Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:01 pm

minoru genda wrote:.

If the Western Allies captured 6,155,468 men then there are only 1,397,004 left for the Soviets. :shock: It just doesn't make any sense.


It makes as much sense as assuming a wounded man (some several million) never returns to service no matter how he was wounded.

The problem is the Official SHAEF figures clearly tabulate the number of POW's and that was 811,000 by Jan 1945.
You can do all sorts of complicated subtractions of notional totals from hyperthetical guesses but the actual body count done by SHAEF far outweighs this jiggery-pokery.
Stick with the facts.


lwd wrote:This is one of those topics where Wiki is only a good start.


WIKI that can be edited by anyone and they do not allow original reasearch to be used as a source.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:33 pm

Minoru Genda:

We have:

Total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200
This is the total of men that served in the Wehrmacht at one time or another some time between 1939-1945.

Total Wehrmacht Casualties 1939-1945: 10,340,728
This includes KIA, MIA, WIA at one time or another some time between 1939-1945.

So, the total max. of possible German POW is 7,552,472 between 1939-1945 in all fronts.

If the Western Allies captured 6,155,468 men then there are only 1,397,004 left for the Soviets. :shock: It just doesn't make any sense.


No, of course it doesn´t. That`s why the numbers provided by the authors I referred plus Krivosheev DO make a lot of sense.

We know, from Rutiger Overmans that, at least 3,024,800 PoWs were held in Russian hands. We need to add to that amount those Germans held prisioner during North Africa and the Mediterranean Campaigns. In the same document mkenny provides, page 135, it is clear that in the US mainland and other liberated countries there were 750,000 prisioners (that decreased dramatically by July 1946). Those prisioners were not, of course,those taken during the last months of the war. Of course, to use this information is as sinfull as stated previously, but it serves the purpose to see that:

7,552,472 - 3,024,800 = 4,509,672 that were not held prisioner by the soviets. If to that we substract an estimate, using mkenny`s document, of 750,000 PoWs then we have a maximun of: 3,759,672 Germans held prisioner to the western allies, tops. Of course, using Genda`s expression this is "the total max. of possible German POW..."

But it goes more in agreement to:

According to David Glantz http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publicatio ... r41-45.pdf, In January 1945 the Axis fielded over 2.3 million men, including 60 percent of the Wehrmacht’s forces and the forces of virtually all of its remaining allies, against the Red Army. In the course of the ensuing winter campaign, the Wehrmacht suffered 510,000 losses in the East against 325,000 in the West. By April 1945, 1,960,000 German troops faced the 6.4 million Red Army troops at the gates of Berlin, in Czechoslovakia, and in numerous isolated pockets to the east, while 4 million Allied forces in western Germany faced under 1 million Wehrmacht soldiers. In May 1945 the Soviets accepted the surrender of almost 1.5 million German soldiers, while almost 1 million more fortunate Germans soldiers surrendered to the British and Americans, including many who fled west to escape the dreaded Red Army.,


Basically, the figure of 1,5 million Germans fighting 5,4 million allies from June 6th 1944 to May 8th, 1945 it, by far, the product of more serious research and simple logic than any other position regarding this issue.

Warmest regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Bgile » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:51 pm

Much of the "math" done here is ignoring German replacements. You can have 1.5M men, lose 100,000 of them over a month of fighting, and still have 1.5M men.

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:01 pm

The mind boggles. We have someone using Krivosheev as a source for German losses!


Karl Heidenreich wrote:
We know, from Rutiger Overmans that, at least 3,024,800 PoWs were held in Russian hands.


Why not say that this is much the same as the total I gave you in an earlier post.
Here it is again:

France 940,000
Great Britain 3,640,000
USA 3,100,000
USSR 3,060,000
Last edited by mkenny on Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby minoru genda » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:06 pm

mkenny wrote:
minoru genda wrote:If the Western Allies captured 6,155,468 men then there are only 1,397,004 left for the Soviets. :shock: It just doesn't make any sense.

It makes as much sense as assuming a wounded man (some several million) never returns to service no matter how he was wounded.

