WW2 POW casualty rates...

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
I am attempting a thread transplant from the military books forum primarily because I find it interesting and not really appropriate to the books forum.

So this will be a bit of a cut and paste mish-mash to start off.

The original thread is here...

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/untold-horrors-dunkirk-page2-t62682.html#post427840



Monty B - Of course the points you make in your last 2 posts are valid questions to be raised.

The only question I have is - do you have the breakdown of the figures for 'The Allies' as quoted?

I ask this because obviously it must be important to seperate Russia from the other allies in this respect owing to their particular circumstances.

Perhaps you have this figure?

BTW - I posted the book details on the basis of it seeming to be an interesting one - not for political issues.
For example - my training sergeant Jamieson MM was in fact one of those left behing in rear-guard action and was severely injured but survived the war as a prisoner of the Germans, and except for a leg held together with 15 screws was able to carry soldiering as a trainer. His mind may well have been another matter; unfortunately he never spoke of it. But obviously he must have had some sort of medical treatment etc.

On the other hand, I well remember German and Italian prisoners here, and they seemed OK with their lot, in fact the Italians made a fuss of us kids.
Some Germans stayed after the war, like the great Bert Trautman who played in goal for Manchester City for many years and once played through a game with a broken neck.

I also remember the Italian shopkeepers returning after the hostilities, great favourites with the kids but now a little sombre.

I spent time in Hamburg around 1950, when it was still suffering from the devastation of war. Iremember using the early morning ferries with Irish ex -prisoners of war making it clear what they thought of Germany at that time. As a kid, and not understanding the implications, I felt sympathy for those uncomfortable and embarrassed German travellers.

Sorry to go a bit off-topic, just a few experiences of historical attitudes as seen.

As for the book, I hope it might prove of some interest .

These figures are taken from the book Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg: by Rüdiger Overmans,

First of all an overview of the number of deaths in captivity:

Table 65: Deaths in captivity (by custodian state)

Total number of prisoners of war

France 940,000
Great Britain 3,640,000
USA 3,100,000
Yugoslavia 190,000
Other States 170,000
USSR 3,060,000
Sum 11,100,000

Deaths in captivity according to present study

France 34,000
Great Britain 21,000
USA 22,000
Yugoslavia 11,000
Other States 8.000
USSR 363,000
Sum 459,000

Deaths in captivity according to Maschke Commission

France 25,000
Great Britain 1,300
USA 5,000
Yugoslavia 80,000
Other States 13.000
USSR 1,090,000
Sum 1,214,300

When comparing the data about deaths related to the various custodian states, hardly a case of coincidence can be observed. The figures do, however, show a similar trend – custodian states with high death rates according to the data of the Maschke Commission also show an above average death rate in the present study. The same goes for states with low death rates. The question how the nevertheless existing differences in the absolute values can be explained will be examined in the following.
First it should be pointed out that – except in case of the Soviet Union – the losses in captivity in all custodian states are but fractions of percentages of the total losses and are thus in an order of magnitude that cannot be evaluated accurately even with the present, relatively large sample. Furthermore the methods of establishing the figures vary. The data of the Maschke Kommission are based on files of the custodian state and numerous testimonials of German prisoners of war. In matters of content they refer, in what concerns to the Western Allies, to those who died in Allied custody in a narrower sense. The compilation techniques of the present study, however, mandate the inclusion in the category “captivity” also of such cases that formally fall under that category but for which the respective custodian state was not responsible in material terms. This applies especially to the differences in the data related to Great Britain, the USA and the “other countries”.

Things are different in the case of France, where the numbers of the Maschke Commission are based on the official French data and there are substantial indications for the assumption that, of the ca. 180,000 missing in the West, a great number died indeed in French custody – or as mercenaries in Indochina. Even more difficult is the situation regarding deaths in Yugoslavian custody – apart from rather contradictory German testimonials on the one hand and the documented cases underlying the present study on the other there is no examination that could contribute to the clarification of the question.

Given this unsatisfactory state of research the question arises how reliable data about the deaths in captivity could be obtained. Not by means of an empiric compilation analogous to the present one, given that the information deficits pointed out are not caused by methodological deficiencies of the study – the study only demonstrates the fact that the information available to the German authorities is insufficient. Only the evaluation of reports presently coming in from the former Soviet Union, the recovery of unburied dead presently under way both in the former USSR and in Eastern Germany as well as the registration of graves in the Soviet Union by the VDK [Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge, a German organization will lead to an improvement of the state of information in the next years or decades.
But independently of what the number of deaths in captivity actually is, the differences – at least in what concerns the Western Allies – are so small that they cannot significantly affect the results of this study so far. This does not apply in regard to Yugoslavia let alone for the Soviet Union –here the difference between 300,000 or a million deaths is so huge that it influences the distribution of the variables. It will thus be attempted in the following to localize the differences more closely.

Table 66: Deaths in Soviet custody by years

Deaths in Soviet captivity according to present study

1941/42 5,000
1943 21,000
1944 41,000
1945 178,000
1946 and after 118,000
Sum 363,000

Missing according to present study

1941/42 134,000
1943 283,000
1944 719,000
1945 ca. 400,000
1946 and after -
Sum 1,536,000

The number of missing in 1945 was estimated for the present study on the basis of the established fact that about two thirds of deaths during the Final Battles occurred in the East of Germany.

