As someone who likes to keep an eye on the statistics of warfare, I found this revelation to be truly shocking.

The British people suffered a terrible loss of life in the Great War of 1914-18. About one in twelve of every male of military age was killed in the war. Grievous though this loss was, it paled beside that of other belligerents. France, for example, suffered a loss of one in six of every male of military age : twice the British death rate.

Now I learn that, of the French soldiers who were killed, only 3.3% were under the age of twenty. For the British, the corresponding figure was 13%. How could it be that a nation that sustained such a vastly heavier loss of life was better at conserving its teenagers, while the British allowed their boy soldiers to be killed at such a disproportionate rate ?

Does this suggest that a nation that had an established tradition of conscription was more adept at keeping the youngest safe, while a country that relied on the volunteer principle for much of the war was rather callous, or inept, in this respect ?

According to a hit song released in the 1980s, the average age of US soldiers in the Vietnam War was nineteen. I suspect that this might not bear scrutiny. There is a strong anti war message in the depiction of “ Doomed Youth “.

I know that my own Great Uncle, William Andrade, was nineteen years old when he was killed in March 1915 ; and I know that Brian Grafton’s Uncle Frank was eighteen when he was killed in the final days of the war in November 1918 ( forgive me, Brian, if I’m wrong ).

German militarism before the Great War went hand in hand with a welfare state that was superior to that of the British, and I’m wondering whether the socio economic landscape of the British nation in 1914 was such as to expose the teenage cohorts to a massacre that was avoided by the Germans, even though their per capita loss was double that of the UK.

There is something scandalous here , I think.

Regards, Phil

Quote:

Hi

Boff in 'Winning and Losing on the Western Front', page 53, mentions that 31% of the German POWs in August 1918 were 21 or younger, and that (quoting Benjamin Ziemann) :

"... , nearly a quarter of German dead in 1917-18 were 18 to 20 year olds, compared with 7.6 per cent in 1914. Those aged 25-29, on the other hand, who made up 30 per cent of the dead in 1914, by 1918 represented only 20 per cent. Younger men thus replaced and diluted the core of twenty-something combat veterans, the Stammmannschaft, on which units depended, leaving those units, in Scott Stephenson's view, more friable."

So if @25% of the German dead were 18-20 year olds how is that less than the 13% for the British? I think the French age groups also needs to be looked at as they had 'severe' manpower problems and called up their classes of conscripts 'early' just as the Germans did.

Mike

Phil, I’m pleased to see that you might remember my Uncle Frank’s death. No apologies necessary, IMHO, for including him with British losses. I’ll never know if he felt he fought as a Canadian, or if he felt he fought for Canada. My guess is that, like so many, he fought for his mates in his squad, and for the values my grandfather instilled in him. At his death, he was fighting as a Canadian in a Canadian regiment, but I don’t think that alters the values (or specific personal reasons) which drew him to sign up (underage) to serve. He was unhappy at home; he was unhappy with his father’s new wife. And I don’t think including his death under a blanket British umbrella of loss demeans Frank, Canada or Britain.

Since my post yesterday, I’ve been thinking about my comments. Amongst many other issues, The following have given me pause:
 In 1914, a British man with some power and recognition was able to place his son in an elite regiment, despite the fact that the son had restricted vision and had been rejected (in 1914, at age 17) for service.
I’ve never read how this son (he was 17 at the time) felt about enlisting; his father determined what his son’s duty was. I do know that the son probably died sometime during the Battle of Loos (Sept-Oct 1915).
He was leading troops into battle as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Irish Guards. He was 18, and his name was John Kipling. I wonder if his last thoughts to his father were “thanks, father!”?
 Particularly in the first year or so in Britain, there was a sense of almost childish camaraderie about joining up, almost as if one was signing up to go to summer camp rather than to war. “Pals” Brigades;
“company” groups; village cohorts and the like enlisted as a unit, on the understanding they would train and fight together. When such groups faced extreme losses, the impact was devastating locally,
however large the locale. The annihilation of the Newfies is, perhaps, a particularly painful example, and although they would be included under British losses, only in Newfoundland was the shock of their
loss felt throughout the colony.
 In any war, a warring nation is directed by, or is certainly at the mercy of the resources it can bring to bear. That includes boots on the ground. With the possible exception of Soviet Russian, I can’t think of
a nation which had greater manpower to draw on than Britain. For a number of reasons (some less than exemplary or honourable), Britain assumed that the people of its Empire would fight for the “mother
country”. At the same time, I would assume that the death of any “colonial” fighter would be less viscerally felt than the death of a “local”. From that point of view, the “British” losses, including folks like my
uncle, may have been easier for the British to bear.

Gotta stop. It’s late. Sorry if I seem to be moving this thread away from its intended directive. A look at Mike Meech’s comments will have to wait til tomorrow.

Cheers. And continue to stay safe.
Brian G

From what I can see in this table that I’ve mentioned, though, the incidence of young soldiers being killed is increased in the ranks of conscripts, and reached a peak in 1918.

Regards, Phil