Axis and Allied Mobilization Responses

Axis War Visions

Germany

Germany foresaw a series of short wars or political takeovers of states in one-on-one actions. And the early days proved out Germany’s expectations, beginning in 1935 with Germany violating the Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription on through to France signing an armistice with Nazi Germany in 1940. 

During the 1930s Germany more so than any other European nation mobilized their military and industry for war. German self-sufficiency was a key principle in their war preparations which included construction of synthetic fuel and rubber plants, prioritizing military over civilian economic policy, and stockpiling raw materials. 

Although Germany’s prewar vision required industrial and military mobilizations it did not envision that of total war. Accordingly, Germany’s early war manpower mobilization geared up for quick victories. For example, Operation Barbarossa launched against the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, and was expected to last between six and eight weeks. Operation Barbarossa goal was the establishment of ‘a line of defense against Asiatic Russia’, stretching from the Volga to Archangelsk.

Operation Barbarossa was a planned quick campaign. In any case the fight on the Eastern Front was not expected to last into winter. The Germans accepted that the Soviets would ally with the British once Operation Barbarossa began. However, Hitler and his military leaders saw this as inconsequential, believing that the Wehrmacht would crush the Soviet Union before Britain could provide any aid.

Japan

Outside of the ongoing war in China the Japanese saw a rapid expansion into the southwest Pacific followed by a negotiated peace. Japan believe they could expand their empire and control the much-needed resources that they lacked. “They planned to fight a war of limited objectives and having once secured these objectives to set up a defense in such depth that the United States would find a settlement favorable to Japan an attractive alternative to a long and costly war. To the Japanese leaders this seemed an entirely reasonable view.” (1)

(1) Morton, Louis, “Command Decisions Japan’s Decision for War, Center of Military History United States Army, Washington, DC 1990, Page 122, https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_04.htm, accessed on March 29, 2023

Allies War Visions

It is almost counterintuitive that the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan all fascist governments would act so independently of each other. Whereas the Allied nations of the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) three nations with a constitutional monarchy, a representative democratic republic, and a communist government would coordinate at a high level. 

Both the UK and the Soviet Union envisioned a long haul and coordinated their mobilization of manpower and economies accordingly. The US was the last entry into the fray, but they also mobilized along the lines of their allied nation partners. 

An Awkward Alliance

Despite their vastly different political systems, these nations worked towards a common goal of defeating their enemies. High level conferences at Tehran and Yalta with Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin in attendance. However, there were more than two dozen conferences with high-ranking Allied representatives coordinating intentions, materiel, and industries shaping their war effort. Teams implementing these conference decisions continued 

Training

The Axis powers, led by Germany, initially had a significant advantage in terms of training and experience. Both Germany and Japan had invested heavily in military training and had a highly trained and experienced military at the start of the war. However, as the war dragged on, both began to suffer from a shortage of manpower, and the quality of its troops began to decline. In response, they began to rely more heavily on conscription of both younger and older recruits and the use of poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers, leading to a decline in the overall quality of its forces.

In contrast, the Allied powers, led by the United States, took a different approach to training new recruits. The US military invested heavily in training and education, with a focus on developing highly skilled and well-trained soldiers. The US military also made use of modern technology and tactics to give its troops an edge in battle. As the war progressed, the Allies were able to draw on a larger pool of manpower and resources, allowing them to maintain a high level of training and experience among their troops.

Towards the end the Allies were providing better in depth and amount of training for their new troops. The Allies rotated experienced men into training roles to impart their hard gained knowledge.  Axis new recruits heard very little from the experienced veterans as they continued in their fighting roles often until they became a casualty statistic. 

Allied versus Axis Manpower 1939-1945 Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Note: German manpower was unknown for 1945. Post author used 7,000,000 as an estimate.

Source: Harrison, Mark. “The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison”, Cambridge University Press (1998) Page 29

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

German Armed Forces Manpower by Year

US Military Branches Manpower and Deaths

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

Conscription

Great Britain

Great Britain introduced conscription in the 1930s, but it was limited in scope and duration compared to the conscription that took place during World War II. The conscription during the 1930s was used to supplement the existing volunteer army and was often introduced in response to specific crises. It was generally limited to men aged 20 to 22, and the period of service was typically six months. The conscription during World War II was expanded to include men aged 18 to 41 and women aged 20 to 30. It affected millions of people and was in effect for the entire duration of the war and beyond.

During the 1930s, there were provisions for conscientious objectors who were opposed to military service on religious or moral grounds. These objectors could perform alternative forms of service, such as working in hospitals or on farms. However, during World War II, the government was less accommodating, and many objectors were sent to prison or forced to perform dangerous work. The conscription that took place during the 1930s was relatively short-lived, and there were important gaps in time between the different periods of conscription. In contrast, conscription during World War II was a massive effort that affected millions and continued for the entire duration of the war and beyond.

