Editing Battle of Passchendaele (section)

===Casualties===

Various casualty figures have been published for the Third Battle of Ypres, sometimes with acrimony; the highest estimates for British and German casualties appear to be discredited but the British claim to have taken {{nowrap|24,065 prisoners}} has not been disputed.{{sfnm|1a1=McRandle|1a2=Quirk|1y=2006|1pp=667–701|2a1=Boraston|2y=1920|2p=133}} In 1940, [[C. R. M. F. Cruttwell]] recorded {{nowrap|300,000 British}} casualties and {{nowrap|400,000 German.}}{{sfn|Cruttwell|1982|p=442}} In the History of the Great War volume ''Military Operations....'' published in 1948, [[James E. Edmonds|James Edmonds]] put British casualties {{nowrap|at 244,897}} and wrote that equivalent German figures were not available, estimating German losses {{nowrap|at 400,000.}}{{sfn|Edmonds|1991|pp=360–365}}{{efn|For British losses, Edmonds used data based on figures submitted by the Adjutant-General's Department to the Allied Supreme War Council on 25 February 1918; Edmonds also showed weekly returns to GHQ, giving a slightly lower total of {{nowrap|238,313.}} Edmonds wrote that whereas the true figure for British casualties on the Somme had been approximately {{nowrap|420,000, the}} Germans had announced that the British had suffered {{nowrap|600,000 casualties,}} which was close to what Edmonds believed to be the "true" number for German Somme casualties (582,919). The Bavarian Official History had put British casualties at the Third Battle of Ypres at {{nowrap|400,000,}} which Edmonds believed raised "suspicion" that this was the number of German casualties. Edmonds wrote that the German Official Account ({{lang|de|Der Weltkrieg}}) put German 4th Army casualties (21 July – 31 December) at {{nowrap|approximately 217,000.}} Edmonds considered that 30 per cent needed to be added to German figures, to make them comparable to British casualty recording criteria, which would amount to {{nowrap|289,000 casualties.}} Edmonds wrote that this did not include units which served only briefly in the 4th Army or units that were not part of it. Edmonds wrote that German divisions had an average strength of {{nowrap|12,000 men}} and tended to be relieved after suffering about {{nowrap|4,000 casualties.}} As Crown Prince Rupprecht recorded 88 German divisions fighting in the battle and after deducting {{nowrap|15,000 German}} casualties from 15 June to 30 July, the Germans must have suffered around {{nowrap|337,000 casualties.}} The average German battalion strength dropped to {{nowrap|640 men}} despite "allowing {{nowrap|100 men}} reinforcements per battalion", suggesting {{nowrap|364,320 casualties.}} Edmonds wrote "there seems every probability that the Germans lost about 400,000".{{sfn|Terraine|2005|p=372}}{{sfn|Edmonds|1991|pp=360–365}}}} [[A. J. P. Taylor]] wrote in 1972 that no one believed Edmonds' "farcical calculations". Taylor put British wounded and killed at {{nowrap|300,000 and}} German losses at {{nowrap|200,000,}} "a proportion slightly better than the Somme".{{sfn|Taylor|1972|pp=181–182}} In 2007, Jack Sheldon wrote that although German casualties from 1 June to 10 November {{nowrap|were 217,194,}} a figure available in Volume III of the {{lang|de|Sanitätsbericht}} (Medical Report, 1934), Edmonds may not have included these data as they did not fit his case, using the phrases "creative accounting" and "cavalier handling of the facts". Sheldon wrote that the German casualties could only be brought up to {{nowrap|399,590}} by including the {{nowrap|182,396 soldiers}} who were sick or treated at regimental aid posts for "minor cuts and wounds" but ''not struck off unit strength''; Sheldon wrote "it is hard to see any merit" in doing so.{{sfn|Sheldon|2007|pp=313–315, 319}}

Leon Wolff, writing in 1958, gave German casualties as {{nowrap|270,713}} and British casualties as {{nowrap|448,688.}}{{sfn|Wolff|1958|p=259}} Wolff's British figure was refuted by [[John Terraine]] in a 1977 publication. Despite writing that {{nowrap|448,614 British}} casualties was the BEF total for the second half of 1917, Wolff had neglected to deduct {{nowrap|75,681 casualties}} for the Battle of Cambrai, given in the ''Official Statistics'' from which he quoted or "normal wastage", averaging {{nowrap|35,000 per}} month in "quiet" periods.{{sfn|Terraine|1977|pp=344–345}} In 1959, [[Cyril Falls]] estimated {{nowrap|240,000 British,}} {{nowrap|8,525 French}} and {{nowrap|260,000 German}} casualties.{{sfn|Falls|1959|p=303}} In his 1963 biography of Haig, Terraine accepted Edmonds' figure of {{nowrap|244,897 British}} casualties and agreed that German losses were at least equal to and probably greater than British, owing to the strength of British artillery and the high number of German counterattacks; he did not accept Edmonds' calculation that German losses were as high {{nowrap|as 400,000.}}{{sfn|Terraine|2005|p=372}} In his 1977 work, Terraine wrote that the German figure ought to be increased because their statistics were incomplete and because their data omitted some lightly wounded men, who would have been included under British casualty criteria, revising the German figure by twenty per cent, which made German casualties {{nowrap|260,400.}}{{sfn|Terraine|1977|pp=344–345}} Prior and Wilson, in 1997, gave British losses of {{nowrap|275,000 and}} German casualties at just {{nowrap|under 200,000.}}{{sfn|Prior|Wilson|1996|p=195}} In 1997, Heinz Hagenlücke gave {{circa|217,000 German}} casualties.{{sfn|Liddle|1997|pp=45–58}} [[Gary Sheffield (historian)|Gary Sheffield]] wrote in 2002 that [[Richard Holmes (military historian)|Richard Holmes]] guessed that both sides suffered {{nowrap|260,000 casualties,}} which seemed about right to him.{{sfn|Sheffield|2002|p=216}}