Verdun: The Longest Battle of the Great War by Paul Jankowski

[Guest]

Anxious that my bitch about the prose has created a bad impression.....I must say that the chapter on Attrition is one of the best renditions I've read on the mythology of the battle.

To my dismay, though, the erroneous figure of 160,000 French and 140,000 " dead" is cited. The official figure of 162,000 French is for killed and missing : of the latter category, about 70,000 were prisoners. The 140,000 + German figure is often bandied about, but that, too, is an exaggeration : the actual figure of killed and missing was in the order of 100,000, of whom about one quarter were prisoners. If we allow for the numbers who died of wounds, the total dead for the two sides combined in the tenth months was just over 200,000, slightly more than half of them French.

Phil (PJA)

I am interested to learn a little bit more about your sources.

I don't want to engage into a macabre discussion about the number of deads at Verdun but up to this day this discussion remains highly controversial. Having read almost every book published about this battle, most cite much higher numbers. The relatively small size of the battlefield and therefore the high concentration of artillery fire does certainly account for that (according to some historians the number of deaths per square meter was the highest until Hiroshima).

The Douaumont ossuary alone contains the remains of more than 130.000 unidentified dead soldiers (mostly French). In front of the ossuary you have the largest French cemetery in the Verdun area with about 16.000 identified French soldiers. You can add to this those 29 German cemeteries around Verdun with approximately 75.000 German soldiers (15000 unknown).

Very fast you get more than your 200.000 dead as a baseline. There are certainly more still on the battlefield. I walked several times over those killing grounds: Not only is this the best preserved battlefield of WW1 but you can find almost everytime some artefacts of those times, usually shells (don't touch them!), but sometimes even bones. Therefore I would be inclined to estimate the number of dead much higher than your 200.000.

[phil andrade]

Fair comment, sir.

I am sure that the number of soldiers who died on the Verdun battlefield is indeed well in excess of 200,000.

One estimate, which is feasible, is that 420,000 died there throughout the entire war.

My own research suggests that roughly half of those 420,000 can be attributed to the battle of 1916.

The French official history is available as an authoritative source, and provides the following for Verdun from February 21st to December 31st 1916 :

Killed : 61,289 ; Missing : 101,151 ; Wounded : 216,337 ; Total : 378,777. Source : French Army Historical Service ( reference 12 N 3, Army Archives, Vincennes)

The missing include prisoners, of whom the Germans claim to have captured some 67,000 by mid July. Allowing for several thousand more captured between then and the end of the battle, leaves roughly thirty thousand unaccounted for, who were surely dead. In addition, we must account for wounded who died from their wounds : the figure is probably in the region of ten per cent of the 216,000+ wounded.

There is supposition here on my part, I confess, but I feel that I make a reasonable guess if I suggest 90,000 - 92,000 French killed or died of wounds before evacuation, and a further 20,000 or so died of wounds in hospital, aggregating 110,000 plus for the battle.

German figures come from two sources : the meticulous research of the historian Wendt, who investigated reichsarchiv tabulations, and produced a figure of just under 337,000, of whom very close to 100,000 were posted as killed or missing/prisoners. The French claimed 26,550 German prisoners for the whole battle ; from this we might infer that somewhere between 70,000 and 75,000 Germans were killed : again, we must reckon with those who died from their wounds, who accounted for some eight per cent of those admitted to hospital. With 237,000 wound cases, this implies an additional 18,000 to 20,000 fatalities. An aggregate of 90,000 to 95,000 German dead.

The other source is the sanitatsbericht, the medical history. This is very meticulous but only tabulates the casualties up until September 10th. They amount to 310,000, of whom 68,000 were posted as killed or missing/prisoner. The fact that the great majority of German prisoners taken in the battle were captured between October and December, and the heavy loss in killed suffered by the Germans in that phase, would certainly conform with an overall total of c.100,000 killed/missing as indicated by the reichsarchiv.

The striking feature of these casualty figures is that rather more Frenchmen than Germans were killed in the battle, but it's also apparent that the German loss in wounded was somewhat higher. More French died ; but more Germans shed their blood. It might well be that the French casualties excluded lightly wounded that were included in the German figures. It might, however, reflect the terrible difficulties the French suffered trying to evacuate their wounded under converging German artillery fire, with the result that a higher proportion perished on the field, increasing the ratio of dead to wounded who survived to reach hospital.

That's my take on it, Eckhart. You will see that I arrive at a total of 200,000 to 210,000 dead for the 1916 fighting...roughly half the total of 420,000 for the entire war ion that battlefield.

It is, I admit, based on guess and supposition on my part,but I have used the best sources available and I hope that my guesswork is reasonably informed.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Very informative! Many thanks for this detailed answer. I stand corrected!