Deaths in Soviet captivity according to Maschke Commission

1941/42 166,000
1945 154,000
1946 224,000
1945 550,000
1946 and after included in 1945
Sum 1,094,000

Table 66, which differentiates the number of deaths by years, shows first the number of prisoners of war in Soviet custody and the missing on the Eastern Front, followed by the data of the Maschke Commission. According to the present study a total of ca. 363,000 German soldiers died in Soviet captivity – the sum of individually documented deaths. The approach of the Maschke Commission was another: they established, on the basis of various sources, the number of soldiers taken prisoner as well as the percentage of those who died every year. Although it is an estimate, it can be considered as well founded. When comparing the number of the missing established in the present study, ca. 1.5 million, with the difference in deaths considered by the present study on the one hand and the Maschke Commission on the other, it becomes visible that the difference, ca. 700,000 deaths, corresponds to about half of the number of missing. And it seems altogether plausible, although it cannot be proven, that half of those missing were killed in battle and the other half actually died in Soviet custody. Parting from this consideration the question arises how these ca. 700,000 cases are distributed temporarily. For this it is necessary to recall the conduction of military operations. In the first year, i.e. until ca. the middle of 1943, when the German armies were attacking, they were usually in conditions to recover their own dead in the conquered areas. This means that, at the beginning, the overwhelming majority of missing were taken prisoner and died in Soviet custody – out of the Germans taken prisoner at Stalingrad alone ca. 90,000 died rather soon in captivity. The more the initiative went over to the Soviet side and the more often large units were destroyed and taken prisoner, the greater the number of men killed in battle among those missing is likely to have been.
In relation to the above data this plausible if not provable consideration has the consequence that the results of the present study should be modified. Presumably the number of missing in the years 1941/42 must be almost wholly added to the deaths in captivity, whereas in the following years an ever growing part must be added to those killed on the German side. If the numbers of the present study are nevertheless used for the further assessment, this is only because the above considerations, while plausible, are not based on documented individual fates like the remaining results of the present study. As already mentioned, it must be left to a complementary study to evaluate the information arriving from the former Soviet Union at present and in the future, in order to obtain more accurate results in what concerns captivity.
 
You stood a better chance as a POW in Germany, than you would if you fell into Japanese hands. Now if these figures should mean any thing they should be broken down into how they got on in which country they were held.

There is also a problem about those that captured then killed before they they were reported as being captured. The Russian did not take many small groups of prisoners but shot them out of hand. The Germans had also done much the same thing to the Russians
 
Last edited:
You stood a better chance as a POW in Germany, than you would if you fell into Japanese hands. Now if these figures should mean any thing they should be broken down into how they got on in which country they were held.

There is also a problem about those that captured then killed before they they were reported as being captured. The Russian did not take many small groups of prisoners but shot them out of hand. The Germans had also done much the same thing to the Russians

Very true and if I can I will find some numbers for those held by the Japanese.
 
You stood a better chance as a POW in Germany, than you would if you fell into Japanese hands. Now if these figures should mean any thing they should be broken down into how they got on in which country they were held.


Absolutely Le - and this had become apparent to the Brits at home even before the end of WW11. This attitude was underpinned by the returning POWs from Japanese jurisdiction.

The reputation amongst POWs of the two nations was incomparable in that respect. I worked with a few who bore a deep hatred for the Japanese military regime of that time, and the horror stories were many and widespread.

On this forum before now, at least one person has wondered why the Japanese reputation eventually survived ; I feel it is probably because of the overwhelming response of the atomic bombs upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What more could be said?
 
I had a bus Driver working for the firm and he had been a prisoner of the Japanese and if he saw one he would stop the bus and attack them, mind you it was just as well he retired in the early 1960's before Jet travel really took of and we had a mass of Japanese tourist around. We had a bus Inspector who worked out side a major railway station in London and he had been so badly beaten he would have break down every now and again. The local paper seller would give us ring when it happened and we dash there and get him home ASAP. Another chap had been just out side Nagasaki when the Atom bomb went off there. At the time he was being marched to a death camp so that they could all be killed when Japan was invaded.
When they saw the bomb go off they jumped around with glee, although they beaten with rifle butts they reckoned it was well worth it just to the look on the guards faces. The thing that did stand out at the the time was not one of the men that had been POW under Japanese control managed to to work to retirement age of 65 and they all were pensioned of early due to ill health
 
Some memories indeed Le. And what you say regarding long term health issues is correct. Those guys seemed to suffer from very strange and delibitating conditions.
My own boss in the regiment, WO11, had served five years as a prisoner of the Japanese. He was a champ at his job, ORQMS, the most efficient behind the scenes string puller you could meet, and a really great pleasure to work for. He was also just about the most popular and respected senior NCO we had. But he carried continually an ongoing long term illness, and was the one and only soldier excused drill, guard duties, parades etc., although he was a very smartly and immaculately turned out at all times. When the battalion was on parade in this way he made himself the official photographer. He was very ill but very cheerful.

Slightly off-topic here - when I got my first job after my army service, in London, I worked with a guy who had lost a leg at Gallipolli, and he was definitely the most bitter guy I ever met, and explosions came whenever Churchill was mentioned. I was 21 then, so this forum holds no fears for me now, I was well prepared!
 
Back
Top