no name on a war memorial

[Cat]

There are figures, and their breakdowns, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

[Dick Smith]

I actually took them from Wikipedia, simply because I was too lazy to go into my office and get the books and get them from there. They are pretty standard, and familiar. To get 'casualty' figures (ie the killed and wounded, all degrees) multiply these figures by 3, so under 5m.

I'm not sure how many Frenchmen served (and in any case that is a rather difficult thing to use, as many were conscripted but not in combat units, not all in combat units fought etc) but 10m would not be out of the ballpark. I believe 5m men served in uniform in Britain 1914-1920.

Philip Haythornthwaite "The World War One Sourcebook" gives the following losses:

Germany - 1,800,000

Russia - 1,700,000

France - 1,300,000

Austria-Hungary - 922,000

Italy - 460,000

USA - 50,500

Britain - 888,000

Australia - 62,000

Canada - 65,000

New Zealand - 18,000

India - 72,000

South Africa - 9,300

He notes that these losses were, in most cases, 50% greater than those sustained in WW2, and in the case of Britain 233% greater.

On the original question it seems as though at some time the memorial got very badly battered. Possibly in WW2, though generally the Germans were pretty indifferent about them. Perhaps there was simply a name missing that could not be recovered, or even a mistake was made. We really need to wait for Remembrance Day and ask someone who shows up with flowers.

To put WW1 losses in perspective, I quote from Haythornthwaite (p54-55)

'Such statistics are bewildering until considered in terms of population: a contemporary British assessment remarked that evry thousand casualties equated with the annihilation of every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 41 of a small market-town like Keswick or Calne... Throughout (1916) it was estimated that a serviceman of British birth or speech was killed or wounded every three-quarters of a minute; and that the average daily loss in August 1916 equated to the total casualties of Blenheim and Inkerman combined.'

[cooperlola]

There are days when one can't help but wonder if just pitting each side's best fighting men against one another in a field somewhere wasn't a better way to go about this...  Those figures are so depressing.

I have been watching a series called "Windrush" on BBC4 for the last couple of nights (more this evening) about the encouragement of immigration from the West Indies as the labour force was so depleted after WWII.  Hard to imagine what it must have been like after the 1st war when you see those numbers you quote, Dick.

[Callie]

I once stopped at a small graveyard somewhere in Normandie where there were a large number of German soldiers buried.  What struck me most was that their ages were 17 and 18.  Either conscripted as the Germans ran out of manpower, or misguided Hitler Youth.  Sad for any country to lose its young.

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

There are days when one can't help but wonder if just pitting each side's best fighting men against one another in a field somewhere wasn't a better way to go about this...  Those figures are so depressing.

I have been watching a series called "Windrush" on BBC4 for the last couple of nights (more this evening) about the encouragement of immigration from the West Indies as the labour force was so depleted after WWII.  Hard to imagine what it must have been like after the 1st war when you see those numbers you quote, Dick.

[/quote]

The effects of war losses weren't particularly noticeable after WW2, that was more a question of the economy expanding and requiring more bodies.

After WW1 as noted above the losses weren't such as to cause a severe labour problem per se, but there were issues in two areas due to the demographic of those killed and disabled. After all, the losses could be compensated for by employing more women or extending the working life of older men.

There was a severe loss in the 'officer classes', and these included skilled men as well as public-school types. This meant that there were shortfalls in some areas. It has often been said that the inadequate leadership of European states in the 30s and even into the 50s was due to the 'brightest and the best' being lost in WW1. In society as a whole the losses fell almost exclusively on fit, able men aged between 18 and 40. This meant skilled workers, craftsmen and so on. So there were shortages of skills, and dilution of some trades resulted.

There was also the issue of unmarried women. Up to half a million women had been widowed, and another half million had lost their future partners. This both slowed the birth rate and meant that these women had to look after themselves, working usually. This led to a considerable social change. The population pattern changes can be seen whenever rotated bargraphs of population are shown - I don't have any to hand at the moment, but the nett population shortfall would have been a million or more in the first generation.

