Are we all deluded?

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Just had the latest National Archives newsletter. In the promation blurb for 'Family History in the Wars' I read this: "The World Wars of last century were the greatest conflicts ever known. Over a million men and women served in British armed forces alone between 1914 and 1918. The figure for the Second World War was even higher." This is fewer than I thought, what happened to the other million+ who qualified for the 1914/15 Star? The other 5 million or so who qualified for the British War Medal? It fills me with so much confidence in the guardians of our records.

[PhilB]

Well, I suppose they`re right - there were over a million!

[per ardua per mare per terram]

You've got me there! But it seems to down play the commitment of people to the services.

[Gunner Bailey]

Obviously written by someone in the PR department, not a historian. Lazy writing if you ask me....

Gunner Bailey

[Heid the Ba]

It could depend on their definition of "served". One million served, the other five million just buggered about.

[Michael Johnson]

Don't forget the Africans, Australians, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders, Newfoundlanders, and South Africans.

[jay dubaya]

so that's 1,000,014 then....

[stevem49]

Think it should have read - killed and not served.

sm

[Heid the Ba]

British casualties in the Second World War were lower, not higher.

[stevem49]

British casualties in the Second World War were lower, not higher.

If they got the first bit wrong, I doubt they would have fared any better with the second bit.

They possibly used the casualty figure for WW1 but the total served for WW2.

Maybe we should mail and asked the muppets for clarification on figures!

sm

[Moonraker]

Obviously written by someone in the PR department, not a historian. Lazy writing if you ask me....

Gunner Bailey

Very lazy. When I was in PR (yawn, yawn), it was regarded as poor style to write "over a million"; it should be "more than a million".

Moonraker

(who hasn't got out as much as he should have recently because of the weather and is still getting over a BBC reporter saying "a criteria")

[edwin astill]

Trouble is, someone equally lazy will pick it up and run with it, and it will then form part of history. "Generals all a bunch of callous cowards", "Amritsar 'Massacre' demonstates the wickedness of British rule in India" .....

Edwin

[themonsstar]

War Medals

It is officially stated that during the past twelve months (1926/7), 51,513 medals have been issued by the War Office, & that the total numbers issued since 1920 is 13,466,821. the details being as follow:

1914 Star 365,622 (1926/7) Medal year book 2001 (400,000 issued).

1914/15 Star 2,078,183 (1926/7). MYB 2001 (2,350,000 issued).

BWM 5,670,174 (1926/7). MYB 2001 (6,500,000 issued).

VM 5,126,403 (1926/7). MYB 2001 ( some six million are believed to have be issued).

TFWM 33,440 (1926/7). MYB 2001 (34,000 issued).

DCM 33,159 (1926/7).

MM 130,241 (1926/7).

MSM 29,499 (1926/7).

Many medals yet remain to be distributed because the addresses of those entitled to them are unknown. This last statement was in 1927 not know.

[edwin astill]

On reflection (and the real figures must be obtainable):

If the population of the British Isles was ?40m, and half were women (it says served in British Armed Forces - so that excludes munitions workers etc. - and possible many nurses, YMCA ladies etc (not in 'armed' forces.)) Then you discount those too old or too young, then those unfit, and those working in reserved occupations - police, agriculture, factories, etc etc. that gives a maximum number that could have served. Manpower planning is something that seems to have greatly occupied the minds of military throughout the period!

Edwin

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Thank you all very much for your contributions. I go along with the lazy writing theory, but I’m concerned that this emanates from the National Archives, which gives them an air of authority. I emailed them to query the figures but have not had a response.

In discussions on how much was lost as a result of the war damage to the service on this forum I’ve seen figures of “over” eight million of the total number of men who served in the army ranks (it just says served not overseas), in WW1; to those can be added those that served in the Navy, RAF and Women’s services. Sorry Michael if you thought I was ignoring the rest of the Commonwealth. I used the medal figures as a way of getting the ball rolling. By not including the home service I was hoping that they and the Commonwealth forces would balance out.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Thank you for the medal issue figures MonsStar, its interesting to see the figures from an authoritative source. As these are from the War Office, do they show whether they include the Navy, RAF, and Commonwealth medals issued?