National Service was made mandatory for men up to the age of 60, including military service for those below 51. This was due to a lack of volunteers for police and civilian defense work, as well as a shortage of women for the auxiliary units of the armed forces.

United States

In 1920 The National Defense Act establishes a system of voluntary recruitment. Therefore, the United States did not have a conscription program in the 1930s and instead relied on a relatively small standing army and a National Guard composed of citizen-soldiers. However, the US introduced conscription on a massive scale with the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which required all men aged 21 to 45 to register for the draft. 

During World War II, there were provisions for conscientious objectors, but the government was less accommodating than during the 1930s. Conscription during World War II continued until the end of the war and beyond, with some forms of conscription continuing until 1973.

 The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 allowed the US to rapidly expand its military manpower in response to the growing threat of war in Europe and Asia. By the end of the war 50 million men between eighteen and forty-five had registered for the draft and 10 million had been inducted in the military.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union implemented a large-scale conscription program throughout the 1930s and during World War II. During the 1930s, all men aged 21 to 23 were required to serve in the military for two years, 

Germany launched a surprise attack on its ally, the USSR’s western border on June 22, 1941. In response, the government passed a new military service law in October 1941, which required all male citizens aged 16 to 28 to be liable for military service. Later the age range was expanded to include men aged 18 to 45. 

Women were also conscripted during World War II, with an estimated 800,000 serving in combat and support roles. The length of service for conscripts during World War II varied, but many served for the duration of the war. 

The Soviet Union used conscription during the 1930s as a means of indoctrinating soldiers with communist ideology, while during World War II, the focus was more on military training and the needs of the military.

Germany

Germany introduced conscription in the 1935, but it was limited in scope and duration compared to the conscription that took place during World War II. The conscription during the 1930s was used to rapidly expand Germany’s military forces, but it was often limited in scope and duration and was used to supplement the existing volunteer army. Additionally, the conscription law of 1935 required draftees to show evidence that they were “Aryan.”

The conscription during World War II was introduced on a massive scale and affected millions of people, both men and women. The age range was expanded to include men aged 16 to 60, and the period of service was longer than during the 1930s. The government was less accommodating to conscientious objectors during World War II than during the 1930s.

Even within the war years Germany’s military conscription program underwent significant changes. In 1940, the conscription program was limited to men aged 18 to 45, with a standard period of service of one year. However, by 1944, the age range had been expanded to include boys as young as 16 and men as old as 60, and the period of service had been extended to two years. Health requirements were also relaxed, and conscientious objectors were treated more harshly. These changes reflect the increasingly dire circumstances that Germany faced during the later years of World War II, as the country’s manpower needs became more desperate.

Japan

During the 1930s, Japan had a relatively small standing army and relied on conscription to supplement its military manpower. The conscription program required men aged 20 to 24 to serve for two years. However, during World War II, Japan greatly expanded its military forces, and conscription was used to mobilize millions of men and women for the war effort. The age range was expanded to include men aged 15 to 60, and the length of service was extended to several years.

During the 1930s, Japan had provisions for conscientious objectors, but these were not well-established or well-respected. During World War II, the government was less accommodating to conscientious objectors, and many were subject to harsh penalties, including imprisonment or execution. Additionally, during World War II, Japan began conscripting women into the military, with an estimated 100,000 serving in support roles. These changes reflect Japan’s growing militarism and the country’s increasing involvement in World War II.

Starting from 1938, Korean and Formosan subjects of the empire were allowed to volunteer for service, but they were usually assigned to labor battalions. In 1944, Japan began to conscript Koreans and Formosans for service, but these were desperate measures that were too late to alter Japan’s final fate in 1945.

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945 Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

*Germany’s manpower for 1945 is unknown

Source: Trueman, C. N. “Weapons And Manpower.” https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/weapons-and-manpower/, Data accessed on July 22, 2022

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Allied versus Axis Manpower 1939-1945

Combat Forces on the Eastern Front Manpower Ratios

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

Eastern Front Manpower Ratios

Germany believed they could quickly dispatch the Soviet military in six to eight weeks. During this time period the held a 1.4:1 to 1.9:1 ratio edge over the Soviets. However, by December that ratio edge had become a 1.2:1 Soviet advantage which would continue to grow through the rest of the war.

Total Soviet Manpower

The Soviet Union’s military manpower grew significantly from 1939 through 1945. At the start of the war, the Soviet Union had approximately 1.5 million personnel in its armed forces, which increased to around 5 million by 1941, and over 11 million by the end of the war in 1945. Of this total military manpower, the Soviet Union was able to put approximately 6.8 million combat forces onto the Eastern Front at its peak in 1944. This manpower was largely mobilized through conscription, with millions of men being drafted into the military throughout the war. 

The Soviet Union’s military was known for its strength in numbers and its willingness to engage in brutal and costly battles. The Soviet Union suffered heavy losses throughout the war, with estimates suggesting that over 10 million Soviet soldiers died or missing during the conflict. 