The problem is the Official SHAEF figures clearly tabulate the number of POW's and that was 811,000 by Jan 1945.
You can do all sorts of complicated subtractions of notional totals from hyperthetical guesses but the actual body count done by SHAEF far outweighs this jiggery-pokery.
Stick with the facts.

I see your point. The number of wounded from 1939 to 1945 was 5,240,000. Let's consider them POWs too. So we have a total max. of possible POW of 12,792,472. The Western Allies captured 6,155,468 men then the Soviets captured 6,637,004. Makes more sense. I would expected the Soviets to capture much more that the Western Allies, but now that I think of it I guess during the final stages of the war the Gemans preferred to surrender to the Western powers than to the Soviets.

By the way, there were about 500,000 Wehrmacht personnel in Norway by May 1945. I assume all these men are part of the group that surrendered to the Western Allies after May 5?
Tora! Tora! Tora!

boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby boredatwork » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:07 pm

It's actually an interesting question...

How are counts determined?

If I fought in France in 1940 and was wounded, recovered and fought at Moscow in 1941, was wounded again, recovered again and fought at Normandy, was wounded and captured...

Do I count 3 times in the In the total casualties or just once?

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby minoru genda » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:18 pm

boredatwork wrote:It's actually an interesting question...

How are counts determined?

If I fought in France in 1940 and was wounded, recovered and fought at Moscow in 1941, was wounded again, recovered again and fought at Normandy, was wounded and captured...

Do I count 3 times in the In the total casualties or just once?

Yes, it's interesting. I have no idea how it was exactly determined.

But since we know the total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200

The total Wehmacht KIA 1939-1945: 2,230,324
The total Wehmacht MIA 1939-1945: 2,870,404

If we substract we have 12,792,472 the max. possible POW captured.
Tora! Tora! Tora!

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:20 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote: 7,552,472 - 3,024,800 = 4,509,672 that were not held prisioner by the soviets


So a soldier wounded in Poland in 1939 never served in the Army again?
Every wounded man is a permanant loss?
That sure makes sense!
The basis for the calculation is false and the conclusion is bogus

Karl Heidenreich wrote: Of course, using Genda`s expression this is "the total max. of possible German POW..:............Basically, the figure of 1,5 million Germans fighting 5,4 million allies from June 6th 1944 to May 8th, 1945 it, by far, the product of more serious research and simple logic than any other position regarding this issue.

"

No it is not. It is you trying to prove German lost because she was massively outnumbered and not outfought . You distort the figures to try and make reality match your beliefs. You keep saying the Germans 'fought to the death' They did no such thing and surrendered in their millions.

Bgile wrote:Much of the "math" done here is ignoring German replacements. You can have 1.5M men, lose 100,000 of them over a month of fighting, and still have 1.5M men.


It should be noted I am just going by the numbers actualy in captivity. How they got there and where they came from is for others to fight over.

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:23 pm

minoru genda wrote:
The total Wehmacht KIA 1939-1945: 2,230,324
The total Wehmacht MIA 1939-1945: 2,870,404


The bulk of the MIA must be presumed to be dead.


From 'Quiet Flows The Rhine' by French L Maclean


DEATHS AND SERIOUS WOUNDS

During Worid War Two, the German Central Archives for Military Medicine analyzed some 3,015,589 wounded soldiers with extremely detailed results. Overall, they found that of every 100 casualties, 24% were killed in action, 30% were seriously wounded and 46% were classified äs lightly wounded. This compared to a casualty rate of 13.8% killed and 86.2% wounded in Worid War I. The archivists believed the increased death rate was due, in pari, to an increase in weapons' lethality; additionally, the greater fluidity of the Worid War II battlefields made casualty evacuation more difficult than in the more statte Worid War I battlefields.
In 1942 the Archives did a study äs to the location of war wounds on the human body. They found that of all wounds inflicted on German soldiers 5% were skull wounds, 8% facial wounds, 1.3% throat wounds, 6.3% shoulderwounds, 7.3% ehest wounds, 6.3% upper arm wounds, 16.5% lower arm wounds, 3.5% stomach wounds, 10.1% upper leg wounds, 28.3% lower leg wounds and 3.4% back wounds.2 By 1944 wounds were further categorized (shown below) äs to location on the body (such äs direct hit (massive simultaneous multiple wounds), head, ehest, stomach, back, throat, legs and arms)with respect to casualties who were fatally wounded, seriously wounded (but survived) and lightly wounded.

