英文翻訳をお願いします。

質問

In 2007, Sheldon wrote that although German casualties from 1 June – 10 November were 217,194, a figure available in Volume III of the Sanitätsbericht (1934), Edmonds may not have included them as they did not fit his case. Sheldon recorded 182,396 slightly wounded and sick soldiers not struck off unit strength, which if included would make 399,590 German losses. The British claim to have taken 24,065 prisoners has not been disputed. In 1940, C. R. M. F. Cruttwell recorded 300,000 British casualties and 400,000 German. Wolff in 1958, gave German casualties as 270,713 and 448,688 British. In 1959, Cyril Falls estimated 240,000 British, 8,525 French and 260,000 German casualties. John Terraine followed Falls in 1963 but did not accept that German losses were as high as 400,000. A. J. P. Taylor in 1972, wrote that the Official History had performed a "conjuring trick" on these figures and that no one believed these "farcical calculations". Taylor put British wounded and killed at 300,000 and German losses at 200,000. In 1977, Terraine argued that twenty percent needed to be added to the German figures for some lightly wounded men, who would have been included under British definitions of casualties, making German casualties c. 260,400. Terraine refuted Wolff (1958), who despite writing that 448,614 British casualties was the total for the BEF in the second half of 1917, neglected to deduct 75,681 British casualties for the Battle of Cambrai given in the Official Statistics, from which he quoted or "normal wastage", averaging 35,000 per month in "quiet" periods. Prior and Wilson in 1997, gave British losses as 275,000 and German casualties just under 200,000. Hagenlücke in 1997, gave c. 217,000 German casualties. Sheffield wrote in 2002, that Holmes's guess of 260,000 casualties on both sides seemed about right.

Night action of 1/2 December 1917 and Action on the Polderhoek Spur
On the night of 24/25 November, two battalions of the 8th Division advanced the line to the ridge crest and a German counterattack on 30 November was a costly failure.

回答No.1

Nakay702 · ベストアンサー

＞In 2007, Sheldon wrote that although German casualties from 1 June – 10 November were 217,194, a figure available in Volume III of the Sanitätsbericht (1934), Edmonds may not have included them as they did not fit his case. Sheldon recorded 182,396 slightly wounded and sick soldiers not struck off unit strength, which if included would make 399,590 German losses. The British claim to have taken 24,065 prisoners has not been disputed. In 1940, C. R. M. F. Cruttwell recorded 300,000 British casualties and 400,000 German. Wolff in 1958, gave German casualties as 270,713 and 448,688 British.
⇒2007年にシェルドンはこう書いた。すなわち、6月1日－11月10日のドイツ軍の犠牲者は217,194人であったが、それは「健康衛生報告」（Sanitätsbericht、1934年）の第III巻で利用できた数値で、エドモンズの場合には合わなかったため彼はそれを含めなかったかもしれない。シェルドンは、軍部隊から除隊されなかった軽度の疾病兵士を182,396人と記録したが、これを含めるならドイツ軍の損失は399,590人ということになるだろう、と。24,065人の囚人を連行した英国軍の申し立てについては議論されなかった。C. R. M. F. クラットウェルは1940年に、英国軍の犠牲者を300,000人、ドイツ軍のそれを400,000人と記録した。1958年のウルフは、ドイツ軍270,713人と英国軍448,688人の犠牲者数を計上した。

＞In 1959, Cyril Falls estimated 240,000 British, 8,525 French and 260,000 German casualties. John Terraine followed Falls in 1963 but did not accept that German losses were as high as 400,000. A. J. P. Taylor in 1972, wrote that the Official History had performed a "conjuring trick" on these figures and that no one believed these "farcical calculations". Taylor put British wounded and killed at 300,000 and German losses at 200,000. In 1977, Terraine argued that twenty percent needed to be added to the German figures for some lightly wounded men, who would have been included under British definitions of casualties, making German casualties c. 260,400.
⇒1959年に、シリル・フォールズは、英国軍240,000人、フランス軍8,525人、ドイツ軍260,000人の各犠牲者を推定した。ジョン・テレーンは1963年にフォールズに続いて、ドイツ軍の損失数が400,000人くらいであったことは認めなかった。1972年のA. J. P.テイラーは、公的な歴史（文書）がこれらの数字によって「魔術的演出」を実践したのであって、誰もこの「ばかばかしい計算」を信じていなかった、と書いた。テイラーは、英国軍の死傷者数を300,000人とし、ドイツ軍の損失を200,000人とした。テレーンは1977年に、英国軍の犠牲者の定義の下では含まれているのだから、軽傷の兵士として20％がドイツ軍の犠牲者数に加えられる必要があって、そうすればドイツ軍の数値は約260,400人になる、と主張した。.

＞Terraine refuted Wolff (1958), who despite writing that 448,614 British casualties was the total for the BEF in the second half of 1917, neglected to deduct 75,681 British casualties for the Battle of Cambrai given in the Official Statistics, from which he quoted or "normal wastage", averaging 35,000 per month in "quiet" periods. Prior and Wilson in 1997, gave British losses as 275,000 and German casualties just under 200,000. Hagenlücke in 1997, gave c. 217,000 German casualties. Sheffield wrote in 2002, that Holmes's guess of 260,000 casualties on both sides seemed about right.
⇒テレーンに論破されたウルフ（1958年）は、英国の犠牲者448,614人は1917年後半のBEFのための合計であると書いたにもかかわらず、引用もとの「公式統計」に載っている「キャンブレの戦い」での英国軍の犠牲者として75,681人を差し引くことは拒否した。平均すれば「静かな」期間の1か月に35,000人となる、「正常の浪費」のうちだ、というわけである。1997年、修道院長とウィルソンは、英国軍の喪失を275,000人、ドイツの犠牲者を200,000人未満とした。1997年のハーゲンリュッケは、ドイツ軍の犠牲者を217,000人とした。シェフィールドは、2002年に、両側ともに犠牲者数を260,000人としたホームズの推測がだいたい正しいようだ、と書いた。

＞Night action of 1/2 December 1917 and Action on the Polderhoek Spur
On the night of 24/25 November, two battalions of the 8th Division advanced the line to the ridge crest and a German counterattack on 30 November was a costly failure.
⇒1917年12月1/2日の夜間戦闘と「ポルダーホーク山脚での戦闘」
11月24/25日の夜に第8師団の2個大隊が尾根頂上の戦線に進軍したが、（対する）11月30日のドイツ軍の反撃は手痛い失敗であった。

お礼

回答ありがとうございました。