Despite these losses, the Soviet Union’s military was able to successfully repel the German invasion and push back against Germany on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Union’s manpower played a crucial role in these victories, as the sheer number of soldiers allowed the Soviet Union to maintain a strong presence on multiple fronts. 

Women

The Soviet Union was one of the few countries during World War II to actively recruit and deploy women in combat roles. Women played a significant role in the Soviet Union’s military efforts, with around 500,000 serving in combat roles by the end of the war.

Women were initially recruited into non-combat roles, such as medical personnel, clerks, and support staff. However, as the war progressed and the need for manpower increased, women were also recruited into combat roles.

Women served in a variety of combat roles, including snipers, machine gunners, tank drivers, and pilots. Many women also served in partisan units, engaging in guerrilla warfare against the German occupation forces.

Women in the Soviet Union’s military were often given the same training and equipment as their male counterparts and were expected to perform the same duties. They were also subject to the same harsh conditions and risks as male soldiers.

The Soviet Union’s decision to deploy women in combat roles was driven by a combination of necessity and ideology. The Soviet Union needed all the manpower it could get to fight against the German invasion, and the use of women helped to fill the gaps in the military. Additionally, the Soviet Union’s communist ideology emphasized gender equality, and the deployment of women in combat roles was seen as a way to demonstrate this equality.

Manpower and Ratios of Combat Forces on the Eastern Front Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: Glantz, David and House, Jonathan. “When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler”, University Press of Kansas, 1995,
War on The Rocks, “Was The Russian Military A Steamroller? From World War II to Today”, https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/was-the-russian-military-a-steamroller-from-world-war-ii-to-today/

Other Manpower Data Links

German Armed Forces – Manpower

Military Manpower and Deaths by Country

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

German Armed Forces Manpower by Year

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

1930s Military Build Up by Nation

China

The size of China’s military varied greatly during the 1930s due to the ongoing Second Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1937. At the beginning of the decade, China had a relatively small standing army of approximately 300,000 soldiers. However, as the conflict with Japan escalated, China rapidly expanded its military forces, and by 1939, it had an estimated 5 million soldiers. It’s worth noting, however, that China’s military was often poorly equipped and trained compared to the better-equipped Japanese forces.

France

France maintained a large standing army of approximately 900,000 soldiers in the 1930s but was slow to develop new technologies and modernize its army. They focused on building defensive fortifications, such as the Maginot Line, and relied heavily on colonial troops. However, they did not prioritize the development of new technologies, putting them at a disadvantage compared to Germany. The political instability in France during the 1930s also had an impact on its military, contributing to their defeat by Germany in 1940.

Germany

Germany began a massive military buildup in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, expanding its army, developing new technologies such as the Panzer tank and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighter plane, and reintroducing conscription. Germany began to expand its army increasing the number of soldiers from approximately 100,000 in 1933 to over five million by 1941.

They spent a significant portion of their budget on military spending, even during the Great Depression, and developed a new military doctrine, Blitzkrieg, which emphasized speed and mobility. Germany’s military buildup ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II as they sought to expand their control over Europe and beyond.

Japan

In the 1930s, Japan began to expand its military with the goal of becoming a major military power in Asia. Japan introduced conscription in 1936, which allowed them to rapidly expand their military manpower.  Japan expanded its army, increasing the number of soldiers from approximately 200,000 in 1930 to 1.7 million by 1941. 

Soviet Union

Soviet conscription existed since the 1920s but was modified in 1930 limiting duty to workers. In 1939 the law ‘On the Universal Military Duty’ was adopted allowing them to rapidly expand their military manpower. By 1941, at almost five million men, the Red Army was one of the largest armies in the world.

In the late 1937, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin carried out a purge of the officer corps of the Red Army. This resulted in the execution or imprisonment of thousands of officers, including many of the most experienced and capable leaders. This had a significant impact on the Red Army’s effectiveness in the early years of World War II.

The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom prioritized its navy over its army, maintaining a standing army of approximately 200,000 soldiers while developing new technologies and modernizing their navy, including the construction of new battleships and aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy had approximately 110,000 sailors in 1930. This number remained relatively stable throughout the 1930s, with minor fluctuations.

They faced financial constraints and relied heavily on troops from their colonial empire. The UK also developed their air force, with a focus on new aircraft such as the Hawker Hurricane fighter and the Avro Lancaster bomber. The UK’s military manpower in the 1930s was not as well-positioned militarily as some of the other major European powers, but their navy and air force were among the most advanced in the world at the time.

The United States

The size of the US military remained relatively small during the 1930s, with a standing army of approximately 200,000 soldiers throughout the decade. However, the US did introduce conscription in 1940, which allowed them to rapidly expand their military manpower in the months leading up to World War II. Prior to conscription, the US military was smaller than those of many other major powers, ranking as the 19^th largest army worldwide at the outbreak of hostilities.

