Eastern Front casualties
Eastern Front casualties
I was looking for information on the casualties for both German and Russian forces on the eastern front.
Soviet casualties, broken down in three month periods, here:
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80sov.htm
Krivisheev is generally regarded as having the most reliable figures on Soviet casualties. His total is as you can see 29,6 million in the war against Germany.
German casualties are harder due to the absence of any reliable figures in 1945. There is an internal overview report going through January 1945, giving a figure of 5.5 million casualties in the East.
However, there are several points to bear in mind when comparing this with Krivosheev's figure, even if you subtract Soviet figures for 1945. Firstly, Krivosheev's figures includes non-combat losses, the German does not. These were substantial, certainly running well into six digits for the Germans. Secondly, Krivosheev's figures includes air force and naval casualties which again the German do not. According to the same source, these totalled about 500,000 and 175,000 respectively, but that's for all fronts.
Then of course there are to an extent issues of reliability with both figures, but they are probably the best we have. All types of auxiliary casualties (such as HiWis, RAD and OT for the Germans and workers militia, NKVD and partisans for the Soviets) are not included AFAIK.
cheers
http://www.magweb.com/sample/sgmbn/sgm80sov.htm
Krivisheev is generally regarded as having the most reliable figures on Soviet casualties. His total is as you can see 29,6 million in the war against Germany.
German casualties are harder due to the absence of any reliable figures in 1945. There is an internal overview report going through January 1945, giving a figure of 5.5 million casualties in the East.
However, there are several points to bear in mind when comparing this with Krivosheev's figure, even if you subtract Soviet figures for 1945. Firstly, Krivosheev's figures includes non-combat losses, the German does not. These were substantial, certainly running well into six digits for the Germans. Secondly, Krivosheev's figures includes air force and naval casualties which again the German do not. According to the same source, these totalled about 500,000 and 175,000 respectively, but that's for all fronts.
Then of course there are to an extent issues of reliability with both figures, but they are probably the best we have. All types of auxiliary casualties (such as HiWis, RAD and OT for the Germans and workers militia, NKVD and partisans for the Soviets) are not included AFAIK.
cheers
Hello Maxaley
That would be just dead and missing, not casualties, for the Soviets. Krivosheev's figure for Soviet casualties are 29,6 million. 6 million would seem almost certainly a bit on the low side for German casualties, but much too high for deaths.
And you are right, there are no absolutely rock solid figures (though some are of course more reliable than others)
cheers
That would be just dead and missing, not casualties, for the Soviets. Krivosheev's figure for Soviet casualties are 29,6 million. 6 million would seem almost certainly a bit on the low side for German casualties, but much too high for deaths.
And you are right, there are no absolutely rock solid figures (though some are of course more reliable than others)
cheers
-
Gwynn Compton
- Member
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
- Location: United Kingdom
Germany's pre-war population (without Austria) was about 70 million.
Consequently 6 million is 8,5% of population. Unfortunately I don't know German's satellites population.
SU's pre-war population (with new territories where were many separatists) was 192 million. 11 million is 5,7% of population.
8,5% is huge number. But why it wouldn't be?
And it should be add that 1 million Soviet citizens fight on Axis side. Whom does their losses belong to.
Consequently 6 million is 8,5% of population. Unfortunately I don't know German's satellites population.
SU's pre-war population (with new territories where were many separatists) was 192 million. 11 million is 5,7% of population.
8,5% is huge number. But why it wouldn't be?
And it should be add that 1 million Soviet citizens fight on Axis side. Whom does their losses belong to.
The whole axis could be possible, but you spoke of germans.Maxaley wrote:Germany's pre-war population (without Austria) was about 70 million.
Consequently 6 million is 8,5% of population. Unfortunately I don't know German's satellites population.
SU's pre-war population (with new territories where were many separatists) was 192 million. 11 million is 5,7% of population.
8,5% is huge number. But why it wouldn't be?
And it should be add that 1 million Soviet citizens fight on Axis side. Whom does their losses belong to.
