German Losses East vs West Front

[Firefly]

Originally posted by coe:

My assumption is that while the destruction of Army Group Center was big (that is something that many Americans don't know about), there were still Army Groups North and South left.

By the way, enlighten me, since alot of the Panzers were shifted to the South in anticipation of an offensive there, what did they do once Bagration started? What was the role of Army Groups North and South during July-Aug, 1944?

You need a better grog than me to give you exact numbers, but I remember Keegan in Six Armies in Normandy saying that DGAC was massive compared to the defeat in Normandy. As in Normandy the entire front collapsed, but the numbers involved were much higher. I can't even quote the the figures from Keegan as the person I lent the book to hasn't given it back yet .

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:

Glantz has some totalled numbers ("When Titans Clashed").

I think it was roughly 80% / 20% East/West, both in total casualties and in division months (# of divisions * months in action). Can't find the exact

citation, sorry.

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Lord Dragon:

Firefly,remember that most of the 5.3 million

were Polish Jews, gassed by the Nazi's.

Jews made up 10% of Poland's prewar population,

so roughly 11% of the remaining 90% were killed

(assuming 100% mortality among the Jews, which

isn't far off).

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Firefly:

[You need a better grog than me to give you exact numbers, but I remember Keegan in Six Armies in Normandy saying that DGAC was massive compared to the defeat in Normandy. As in Normandy the entire front collapsed, but the numbers involved were much higher. I can't even quote the the figures from Keegan as the person I lent the book to hasn't given it back yet .[/QB]

Zetterling makes some pretty damming arguments against Keegans conclusions. He first shows that the casualty figure for quarter of a million dead (Half a million casualties in total) does not in any way match up with actual German losses. OB West reported from June till the end of august 1944 KIA: 23,019, for the entire western theatre! Total casualties for Heeresgruppe B June to Aug 1944 210,000, including KIA, WIA and MIA.

Zetterling also points out that Keegen’s argument that the Allies achieved “their” victory with less effort is somewhat unusual considering the force ratios; Red army 2,411,600 versus Heeresgruppe mitte’s 849,000 at the opening of the “White Russia” battles. The allies were far better off with 2,052,299 versus 490,000 (total sent to Normandy. Actual upper limit numbers in the line were around 380,000) during Normandy.

He does point out that the Germans lost

26,361 KIA

109,776 WIA

262,959 Missing

during the destruction of AGC.

But the Soviets incurred higher losses than the allies did by a significant margin during the destruction of AGC.

180,040 KIA/MIA

590,848 WIA

[ December 22, 2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by jbertles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> British Empire 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000;

One of the things that leaped out at me was the similarity in civilian deaths between British Empire and Italy. The BE deaths must include the colonies as well, since the Battle of Britain couldn't have created that total alone. Italy, on the other hand, was well fought over.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by coe:

By the way, enlighten me, since alot of the Panzers were shifted to the South in anticipation of an offensive there, what did they do once Bagration started? What was the role of Army Groups North and South during July-Aug, 1944?

AG North was fighting for the Baltic states, to which it had withdrawn in February 44. It was cut off as a consequence of Bagration, with contact only re-established for a few days in autumn by a counter-attack of Grossdeutschland. It then became AG Courland.

AG South was actually split in AG North Ukraine and AG South Ukraine then. AG North Ukraine (where the Panzers lived) was smashed by Koniev in the Lvov/Sandomierz operation in July-September timeframe, featuring a feat of derring-do, in which 3rd Guards Tank Army was inserted in a 4x5km breakthrough sector, never attempted before or repeated since, or somefink. AG South Ukraine died in a few days in late August following Timoshenko's onslaught in the Iassy/Kishinjev operation.

All from memory, so the usual IIRC/AIUI/ISTR caveats apply.

Regarding British civilian deaths - following a visit to the Cabinet War Rooms I can confirm the number of ~61k dead in Britain. About 30k of those in London alone.