The size of the US Navy remained relatively stable during the 1930s, with approximately 100,000 sailors throughout the decade. However, the US Navy did introduce new ship classes and technologies during this period, such as the Yorktown class aircraft carriers and the Fletcher class destroyers. 

Comparative Military Manpower (Including Reserves) Sept 1939 Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: McNab, Chris. “Hitler’s Masterplan.” Editor: Spilling, Michael, Amber Books, 2011, Page 29

Other Personnel Data Links

Research Starters: US Military by the Numbers

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

US Army Personnel in Philippine Islands: 30 Nov 1941

German Forces

Occupying Forces

Germany occupied several countries in Europe, and the presence of German occupying forces had a significant impact on the occupied territories and their populations.

In many cases, German occupying forces were tasked with maintaining control of the occupied territories, suppressing any resistance or rebellion, and enforcing German policies and laws. This often involved the use of violence, intimidation, and coercion against civilians, as well as the establishment of concentration camps and other forms of repression.

The German occupying forces also had significant economic and political control over the occupied territories. They often exploited the resources and labor of the occupied populations for the benefit of the German war effort, and many occupied territories were used as staging grounds for military operations.

The presence of German occupying forces also led to widespread resistance and rebellion among the occupied populations. Resistance movements took many forms, including sabotage, espionage, and guerrilla warfare. These movements were often brutally suppressed by the German forces, leading to mass arrests, deportations, and executions.

The impact of the German occupying forces on the occupied territories and their populations was devastating. The forced labor, repression, and violence inflicted by the occupying forces led to the deaths of millions of civilians across Europe.

Germany also had occupying forces in several countries and those forces varied over time, but here are some peak estimates: Poland (2,500,000), Norway (300,000 troops), Denmark (120,000), Netherlands (250,000), and France (300,000).

Germany also had a military presence in countries that were originally aligned with them. Again, those forces varied over time, but here are some peak estimates: Finland (300,000), Hungary (200,000), Romania (300,000), Czechoslovakia (350,000), and Italy (300,000).

Lead-up to Operation Barbarossa

Germany’s military and industrial preparations were geared towards a series of short wars or political takeovers of states in one-on-one actions. This strategy was based on Germany’s belief that it could quickly defeat its enemies and expand its territory. Germany’s early successes, such as violating the Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription and France signing an armistice in 1940, seemed to confirm this strategy.

In the 1930s, Germany’s military and industry were mobilized for war more than any other European nation. German self-sufficiency was a key principle in their war preparations, which included the construction of synthetic fuel and rubber plants, prioritizing military over civilian economic policy, and stockpiling raw materials. 

Germany’s early war manpower mobilization was geared towards quick victories, such as the Blitzkrieg in 1940 that led to the fall of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. With an invasion of Great Britain on hold Germany planned Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union in 1941, which was expected to last between six and eight weeks. Despite the expectation of Soviet-British alliance, Hitler and his military leaders believed that the Wehrmacht would crush the Soviet Union before Britain could provide any aid.

Operation Barbarossa and Beyond

Germany in a short stroke through Operation Barbarossa’s would establish ‘a line of defense against Asiatic Russia’, stretching from the Volga to Archangelsk. Operation Barbarossa’s failure had significant implications for its military manpower needs. 

Germany had mobilized a large portion of its military forces for the campaign with the plan of quickly defeating the Soviet Union and securing vital resources and territory. However, the Soviet Union put up a much stronger resistance than expected, and the German forces were bogged down in a brutal and protracted war on the Eastern Front.

As a result of the failure of Operation Barbarossa, Germany’s military manpower needs increased significantly. The war on the Eastern Front became a war of attrition, requiring a constant flow of new troops to replace those lost in battle. Germany was forced to rely increasingly on conscription to fill its ranks, with many young men being drafted into military service. 

Additionally, the manpower needs of the German military increased as the war expanded to other fronts, including North Africa and Western Europe. Germany was forced to fight a multi-front war, which placed a tremendous strain on its military resources and manpower.

Despite these challenges, Germany continued to fight on multiple fronts until its defeat by the Allied powers in 1945. The failure of Operation Barbarossa was a turning point in the war, marking the beginning of the end for Germany’s military ambitions and highlighting the limitations of its military resources and manpower.

Military Divisions per Country 1939-45 in Europe Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: World-War-2.info. “World War 2 Statistics.’ http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/, Data accessed on June 27, 2022

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

US Military Branches Manpower and Deaths

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

Wehrmacht

The Wehrmacht was the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. It was composed of three branches: the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy), and the Luftwaffe (air force). The Wehrmacht was one of the most powerful military forces of its time, and it played a significant role in the early successes in the war.