This whole idea that the war crippled the nation due to population loss became popular in the 1930s and has stuck, although there isn't much evidence for it. The financial losses, however, were catastrophic.

[Pierre ZFP]

The memorial I got my figures from was a bronze plaque at Tyne Cot on the wall of the war grave, if I go back I'll take a photo.  Dick's figures seem much more believeable and accurate I think but the 'flu definitely claimed more lives, possible the very young and the elderly.

Just heard on the radio this lunchtime that the main war memorial here in Luxembourg has been desecrated with spray paint (graffiti is almost unknown here) and will take a lot of cleaning up.

Perhaps if they catch the b@$tards that did it they should take them on a trip to Verdun or Flanders or the Somme or.......

[woolybananasbrother]

Intellectual losses??? The best died??

[Dick Smith]

Yes.

[Russethouse]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

There are days when one can't help but wonder if just pitting each side's best fighting men against one another in a field somewhere wasn't a better way to go about this...  Those figures are so depressing.

I have been watching a series called "Windrush" on BBC4 for the last couple of nights (more this evening) about the encouragement of immigration from the West Indies as the labour force was so depleted after WWII.  Hard to imagine what it must have been like after the 1st war when you see those numbers you quote, Dick.

[/quote]

Have you read 'Small Island' by Andrea Levy ? Excellent book - fiction but very true to its time.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Small-Island-Andrea-Levy/dp/075530750X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214397184&sr=1-1

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Callie"]I once stopped at a small graveyard somewhere in Normandie where there were a large number of German soldiers buried.  What struck me most was that their ages were 17 and 18.  Either conscripted as the Germans ran out of manpower, or misguided Hitler Youth.  Sad for any country to lose its young.

[/quote]

If you get the chance, visit the German cemetery in Luxembourg. I seem to remember the dates as being all around Christmas 1945 (?) the ardennes offensive. Almost all the ages are 17/18/19/20 with a sprinking of older SNCOs.

The cemetery is a wonderfully peaceful place, with lots of trees and, of course, immaculate. Its a drammatic contrast with the American cemetery with its perfectly lined up headstones, pristine lawns and a huge memorial that referes to WW2 1942-1945 !!!!!!!!!

[Dick Smith]

Vie en Rose - I have PM'd you the details of the WW1 discussion list - please pick up.

[la-vie-en-rose]

[IMG]http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q296/clair46/warmemorial.jpg[/IMG]

[la-vie-en-rose]

Good thinking but no - there is nothing else like it on the memorial.

[woolybananasbrother]

are the crosses German symbols?

 

[Callie]

They could be Germans that were buried there, perhaps ones that were kind to people in the village, or who had saved their lives.

[Callie]

[quote user="powerdesal"] If you get the chance, visit the German cemetery in Luxembourg. I seem to remember the dates as being all around Christmas 1945 (?) the ardennes offensive. Almost all the ages are 17/18/19/20 with a sprinking of older SNCOs.

The cemetery is a wonderfully peaceful place, with lots of trees and, of course, immaculate. [/quote]

The little cemetery I visited was just like that, which made it really a special place.  No crosses, just stones on the ground, some named, some not.

Has anyone read about the forgotten village of Maillé, near Tours, which suffered a similar fate to Oradour sur Glane?  One of our gite guests gave us an English newspaper which said that German investigators were coming to France to try to discover why it happened.

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Callie"]They could be Germans that were buried there, perhaps ones that were kind to people in the village, or who had saved their lives.

[/quote]

Impossible. First of all the memorials are aux enfants de la patrie, and secondly the circumstances of the war would not allow that kind of judgement. It was touch and go for a while if the French would allow the Germans any land to bury their dead at all, which is why they are buried four to a cross in the few cemetaries exist. Compare that to land ceded in perpetuity to Britain, Canada and Australia. The French loved no Germans...

I think that the memorial has been rebuilt at some time (for another example see the 1870 memorial in Sourdeval) and either a name was not recoverable, or for some other reason was omitted.