[centurion]

In line with a not unconnected line of enquiry I am following - does any one have authorative figures (ie with a reliable source) for the population of France, Russia and Germany duing the WW1 period? Trying to find the figure for France for example I get a range from just under 40 million to over 50 million depending upon which source I pick up (the whole range can be found in various places on Wiki - why am I not surprised!) but no source (all modern) quotes where they derived these figure from.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I don't think the Czarist administration carried out a census.

Have you tried the Encyclopaedia Brittania for the period?

[Gibbo]

From Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920:

I started to copy out this figures thinking that they were for all services but then realised that they're just for the army. There are different & higher figures for the Empire elsewhere in the book, which I assume include men who didn't serve overseas. There are figures for other parts of the Empire but I've not had time to go through them & the format is different.

Recruitment for the Army

Estimated UK population in July 1914: 46,331,548

Estimated male population in July 1914: 22,485,501

Total enlistments from all sources to 11 November 1918: 4,970,902

Percentage of male population represented by enlistments: 22.11%

Men in reserved and other occupations as at 30 April 1917

Tribunal exemptions 779,936

Protected trades and occupations 1,796,728

Miscellaneous 165,324 - largest part (111,019) is men with appeals outstanding or adjourned

Total 2,741,988

Men in reserved occupations at 31 October 1918 2,574,860.

Empire Enlistments

Country Total sent overseas or undergoing training as at 1 November 1918 Estimated total white male population at July 1911 Percentage of white male population represented by total recruited

Canada 458,216 3,400,000 (only those born in Canada or the British Isles) 13.48%

Australia 331,814 2,470,000 13.43%

New Zealand 112,223 580,000 19.35%

South Africa 76.184 (excluding 50,000 employed in German SW Africa) 685,000 11.12%

Newfoundland 6,173

[centurion]

Useful info Gibbo - I'd like to see a similar breakdown for France if anyone should have such a thing.

[Versigny]

According to "Le Bilan De La Guerre 1914-1918" (the consequences of the 1914-1918 war - a recent French pamphlet purchaseable from the Péronne Historial) the comparable figures were:

French population 39,000,000; French mobilised (including Colonials) 8,501,045: French dead (including Colonials) 1,391,000.

GB population 45,000,000; mobilised 8,375,000; dead 682,000.

British Dominions population 375,000,000; mobilised 895,000; dead 187,000.

It also gives figures for:

Russia: 150,000,000; 15,070,000; 1,700,000.

Germany; 60,300,000; 13,250,000; 1,950,000.

Austria/Hungary: 52,605,000; 9,000,000; 1,542,000.

Italy; 37,000,000; 5,704,000; 750,000.

...and Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, Romania, Portugal, Belgium, the USA.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Martin thank's very much for those statistics, its good to get the Army into perspective. Were there any for women's service anywhere? As you say, the RN, RM, RNR, RNVR, & RAF plus Mercantile Marine were not inluded, which would account for some of the discrepencies with the medals.

Versigny thank you for finding those for those figures. I find it interesting that they give the population of the British Dominions, rather than colonies and no figures for the French colonial population. The mobilised figures for the UK match the 8+ figure that I'd partially remembered. Its the first time I've seen that the UK population exceeded the French.

[Versigny]

"Le Bilan..." does give a figure for the population of the French Colonies - 50,400,000.

(There's quite a lot more statistical analysis in the pamphlet, almost all of it relating to French losses - by classe (ie the year they were initially passed through the system), by geographic region, by period of the war, and by category of serviceman - ie cavalry, infantry, artillery etc.)

[Chris Martin]

From Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920:

I started to copy out this figures thinking that they were for all services but then realised that they're just for the army. There are different & higher figures for the Empire elsewhere in the book, which I assume include men who didn't serve overseas.

Newfoundland 6,173

As you say the number for Newfoundland is just those who served in the Newfoundland Regiment and does not include the thousands of Newfoundlanders who served in the Royal Navy, nor does it include the near three thousand Newfoundlanders who served in Canadian and British regiments. it does however include the Forestry Corp as they were given NFLD Rgt. regimental numbers. I assume that a similar story can be found for each nation listed.

[centurion]

Thanks Versigny

I'll use the population figure given as it appears consistant with growth over the previous century

The one thing that still muddies the water for me is how many of the French mobilised were colonials? I need the number from metropolitan France mobilised - I've never seen this seperated from the grand total.