The Wehrmacht was known for its superior training, tactics, and equipment, as well as its ability to rapidly mobilize and deploy forces on multiple fronts. Its early successes in the war were due to its innovative tactics, such as the use of armored units and combined arms operations.

However, as the war progressed, the Wehrmacht was stretched thin and began to suffer from manpower and resource shortages. Despite this, the Wehrmacht continued to fight fiercely until the end of the war, and its personnel made many sacrifices in service to their country.

Heer

The Heer at the start of the war in 1939, had approximately 3.7 million personnel, including both active-duty soldiers and reserves. As the war progressed, the Heer increasingly relied on conscription and forced labor to maintain its manpower levels. Foreign volunteers and conscripts from occupied territories, such as France and the Soviet Union, were also heavily relied upon, with many being coerced or forced into military service. 

As the war progressed and Germany suffered significant losses on the battlefield, but the Heer was able to maintain manpower levels until 1945. By the end of the war in 1945, the Heer had suffered over 4 million casualties, including both deaths and injuries.

Luftwaffe

In the spring of 1939, the peacetime strength of the Luftwaffe was 400,000 men. Following the mobilization in late 1939, the number of men serving increased to almost 900,000. By Operation Barbarossa launched in 1941, the personnel strength had grown to 1.5 million. The largest personnel strength of the Luftwaffe was achieved during the period from 1942 to 1943, with 1.7 million men and women in uniform.

Kriegsmarine

The Kriegsmarine saw significant growth in manpower during the war. At the start of the war in 1939, the Kriegsmarine had around 50,000 personnel, which increased to a peak of 810,000 in 1944. 

However, as the war progressed and Germany’s resources were stretched thin, the Kriegsmarine struggled to maintain its manpower levels. With the majority of the losses being experienced sailors. This was due to the heavy losses that the Kriegsmarine suffered in the Battle of the Atlantic, which was a critical theater of the war.

In addition to these losses, the Kriegsmarine also struggled to recruit new personnel due to the worsening situation on the Eastern and Western fronts. Many potential recruits were being diverted to the army, which was seen as the more prestigious and important branch of the German military.

By the end of the war in 1945, the Kriegsmarine had approximately 700,000 personnel. However, due to the heavy losses suffered throughout the war, the Kriegsmarine was unable to maintain its strength, and many of the sailors were inexperienced and poorly trained.

Waffen–SS

The Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the SS, was initially formed in 1933 as a personal security force for Adolf Hitler. It later evolved into a significant military force during World War II, with its manpower levels growing significantly from 1939 through 1945.

At the start of the war in 1939, the Waffen-SS had approximately 35,000 personnel. By 1941, that number rose to 150,000, and by the end of 1942, it had reached 230,000. The Waffen-SS continued to grow throughout the war, and by 1945, its manpower had reached its peak at approximately 830,000 personnel.

The Waffen-SS was able to maintain its manpower levels through a combination of recruitment and conscription. It was often used as a tool for propaganda, with promises of better pay, training, and equipment compared to the regular army. Additionally, the Waffen-SS was often seen as a more prestigious and elite unit, which attracted many volunteers.

However, the Waffen-SS also relied heavily on conscription, particularly towards the end of the war when manpower shortages became more acute. This led to the conscription of individuals from occupied territories, including Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states.

Despite its significant manpower levels, the Waffen-SS suffered heavy losses throughout the war, particularly on the Eastern Front. By the end of the war, only a small number of its personnel had survived.

Civilian Militia

Volkssturm

The Volkssturm was a German national militia formed in 1944. It was created with the intention of mobilizing the civilian population for the defense of Germany against the advancing Allied forces. The Volkssturm’s manpower levels were relatively small compared to other branches of the German military.

The Volkssturm was formed out of a sense of desperation on the part of the German government, as the war was not going well, and the military was suffering from manpower shortages. There aren’t good estimates of the total number who served in the Volkssturm, but it is estimated that 40,000 participated in the Battle of Berlin.

The Volkssturm was made up of men between the ages of 16 and 60 who were not already serving in the military. The majority of the Volkssturm’s personnel were older men and teenagers who were too young to be conscripted into the regular army. They were often poorly trained and lacked adequate equipment and supplies. 

In terms of equipment, the Volkssturm was often equipped with outdated or improvised weapons, such as rifles from World War I or homemade grenades. They often had to scavenge for supplies and weapons, making their effectiveness in combat limited. One of the few modern weapons they were trained in was the use of panzerfaust antitank weapons.

The Volkssturm was not a particularly effective fighting force, and many of its personnel were captured or killed during the closing stages of the war. However, their resistance helped to slow down the Allied advance and buy time for the regular German military to regroup and prepare for defense.