[Grisha]

Originally posted by coe:

By the way, enlighten me, since alot of the Panzers were shifted to the South in anticipation of an offensive there, what did they do once Bagration started? What was the role of Army Groups North and South during July-Aug, 1944?

I'll give you an answer on this when I get home to my precious books Andreas gives a good idea of the different outcomes of the various German army groups, but I'd like to elaborate from the Soviet side, since much of what happened, when it happened, and why it happened was a result of Soviet strategic planning for the summer of 1944.

[OGF Keller]

Originally posted by redwolf:

To make conclusions about the intensity of combat, you also have to take the timeframe into account.

The eastern front had 80% of all German miltary losses. So let say the ETO took 10% and all other theatres also 10% (crazy guess).

But the eastern front went on for 47 months, the ETO only for 11. If you project that, the 8 times more losses on the eastern front come out as "only" 1.8 the combat intensity.

Interesting that you say this. In Max Hastings' book Overlord, some of his research suggested that many of the German participants in Normandy who had Ost Front experience thought it was equally as intense. Though I do recall in his book a German east front veteran,trapped in Falaise, thought his fellow soldiers were kind of weenies, since they escaped tougher Kessels in Russia.

Also, Hastings said that Montgomery's headquarters staff had to add another category to their casualty charts. They went into the campaign with "Intense" as the highest level; after a few weeks, they added another category: "Double Intense."

[Spook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

AG South was actually split in AG North Ukraine and AG South Ukraine then. AG North Ukraine (where the Panzers lived) was smashed by Koniev in the Lvov/Sandomierz operation in July-September timeframe, featuring a feat of derring-do, in which 3rd Guards Tank Army was inserted in a 4x5km breakthrough sector, never attempted before or repeated since, or somefink.

That's about the size of a large CM battle map that a tank army was pushed through. :eek: It can indeed boggle the mind.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by OGF Keller:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

To make conclusions about the intensity of combat, you also have to take the timeframe into account.

The eastern front had 80% of all German miltary losses. So let say the ETO took 10% and all other theatres also 10% (crazy guess).

But the eastern front went on for 47 months, the ETO only for 11. If you project that, the 8 times more losses on the eastern front come out as "only" 1.8 the combat intensity.

Interesting that you say this. In Max Hastings' book Overlord, some of his research suggested that many of the German participants in Normandy who had Ost Front experience thought it was equally as intense. Though I do recall in his book a German east front veteran,trapped in Falaise, thought his fellow soldiers were kind of weenies, since they escaped tougher Kessels in Russia.

Also, Hastings said that Montgomery's headquarters staff had to add another category to their casualty charts. They went into the campaign with "Intense" as the highest level; after a few weeks, they added another category: "Double Intense."</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by LightningWar:

The numbers are staggering for most Americans. We had a hard time coming to grips with 57,000 or so dead in Vietnam.

And consider: almost that many were killed or died of wounds in the Battle of Waterloo. And that was only two or three days of battle all told.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by OGF Keller:

Also, Hastings said that Montgomery's headquarters staff had to add another category to their casualty charts. They went into the campaign with "Intense" as the highest level; after a few weeks, they added another category: "Double Intense."

The reason for this was that casualty rates were extrapolated from battle experience in the Western Desert.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Rostik:

The highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: ...(#2) China 3.5 million and 10 million...(#5) Japan 1.7 million and 380,000

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Those two above that I snipped out were the most startling to me. The Chinese WW2 struggle is obscenely underrepresented in most Western historical perspectives. I don't know much about Japan vs. China, save that it started in like '31 or '33 and lasted until '45 I guess; and that Japan honed her carrier tactics in the Chinese rivers. At any rate, the 10 million Civ. deaths is astounding. I do know a little about "The Rape of Nanking," and its oddly ironic that a German (Nazi?) documented the slaughter and helped greatly to slow/prevent it and get the word out to the world.