Cheers,

Eckhart

[phil andrade]

Pleased to be of use, Eckhart, although I admit that I resort to a large degree of guesswork in my suggestions.

There is an oft cited figure of 143,000 German killed/missing for the battle, but its provenance has not been revealed and I suspect it's one of those statistics that is readily accepted and bandied about without anyone being inclined to check it. Nothing I've seen in any official German statistics bears it out.

At least one commentator has expressed astonishment at the proportion of German graves in the sector which come from the 1917 fighting...evidence of the heavy toll that the battlefield exacted in other periods of the war.

The figure that I suggest of approx. 210,000 for the 1916 battle is shocking enough : it equates roughly to all the battle deaths for both sides combined in the American Civil War ( I exclude disease deaths here). And that in a small area, in fighting that hardly yielded an advantage to either side in its final reckoning.....stupefying. The very weight of firepower resulted in compelled dispersal, and had the effect of " emptying" the battlefield. That helped to reduce casualties in relation to those of the earlier battles ; it was not so greedy of human life as the Somme. But the fighting engendered a terrible sense of isolation for its participants ; I think, in that respect, it might have produced a unique horror.

I have an observation to make, and I would appreciate comments.

Verdun is, of all battles, especially notorious for its length. Ten months or so - 300 + days - the legendary prolongation enhances its dreadful reputation.

Does this really ring true ?

The intensity of the fighting diminished so markedly after mid July that the average daily casualties thereafter were little different from daily wastage in the Ypres Salient. This was, admittedly, more the case for the French than it was for the Germans. But if we accept that of the battle's three quarters of a million casualties, only about fifteen per cent applied to the last four months, then are we not entitled to claim that the " Battle of Ypres" raged for several years ?

Phil (PJA)

[SteveMarsdin]

are we not entitled to claim that the " Battle of Ypres" raged for several years ?

Phil (PJA)

Or that of Champagne (east of Reims) even longer

[phil andrade]

There was, I suppose, a propaganda aspect to this.

The French needed to * round things off" in December 1916....and, to be fair,it was an unequivocal triumph for them to retake those forts.

Between September and December 1916, the average daily casualty rate was reduced to 500 or less per day for each side, which hardly qualifies for battle status....but then that is not the only criterion..

This is a theme that the book deals with rather well : the question of prestige and how it impinged.

Phil (PJA)

[trenchtrotter]

Ordered my copy today. Thanks for opening thread and bringing it to our attention. I hope it's good as any new work on Verdun must be welcomed.

TT

[trenchtrotter]

OK I am now about a 1/3 or more into this book so a review maybe premature, but as there has been some negative comments on the book especially on the thread re Mosiers book on Verdun (which has been confusing as to which book was being referred to) I thought I would add my view so far.

If you want a chronological account and explanation of events and experiences this is not the first book you need to read on Verdun. Hornes book will do that more than satisfactorily. However for the strategical and tactical aspects with a comment on social history and it's impact / response to the battle I really like this book and have learned from it so far.

I do not find the sentence structure difficult on the whole. Sure some need to be read twice to fully appreciate what is being said but that is a common enough trait in all good works where the message is complicated and important.

I cannot comment on inaccuracies referred to on the other thread but I find Jankowskis arguments and views easy to understand and find some truth too. There are experts out there who claim his argument is misconceived and wrong..... maybe but that is their view v his?

He clearly has researched the subject and for me the book adds value to my bookshelf as there is little on Verdun in English of merit.

It is not as bad by a long shot as it is said to be on the other thread. Certainly not a WW1 beginners book by a long shot but I find it hard to put down!

Recommended.

TT

Other Verdun books on my shelf

Verdun by Romaine. Novel of ok value that concentrates on Februaries events.

Verdun by Mason. Factual account. Poor IMHO.

Verdun by Brown. Factual account. Average only.

Verdun by Blond. Factual mixed with no elvish elements. Very light on detail and propagandist?

Fort Douamont by Holstien (forum Verdun specialist). Good light Battlefield guide.

The Price Of Glory by Horne. Still the best by far! Super book.

Michelin Guides. Good for what they are.

[Fattyowls]

Thanks for the review TT. A very erudite and helpful summary.

Pete.

[Robert Dunlop]

There is a useful 'supplemetary' tome in French, running to 550 odd pages. It is more like a combination of the day-to-day series published around the Somme and Third Ypres and the recent IWM series of photographic studies relating to major campaigns:

http://www.amazon.com/Les-jours-Verdun-Jean-Pierre-Turbergue/dp/2910536661

Don't forget Foley's superb book on Falkenhayn as well. He tackles the issue of the Falkenhayn's rationale for Verdun too.

Robert