German Armed Forces – Manpower Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source Müller, Rolf-Dieter. “Hitler’s Wehrmacht, 1935–1945.” Lexington: University Press of Kentucky (2016). Page 36

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

German Armed Forces Manpower by Year

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

Military Divisions per Country 1939-45 in Europe

WW2 Germany Population, Statistics, and Numbers

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

1930s Enlistees

The 1930s German army had three lower ranks – the lower, non-commissioned, and senior non-commissioned ranks*. The lower ranks included Soldat (Private) and Gefreiter  (Senior Private) and were typically filled by young men aged 18 to 20 who had completed basic education. Enlistment required passing a physical fitness test, and training focused on basic military skills such as marksmanship, drill, and physical fitness. 

* Note each rank – Private, Corporal, and Sergeant had several special designation ranks dependent on assignment.

Non-commissioned ranks included Unteroffizier (Corporal), Feldwebel (Sergeant), and Oberfeldwebel (Technical Sergeant), and age generally ranged from 20 to 25 years. Physical fitness standards were high, and training was more specialized, focusing on leadership skills, tactical knowledge, and military strategy. 

Senior non-commissioned ranks included Stabsfeldwebel (Master Sergeant) and, and age generally ranged from 25 to 30 years. Physical fitness standards were high, and training focused on advanced leadership skills, strategic planning, and military tactics.

Early War Enlistees – 1940-41

The German WW2 enlistees of 1940 and 1941 were typically young men who were conscripted into the military with enlistment age ranging from 18 to 45 years old. Physical fitness was an important aspect of enlistment, and enlistees were required to pass a physical fitness test before being accepted into the military. 

Training was more extensive and rigorous than later years, focused on basic military skills, specialized training for non-commissioned and senior non-commissioned ranks, and less emphasis on Nazi ideology and propaganda. Overall, the German WW2 enlistees of 1940 and 1941 were typically young men who were physically fit and received extensive training in military skills and discipline with less emphasis on Nazi ideology and propaganda compared to later years.

Mid War Enlistees – 1942-43

The German WW2 enlistees in 1942 and 1943 were typically young men who were conscripted into the military with enlistment age ranging from 18 to 45 years old. Physical fitness was an important aspect of enlistment, and enlistees were required to pass a physical fitness test before being accepted into the military. Training was extensive and rigorous, focused on basic military skills such as marksmanship, drill, and physical fitness, as well as specialized training for non-commissioned and senior non-commissioned ranks. 

The training emphasized the importance of Nazi ideology and propaganda, aimed at boosting morale among the troops and included the indoctrination of Nazi beliefs and the view of themselves as superior to other races and nationalities, with an emphasis on fighting for their Fatherland.

Later War Enlistees – 1944

The German enlistees of 1944 faced significant demand for soldiers due to ongoing war. This resulted in a significant shift in the demographic of enlistees, with many being much younger than in previous years. Physical fitness standards were lowered due to their age, although some enlistees were older, with enlistment age ranging from 17 to 45 years old. 

Physical fitness remained an important aspect of enlistment, with enlistees required to pass a physical fitness test before being accepted into the military. However, due to the significant demand for soldiers, some enlistees were not as physically fit as in previous years. Training was also more rushed and less intensive than in previous years, with a focus on basic military skills such as marksmanship, drill, and physical fitness.

The training of German enlistees in 1944 increasingly emphasized the importance of Nazi ideology and propaganda. Enlistees were indoctrinated with Nazi beliefs and encouraged to view themselves as superior to other races and nationalities. This was a significant shift from the training of German enlistees in previous years, which focused primarily on military skills and discipline. 

Overall, the German enlistees of 1944 were a diverse group facing significant demand for soldiers, resulting in a shift in the demographic of enlistees. Physical fitness and training standards varied, with an increasing emphasis on Nazi ideology and propaganda.

End of War – The Volkssturm – 1945

The Volkssturm was a German national militia formed during the final phase of World War II in September 1944. It was made up of men from all walks of life and was intended to be a last-ditch effort to defend Germany against the advancing Allied forces. The members of the Volkssturm were often poorly trained and equipped, and they were organized into local units responsible for the defense of specific areas. 

Despite the challenges, the Volkssturm fought fiercely in the final days of the war with outdated or captured weapons, but they were outmatched by better-equipped and better-trained Allied forces. The Volkssturm suffered significant losses in the final days of the war, and their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful in halting the Allied advance.

German Armed Forces Manpower by Year Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: Feldgrau German Armed Forces Research 1918-1945. “WW2 Germany Population, Statistics, and Numbers.” https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers/. Data accessed on June 26, 2022

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

US Military Branches Manpower and Deaths

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

Treatment World War II Prisoners of War (POW)

During World War II, millions of individuals were taken prisoner by the various warring nations. These POWs were held in specialized camps, although conditions varied widely. Some camps were relatively humane, providing adequate food, shelter, and medical care. However, others were overcrowded, unsanitary, and dangerous, with many prisoners dying from disease or mistreatment. The treatment of POWs also varied widely depending on the country holding them and the nature of the conflict. Some prisoners were treated relatively well, with access to education, recreation, and other amenities, while others were subjected to forced labor, torture, or execution.