Wound Location (by percentage)
site of wound..................................fatal ............................Serious ..........................Light
Direct Hit .....................................15.23..............................0.45..............................0.17
Head...........................................42.61.............................16.66.............................16.49
Chest..........................................22.11.............................11.28...............................3.00
Stomach........................................7.95..............................7.69................................0.79
Back.............................................4.11.............................10.45...............................9.06
Throat..........................................3.36...............................2.92...............................2.82
Legs............................................3.04..............................28.02 .............................29.90
Arms............................................0.64..............................22.53.............................37.77

Thus it was shown that of those patients who were fatally wounded, 42.61 had received head wounds while only 3.04 had been wounded in the legs. Leg wounds (28.02), on the other hand, were the most frequent injury for seriously wounded patients, while arm injuries (37.77) were the most frequent type of injury to those patients who were classified äs lightly wounded. Casualties who had serious wounds in their arms or legs had their damaged limbs amputated more frequently than in Western Allied armies.
Amputations reduced the possibility of infections and actually allowed the soldier to sometimes return to limited duty.

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby minoru genda » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:28 pm

Bgile wrote:Much of the "math" done here is ignoring German replacements. You can have 1.5M men, lose 100,000 of them over a month of fighting, and still have 1.5M men.

Oh yes, your are right. That the Germans had 1.5M men in the West on June 6, 1944, doesn't mean that's the total men that served in the West from June 6, 1944 to January 1945.

The max. men in Wehrmacht Service at the same time was 12,070,000+ in 1944. However, during the 1939-1945 period a total of 17,893,200 served in the Wehrmacht.
Tora! Tora! Tora!

User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby minoru genda » Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:36 pm

mkenny wrote:
minoru genda wrote:
The total Wehmacht KIA 1939-1945: 2,230,324
The total Wehmacht MIA 1939-1945: 2,870,404


The bulk of the MIA must be presumed to be dead.

Yes, I presumed them dead too. So, I added both KIA and MIA toghether, and substracted them to the big total of 17,893,200, and the result is 12,792,472 of max. possible POW captured. Note I say "max. possible", that do not necessarily (most certainly not) have to be the actual number of POWs.
Tora! Tora! Tora!

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:14 pm

mkenny:

So a soldier wounded in Poland in 1939 never served in the Army again?
Every wounded man is a permanant loss?
That sure makes sense!
The basis for the calculation is false and the conclusion is bogus


That number is those considered as PoWs. Not wounded.


You distort the figures to try and make reality match your beliefs.


The data provided is hardly mine, but as you can see come from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fr ... rld_War_II)

Which is based in the following:

"MacDonald, C (2005), The Last Offensive: The European Theater of Operations. University Press of the Pacific "

"Rűdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1,

Richard Overy , The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia (2004), ISBN 0-7139-9309-X "


Neither MacDonald nor Overmans is, by any chance, me.


You keep saying the Germans 'fought to the death'


Please show me the exact quote in which I say (or at least imply) that. I have never used such an expression nor believe in it.


Minoru Genda:

Yes, it's interesting. I have no idea how it was exactly determined.

But since we know the total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200

The total Wehmacht KIA 1939-1945: 2,230,324
The total Wehmacht MIA 1939-1945: 2,870,404

If we substract we have 12,792,472 the max. possible POW captured.


I humbly suggest we must substract certain figures from that, Minoru. Of course we must consider those Germans made prisioners during the early campaigns of 1940 and, then, pilots and sailors that were made prisioner during the 1939-1945 period. Also we need to substract those made prisioner during the Balcans, Greece, the Mediterranean / North Africa Campaigns and Italy. Those captured, as those killed or missing could have never be "double" counted in the lists of the German Army. Now, boreatwork point (which relates a bit to Bgiles comment) is very interesting and since the start of this discussion I have trying to solve, unsuccesfully. It is obviuous that a great number of wounded were reinstalled in combat or, if necesarry, in support units. Of course there are those that could have never be fighting again. I do imagine that people as John Mosier or David Glantz could have a look to registers for years and could have come with adequeate charts or tables with such information. At least for WWI Western Front Mr. Mosier had done his homework. Now, I must assume that historians of the caliber of Glantz, House or Beevor have done that too. Because in this their statements are quite clear and, for the time being, are those made public. I think that in this particular regard we must research a bit more.