At this time, and especially with the whole "Ahnennachweis"-thing, it was quite easy to say who was dead or missing after the war, as I mentioned before germany lost entirely 7 million people, including civilians (just dead I think) out of the 6 million germans you mentioned it could be possible if just 3.5 million died.
Frankly i thinkl the whole wounded and dead thing is confusing, so does anybody here have some figures which are split in dead wounded etc..?
Just to clarify.
1. Casualties are not the same as dead. Casualties are dead, wounded and missing (including POWs).
2. Dead and Missing in Krivosheev (Irrecoverable losses (IL)) means all who died and all who were taken prisoner. Except to distinguish between the casualties that were permanent in nature while the war lasted and the ones that were not (as most wounded men eventually return to the ranks) it does not constitute a very meaningful way of looking at losses. I have never seen such a figure for the Germans (or indeed for anyone anywhere, except in Krivosheev). Theoretically speaking, it would be simple to construct one by adding the figures of dead of the number of Missing in Action (MIA). But that presupposes reliable figures reliably subdivided into the three main categories, and these do not currently exist. As Krivosheev without exception provides not just IL but also total casualties, I continue to be mystified by the tendency of most people to be attracted to his IL figures rather than his overall casualty figures.
If you want a picture of the ultimate human cost of the war, dead is the relevant category. In this case, good luck, as there is not really any very reliable figures available or at least not ones that are comparable.
If you want a picture of loss intensity of military operations, then overall casualties (killed, wounded, MIA) is the relevant category. Of these there were as said 29,6 million Soviet according to Krivosheev and in excess of 5.5 million (somewhere around 7 million might be as good a guess as any) German. I have no figures for German allies. Of course, all figures reflect number of cases, not number of persons (ie, many soldiers became casualties more than once).
PAK:
Maxaley:
cheers
1. Casualties are not the same as dead. Casualties are dead, wounded and missing (including POWs).
2. Dead and Missing in Krivosheev (Irrecoverable losses (IL)) means all who died and all who were taken prisoner. Except to distinguish between the casualties that were permanent in nature while the war lasted and the ones that were not (as most wounded men eventually return to the ranks) it does not constitute a very meaningful way of looking at losses. I have never seen such a figure for the Germans (or indeed for anyone anywhere, except in Krivosheev). Theoretically speaking, it would be simple to construct one by adding the figures of dead of the number of Missing in Action (MIA). But that presupposes reliable figures reliably subdivided into the three main categories, and these do not currently exist. As Krivosheev without exception provides not just IL but also total casualties, I continue to be mystified by the tendency of most people to be attracted to his IL figures rather than his overall casualty figures.
If you want a picture of the ultimate human cost of the war, dead is the relevant category. In this case, good luck, as there is not really any very reliable figures available or at least not ones that are comparable.
If you want a picture of loss intensity of military operations, then overall casualties (killed, wounded, MIA) is the relevant category. Of these there were as said 29,6 million Soviet according to Krivosheev and in excess of 5.5 million (somewhere around 7 million might be as good a guess as any) German. I have no figures for German allies. Of course, all figures reflect number of cases, not number of persons (ie, many soldiers became casualties more than once).
PAK:
See Krivosheev for the Soviets. For the Germans, there is no lack of subdivided figures, but there aren't really any reliable ones. By sticking to overall casualties, the problemis avoided though.Frankly i thinkl the whole wounded and dead thing is confusing, so does anybody here have some figures which are split in dead wounded etc..?
You get a lot of books providing a lot of nonsense on this issue. That figure is way too low - the figure for wounded alone is higher than that in the source I quoted, and those are certainly figures that are not on the high side to begin with.My book "Saat in den Sturm" speeks of 3.5 million dead and wounded german soldiers
Maxaley:
See my above posting. they certainly are not included in the German figures I quoted and possibly are not recorded systematically anywhere.And it should be add that 1 million Soviet citizens fight on Axis side. Whom does their losses belong to.
No, what I meant was 6 million dead would be much too high.Yes, 11 million is just dead and missing. But why do you think that 6 million (dead and missing) is too high for Germany (If I understood you correctly).
cheers