The fact that Japan lost so high a ratio of military to civ. dead (1.7mil to 380,000civ) is equally as eye-catching.

[ December 23, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Michael Emrys]

I expect that estimate for Chinese civilian dead is extremely conservative. Given the state of governance in China at that time, anything resembling a rigorous count is simply impossible. I'm sure the Japanese did not count all the people they slaughtered. When deaths due to starvation caused by disruption of the food distribution system and outright appropriation by the Japanese is factored in, and the deliberate propagation of disease by the Japanese, that number of 10 million could be doubled.

Michael

[LightningWar]

I was also surprised at the relatively low civilian casualties on the Japanese side. I could of sworn when they fire bombed cities like Tokyo. A lot more civs perished.

LW

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I expect that estimate for Chinese civilian dead is extremely conservative. Given the state of governance in China at that time, anything resembling a rigorous count is simply impossible. I'm sure the Japanese did not count all the people they slaughtered. When deaths due to starvation caused by disruption of the food distribution system and outright appropriation by the Japanese is factored in, and the deliberate propagation of disease by the Japanese, that number of 10 million could be doubled.

Michael

I think the figures for civilian dead for the British Empire and Commonwealth are only the figures for British dead due to air raids, which amounted to 30,000 in London alone. I suspect Asian civilians in British colonies such as Burma, Malaya, Hong Kong etc. have been missed out, but unfortunately these people are often forgotten.

Edit to note tha someone has already made this point. I shouldn't read threads backwards.

[ December 23, 2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by LightningWar:

I was also surprised at the relatively low civilian casualties on the Japanese side. I could of sworn when they fire bombed cities like Tokyo. A lot more civs perished.

LW

I agree, seems low to me. Those may just be the confirmed casualties though, and may also not include long-term deaths from cancer in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Nidan1]

It is not surprising that Japanese Military deaths are higher than civilian, as opposed to the numbers in the European Theater.

A lot of the major battles in the Pacific were fought on remote islands and atolls that did not have major civilian populations. The major civilian losses for the Japanese occurred late in the war when the American bombers had bases from which to strike Japan. Most European cities were under bombing attacks from very early on in the war. I do not have exact figures at hand, but there were nearly 50,000 Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima, less than 100 were taken prisoner,IIRC. The rest were killed outright, committed suicide, or were buried alive in their caves. Japanese soldiers were reluctant to surrender because of their social codes, I would imagine the higher numbers of military deaths would include those that committed suicide, either alone, in groups, or in organized suicide missions, i.e. the Kamekazi pilots.

The very unfortunate fact of war still remains...

people are killed, and not only soldiers directly involved. Maybe we will learn someday.

[Andreas]

I think the question here is more 'Is the total civilian death figure too low?' for different reasons than that most of Japan was not fought over. 370k seems very low considering the following single incidents:

</font>

• Hiroshima </font>
• Nagasaki </font>
• Okinawa </font>
• Tokyo firebombing </font>

I would have thought these alone may account for 300-400k dead Japanese civilians.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think the question here is more 'Is the total civilian death figure too low?' for different reasons than that most of Japan was not fought over. 370k seems very low considering the following single incidents:

</font>

• Hiroshima </font>
• Nagasaki </font>
• Okinawa </font>
• Tokyo firebombing </font>

I would have thought these alone may account for 300-400k dead Japanese civilians.

In more recent times, I see a figure of app. 200k dead linked to the two A-bomb attacks, allowing later deaths to be added in. That would leave about 180k for the rest.

Okinawa is certainly an intangible. As it is not part of "Japan proper," whether or not its civilian losses (or those of Saipan) are factored into the estimate can be of some conjecture.

But I couldn't see more than 180k resulting from the remaining B-29 bombing raids, if even that. The Tokyo raid of 9-10 March was horrific enough (87k dead), but its firestorm effect and how it was initiated, at nighttime, was a bit more unique than for the rest.

One must also take note that the B-29 raids coming from the Marianas, which did the most damage to Japan, went on for eight months, compared to years for Bomber Command's city-bombing campaign. This figure may be in error, but I seem to recall that about 600-700k German civilians died from this campaign. If that figure is true, then it kind of puts into perspective the US 20th AF's raids against Japan, further considering that the very long range (VLR) missions by the B-29's made it difficult to achieve comparable sortie rates or even overall bomb tonnage.

So, even if 180k Japanese civilians died from the B-29 bombings (excluding the A-bomb attacks), that figure is high enough for the timeframe of operations.

[Andreas]

Sure that Okinawa is not considered Japan proper? It was a recent addition (1870ish or somefink), but still. Unlike Korea (1910ish?) and Taiwan (1890ish?) it stayed with Japan afterwards too. It is very different historically from outlying islands the Japanese took from the Germans.

Figures I heard for Okinawa reached up to 100k dead civilians, although we will never know if that is close to correct or far too high. I'd certainly include it in Japanese civilian casualties.

[Nidan1]

67,000 Japanese people were killed outright by the two atomic bombs. 36,000 died within the next four months as a result of the bombs.

That would leave an estimated 200,000 killed by the firebombings, and conventional bombing campaigns during the last year of the war. Of course no true accounting can be made for all deaths, but it would seem to me that the low number is due to the fact that real heavy bombing of Japan did not take effect until late in the war.

My father served in the Pacific with the Marine Corps during the war. He was part of the occupation forces after the war ended.

He told me a story about when the ship he was on pulled into Tokyo Bay in August of 1945, all the guys were up on deck, an he said that you could see from one end of the city to another, and the only things that were standing were some brick chimmneys. There was actually nothing left of Tokyo or Yokahama. What horrible things we do to each other.

[The_Capt]

I think it is a sad statement that anyone can grow up in this world 50 yrs or less from a conflict which shaped so much of what we see today and not have the least inkling of what actually happened.

I am no grog. I have to study up to take on giants on this board BUT I have at least taken the effort to inform myself as to why the world looks the way it does today.

What exactly do they teach in schools these days?!

"The Eastern Front was a minor diversion" ?!! WWII was won/lost on the Eastern Front (depending on which side you were on). It shaped the world we live in today. It's impact on Western and Eastern Military Doctrine can be seen to this day.

If there was a minor diversion in the ETO it was the West Front, if we are going to speak stricly from body counts.

In reality in war there are almost no "minor" diversions. The chaotic nature of the beast can mean a small action can have enormous effects. Or a series of small actions can add up to a big factor.

I would recommend to your friend that he enlighten himself. If he want to hold opinions they should at least be informed.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Sure that Okinawa is not considered Japan proper? It was a recent addition (1870ish or somefink), but still. Unlike Korea (1910ish?) and Taiwan (1890ish?) it stayed with Japan afterwards too. It is very different historically from outlying islands the Japanese took from the Germans.

Figures I heard for Okinawa reached up to 100k dead civilians, although we will never know if that is close to correct or far too high. I'd certainly include it in Japanese civilian casualties.

As would I (and those on Saipan), merely that it MIGHT well had been the case that the civilians who died on these islands "slipped between the cracks" in earlier cited estimates.

[Mies]

The_Capt wrote:

I would recommend to your friend that he enlighten himself. If he want to hold opinions they should at least be informed.

I can't agree more. I'f one doesn't know how this world was shaped it's hard to form an opinion on today's events. And I do not only mean the events during WWII, but also think of the Kolonies from a few centuries ago, for example.

In Holland we have to learn things like that at the age of 10-12. Mind you, cramming dates into your head isn't fun but at least I became aware of the fact that the world didn't start turning the day I was born. If I had never been told about procedings in the past I probably wouldn't have investigated more. Now I'm trully fascinated by history and specially with WWII and I can form a sound opinion about things going on today.

Mies