Germany’s Treatment of POWs

Germany’s treatment of POWs varied depending on the nation from which the POW came. POWs from the Western Allies were generally treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, although conditions in some camps were harsh, and there were instances of mistreatment or execution of prisoners. On the other hand, POWs from the Soviet Union were treated much more harshly than those from the Western Allies, with many subjected to forced labor, starvation, and brutal treatment. It is estimated that up to three million Soviet soldiers died in German captivity.

POWs from Poland were often singled out for particularly brutal treatment, reflecting the Nazi belief in the superiority of the German race. Many Polish POWs were executed or sent to concentration camps. POWs who were Jewish, Romani, or otherwise considered “undesirable” by the Nazis were also singled out for especially brutal treatment. Many were sent to concentration camps, where they were subjected to forced labor, starvation, and execution. Overall, Germany’s treatment of POWs during World War II varied widely, reflecting the Nazis’ racial and ideological beliefs, and depending on the nation from which the POW came.

Japan’s Treatment of POWs

Japan’s view of POWs was shaped by several factors, including cultural beliefs, military strategy, propaganda, and imperial ambitions. The traditional warrior code of bushido, which emphasized honor, loyalty, and self-sacrifice, was deeply ingrained in Japanese military culture and influenced how Japanese soldiers viewed their enemies, including POWs. Japan’s military strategy during the war focused on quick victories and limited resources, which often left the Japanese army without the resources or infrastructure to properly care for POWs. This, combined with the belief that surrender was dishonorable, led to the mistreatment of many POWs.

Japanese propaganda often portrayed Western soldiers as morally weak and inferior to Japanese soldiers, which likely contributed to the harsh treatment of Western POWs. Additionally, Japan’s imperial ambitions in Asia and the Pacific influenced how the country viewed POWs. POWs from Asian countries, particularly those under Japanese occupation, were often subjected to brutal treatment, as Japan saw these countries as inferior or even subhuman. While some Japanese soldiers treated POWs humanely, many were subjected to brutal treatment, forced labor, and execution. Overall, Japan’s view of POWs during World War II reflected a complex mix of cultural beliefs, military strategy, propaganda, and imperial ambitions.

Soviet Treatment of POWs

The Soviet Union’s treatment of POWs was often characterized by harsh and brutal conditions, reflecting the country’s wartime situation and the Soviet government’s view of POWs as potential threats to national security. POWs were often held in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, with little food or medical care, and subjected to forced labor, sometimes in dangerous or life-threatening jobs. Many were also subjected to hostile treatment from Soviet soldiers, with beatings, torture, and execution being common.

The Soviet government’s view of POWs was heavily influenced by communist ideology, which emphasized the importance of the state over the individual. This led to a dehumanization of POWs and a belief that their treatment could be justified in the name of national security. Despite some POW exchanges with Germany during the early years of the war, many POWs remained in Soviet custody for years after the war ended. Overall, the Soviet Union’s treatment of POWs was often brutal and inhumane, with little regard for international laws governing the treatment of prisoners.

The United Kingdom Treatment of POWs

The United Kingdom’s treatment of POWs was generally in line with international laws and the Geneva Conventions, which required humane treatment of prisoners. This meant that UK POW camps were generally well-maintained, with prisoners provided with adequate food, medical care, and shelter. Many POWs were put to work on farms or in local factories, but they were generally treated well and allowed to maintain contact with their families back home. While there were instances of POWs attempting to escape from UK camps, the UK government generally did not punish escaped POWs, instead viewing their attempts as a natural part of the war effort.

After the war ended, the UK government worked to repatriate POWs back to their home countries as quickly as possible. This was often complicated by the large numbers of POWs involved and the difficulty of coordinating with other governments. Overall, the United Kingdom’s treatment of POWs during World War II reflected a commitment to humane treatment and adherence to international laws governing the treatment of prisoners. While conditions for POWs could be difficult, the UK government sought to treat them with respect and worked to ensure their safe return to their home countries.

Additionally, the United Kingdom sent a significant number of prisoners of war (POWs) to other countries, including Canada. The exact number of POWs sent to Canada is difficult to determine, but estimates range from 30,000 to 40,000. These POWs were primarily German soldiers who had been captured by the British during the war.

The decision to send POWs to other countries was partly driven by a desire to reduce the strain on UK resources, as the country was already dealing with shortages of food and other supplies. It was also seen to provide POWs with better living conditions, as Canada and other countries had more space and resources to accommodate them.

POWs in Canada were generally treated well, with adequate food, clothing, and medical care provided. Many were put to work on farms or in other industries, but they were paid for their labor and allowed to keep in contact with their families back home. After the war ended, most POWs were repatriated back to Germany, although some chose to stay in Canada or emigrate to other countries.