Genda:

By the way, there were about 500,000 Wehrmacht personnel in Norway by May 1945. I assume all these men are part of the group that surrendered to the Western Allies after May 5?


I forgot them too. I was under the impression that were only 300,000, not 500,000.

Bgile:

Much of the "math" done here is ignoring German replacements. You can have 1.5M men, lose 100,000 of them over a month of fighting, and still have 1.5M men


I think that for those days, Bgile, the Germans were already a little short of replacements. Cornelius Ryan mentions that in both, Normandy as in Market Garden, the Germans were using second and third grade soldiers as those wounded, over age, over weight and so on. When an Army do that is because it´s lacking of the desired and idoneous prime material. Don´t think that if the German Army lost 100K men they could muster, in a month, another 100K. That was what defeated them at the end. The allies DID had that capability sending enought troops across the Ocean and then across the Channel.

But, in any case, that works both ways: if the Germans could replace their men, then the Allies could do that too, which means that still is 1.5 vs. 5.4 million at all times.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby mkenny » Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:57 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
That number is those considered as PoWs. Not wounded.


You seem to have completely missed the point. The 5 million wounded were excluded as possible POW's when in fact (going by the medical statistics I posted earlier) over half AT LEAST would have gone back into service.
Thus your 'highest possible number' of POW's is an undercount by some 3 million



Karl Heidenreich wrote:The data provided is hardly mine, but as you can see come from here:


Make it simple.
Give me the number of POW's your sources claim for January 1945.
Give me the numbers for May 1945.
When you do that I will reply but I surely am not going to wade through your links when you (say) you have already done it.
Give me simple tables like I have given you.





Karl Heidenreich wrote:I humbly suggest we must substract certain figures from that, Minoru. Of course we must consider those Germans made prisioners during the early campaigns of 1940 and, then, pilots and sailors that were made prisioner during the 1939-1945 period. Also we need to substract those made prisioner during the Balcans, Greece, the Mediterranean / North Africa Campaigns and Italy.................


I am suprised!
Here we have the standard response when any German number is challenged.
There are always lots of 'exceptions' where huge swathes of losses are excluded for any number of bogus reasons.
The figures never seem to be good enough and always have to be revised downwards.
Same old story, when the data cant be challenged for accuracy then exclude parts of the data.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:I do imagine that people as John Mosier or David Glantz could have a look to registers for years and could have come with adequeate charts or tables with such information


Could have....might have........ you 'imagine'?


Karl Heidenreich wrote:The allies DID had that capability sending enought troops across the Ocean and then across the Channel.


You obviously have never heard of the Division and Brigades Monty had to disband to provide replacements for the remainder?
The severe shortages of Infantry replacements in US Units?


Karl Heidenreich wrote:in any case, that works both ways: if the Germans could replace their men, then the Allies could do that too, which means that still is 1.5 vs. 5.4 million at all times.


At all times? What were the numbers for July 1944? They certainly were not 5 million



German manpower numbers from their own documents:

Date: 5.5.1944
East: 3,878,000
Finland: no figure given
Norway: 311,000
Denmark: no figure given
West: 1,873,000
Italy: 961,000
Balkans: 826,000
Sum: 7,849,000
Source: "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944", Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944. (referenced to BA-MA, N69/18.)

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:27 pm

In my opinion, troop strength numbers and whom out fought whom on the ground is completely secondary to the role of airpower and the build up of support material in the eventual outcome. It's my point of view that WWII was won and lost mainly in the air on all fronts and in all theaters.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:13 am

mkenny;

I gave, in an un mistaken way, the numbers from reliable sources. Let´s go the other way around:

Please provide us with your assesment of:

1. Allied and Axis Forces from June 1944 to May 1945

2. Allied and Axis casualties to that same period.

That´s all. All you have done is play with numbers here and there and not a single certain figure has came from you.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest