I will not ignore your points as you have been ignoring some that I have been posting since yesterday.
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.
I have done that many times now: given tables, data and sources. You decide to ignore them, you will only recognize the data that abides to your pre conceptions. As a matter of fact those that I have quoted have the tendency of given clear numbers, while you gave us a 1946 document in which we have to look for the important information amongst atletic programs for ocupation forces.
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.
I promised to answer in a civilized way, even when un civilized contested by your sheer arrogance. The exceptions are those needed. Or you want to account for US casualties including those in Iwo Jima?
Could have....might have........ you 'imagine'?
It´s an expresion in which only "I imagine"
is used, where the rest come from, I don´t know? By the way: Have you found already the statement in which I say that the Germans fought to the last or to the death?
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?
I have heard about the shortages, which was why the 101 was sent to Bastogne, as a matter of fact: because there were not enough units. In a 5.4 million men force I do imagine everything, including the laundry sink, was being used against the Germans. However the situation was also critical for the Germans, which, again I must repeat myself, were using old men, sick men to support those fighting and fighting themselves (again, let´s mention Cornelius Ryan books).
Again: How many were they? And why historians of the caliber of Beevor, Glantz and House do commit a mistake that you are sure they commit?
At all times? What were the numbers for July 1944? They certainly were not 5 million
Very important. Then, you are posting a total of German troops for May, 1944 of 7,85 million. 1.8 million in the West vs. 3,78 million in the East.
German manpower numbers from their own documents:
Finland: no figure given
Denmark: no figure given
Source: "Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944", Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944. (referenced to BA-MA, N69/18.)
According to Beevor, Glantz and House the Germans fielded 60% in the East and 40% in the West which is aproximate the proportion shown by BA-MA. I must admit I´m puzzled, because this information tends to contradict the claim of 6 million surrendering troops by 1945 to the western allies, but instead supports the numbers posted at the start of this discussion. Those at Norway surrendered there as those in Italy and the Balkans, so, there could not be that amount of troops surrendering which, on the other hand, supports the fact that the German Forces were of 1,5 million (or, in this case, 1,87 million). There is no way to check the overall total of PoW taken by the soviets with these numbers but something is clear: according to these numbers and the previous arithmetics, there is no way that your claims of 6 million prisioners by May 1945 in western hands could be real. It, on the other hand, evidences that the sources I posted were correct.
Best regards and I appreciatte the last set of data.