclegg.com/Plaques.htm

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

Thanks for highlighting that Andrew.

I wonder what criteria were applied so rhat only some post April 1920 deaths were commemorated by a plaque?

 

[Skipman]

Interesting stuff thanks all. There seems to be two versions of the book Terry mentions 'available' online. No idea how you access ProQuest?

 

https://search.nls.uk/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,General Annual Report of the British Army 1913-1919&search_scope=SCOPE1&sortby=date&vid=44NLS_VU1&facet=frbrgroupid,include,41245484&facet=tlevel,include,online_resources&lang=en_US&mode=basic&offset=0

 

Mike

[MikeMeech]

Hi

For the RAF dead:

'Airmen Died in the Great War 1914-1918 - The Roll of Honour of the British and Commonwealth Air Services' DVD-ROM by Naval & Military Press, has around 9,350 men and women, all ranks, all causes listed.  A search on the database reveals 4,502 as serving in the RAF when they died.  These figures are lower than some of the more fanciful higher figures that have appeared in publications in the past.

Mike