The United States Treatment of POWs

The United States’ treatment of POWs during World War II reflected a commitment to humane treatment and adherence to international laws governing the treatment of prisoners. As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the US ensured that its POW camps were generally well-maintained, with prisoners provided with adequate food, medical care, and shelter. Many POWs were put to work on farms or in local factories, but they were generally treated well and allowed to maintain contact with their families back home. While there were instances of POWs attempting to escape from US camps, the US government generally did not punish escaped POWs, instead viewing their attempts as a natural part of the war effort.

While the above is true for European POWs it is more complicated for Japanese POWs. While the US government sought to treat Japanese POWs humanely and in accordance with international laws, some US officials failed to hold their own soldiers accountable for mistreating Japanese POWs. This lack of accountability contributed to a culture of impunity, which may have encouraged further mistreatment of POWs. 

Allied versus Axis Military Manpower Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: Wikipedia, “World War II casualties”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, Date Accessed June 25, 2022

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

US Military Branches Manpower and Deaths

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.

World War II Military Deaths

Different Rates per Military Branch

Even within a country the various branches suffered at different rates.  For example, the death rates in the German military branches during World War II varied significantly. The German Army suffered the highest number of deaths, with an estimated 4.2 million deaths out of a total of 5.3 million military deaths for Germany as a whole, representing 79% of German deaths.  However, as a military branch the Army deaths of 4.2 million out 13.6 million conscripts resulted in a 30.9% death rate.

The German Navy had a death rate of approximately 11.7%, with an estimated 140,000 deaths, while the German Air Force had a death rate of approximately 17.2%, with an estimated 433,000 deaths. 

Military Deaths by Country

Axis

Germany

The high death rate in the German Army was due to aggressive military strategy, harsh conditions, nonstop service duties, and other factors. Germany’s Army suffered very high rate compared to the western Allied armies due in part that their tours of duty were unending. With Hitler’s frequent orders of not one more step back and to hold on at all costs preventing better defensive actions multiplying German losses. Overall, 5.3 million German military personnel were killed or missing out of 18.2 million who served.

Japan

The Japanese also fought to the last man or used massed charges with similar results. Japan’s military fighting style was characterized by a willingness to engage in suicidal attacks, such as the use of kamikaze pilots or Bonsai charges. This resulted in high casualties among Japanese soldiers, with an estimated 2.7 million military deaths. The Japanese culture also placed a high value on honor and sacrifice, which made high casualties more acceptable. Overall, 2.1 million Japanese military personnel were killed or missing out of 8.4 million who served.

Allies

Soviet Union

Soviet Armies also suffered very high rates as their commanders were not averse to using massed charges repeatedly in order to achieve their goals.  The Soviet Union’s military fighting style was characterized by a focus on ground troops and mass assaults, which resulted in high casualties among Soviet soldiers, with an estimated 8.7 million military deaths. The Soviet culture also placed a high value on sacrifice and duty, which made high casualties more acceptable. Overall, 10.7 million Soviet military personnel were killed or missing out of 34.5 million who served.

Whereas both the US and UK preferred to fight in ways that limited casualties on their part while still achieving their goals.  Gaining air superiority allowed the war to be fought over enemy territory and limiting enemy mobility avoiding the massive casualty-inducing engagements seen in the Eastern Front.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s military fighting style was characterized by a combination of air power, naval superiority, and ground troops. With a focus on strategic bombing and naval operations. Overall, 384,000 United Kingdom military personnel were killed or missing out of 17.8 million who served.

United States

The United States’ military fighting style was characterized by a combination of air power, naval operations, and ground troops. With a focus on amphibious invasions and strategic bombing. The American culture placed a high value on individualism and innovation, which led to the development of advanced technology and tactics that helped minimize casualties. Overall, 417,000 United states military personnel were killed or missing out of 16.4 million who served.

Military versus Civilian Deaths

It is estimated that the total number of deaths in World War II was approximately 70-85 million people. Of these, approximately 60 million were civilians, and approximately 25 million were military personnel.

This means that roughly 70% of the deaths in World War II were civilians, while 30% were military personnel. Most civilian deaths were due to factors such as bombings, executions, forced labor, starvation, disease, and other war-related causes.

Military Manpower and Deaths by Country Data

The above graph can be downloaded as an image.  

To download the data shown below from which the graph was developed click on the icon below corresponding to you desired format. Note: to ensure all data is downloaded choose the ‘All’ selection in the Show Entries dropdown list. Otherwise only the data visible on the screen will download.

Source: Wikipedia, “World War II casualties”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, Date Accessed June 25, 2022

Other Manpower Data Links

Comparative Military Manpower Sept 1939

Military Manpower by Nation 1940 to 1945

Allied versus Axis Military Manpower

This website, ww2data.com, has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third party internet websites referenced.  Nor does ww2data.com guarantee that any content on such websites are accurate or will remain accurate.